Topic: Anarcho-Capitalistic Dogmatism - page 2. (Read 2637 times)

TLDR,
I got as far as unraveling Milton Friedman, and gave up. I'm ADHD
For me it is about principal the rest is noise.

Keynes isn't the problem. He may not have had Hayek's logic but he understood human greed and spite better than Hayek, and sort a system to manage it. The beauty of Hyaek's approach is it is closer to the order of nature and doesn't need to be managed.

Why you shouldn't dismiss Marx is because his teachings show us how that we need to make the free market work and by eliminate monopolies the tool of greed that screws up the free market. *edit*

Friedman a charismatic friendly spokesperson with a sharp mind, is easy to dismiss on principle he undermines everything Keynes has done to maintain checks and balances in the market, uses Hayek's teachings to prove the free market is the solution but he distils the Keynesian model down to a single point of control and sanctions a monopoly through monetarism, and gives control to elite bankers. While much of his teachings are good he is ignorant to greed and the imbalance he has created in giving control of the money supply as a monopoly to private bankers.

If you have an intellectual problem with the idea of the Fed, you are at odds with Friedman.

Well apparently this is a series...   specifically dealing the with the minarchist/anarchist issue.  The next post is rather interesting...

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism-part-ii.html

"A general principle to follow when critiquing somebody elses views is you have to properly represent what they have said.  If this principle is not followed you will miss your mark and fail at your endeavor.  There are various degrees to how far a person can miss the mark but if you aim small you will miss small.  At one end of the spectrum you have the complete straw-man where the critical analysis does not even give the slightest impression the critic desired to accurately portray the view under scrutiny.  Usually when this happens it has the distinctive whiff of a smear job and should not be taken seriously.  On the other end of the spectrum you have the case where the critic takes the view under analysis quite seriously and strives to accurately portray it in order to allow a proper hearing.  The judiciously constructed critiques are much more difficult to write because it requires meticulous attention to detail and careful intellectual craftsmanship."

...  I'm not going to get into the comment about Marx, the idea that his work is philosophically enlightening is silly.

But I'm more curious about what anarchists have to say about this matter in that I am on the fence on some of the minarchist/anarchist issues.

That's silly you can be dogmatic in rejecting models... there's a "healthy dose" and then there's complete rejection. 

A healthy dose of cynicism about models can go a long way towards not falling into ANY kind of dogmatism. The map is not the territory.

I suppose I should have read the article linked, I will.
But first in the opening: "Yesterday I read a comment posted by an anarcho-capitalist that was truly mind boggling."

I'd say the author just read something very enlightening, unfortunately didn't link to it, and hasn't yet understood it.

" this anarcho-capitalist has more respect for the reasoning of Marx" this is good news as it opens the door to understanding the problems we are grappling with today.   

There are aspects of economy which are subject to human preference this is what makes Economics a Social Science not a Science.   
Economic models that encompass human preference will need to employ Social Science to derive an outcome, as human preference is subjective the results will be subjected to interpretation of human preference.

Take a monopoly for an example, as soon as the monopolist starts overcharging, human preference shifts, so as not to be overcharged. So it is not possible to create a scientific model of an economy because human preference is a "whack a mole" variable.

Now there are economic laws that are scientific, take the law of supply and demand in determining price for example.  It is possible to argue that supply is not in fact a law, because you can manipulate human preference, by adjusting the money supply and price.

So any economic model that uses variables that counteract laws will be inaccurate and will eventually fail, and thus should be rejected. 

However distill an economic models to the most fundamental level can illustrate simple principals e.g. A scenario to demonstrate supply and demand, defines a law.  It is from this point you can define a scientific model of an economy, and if you do you very quickly learn it can't be modeled, and is best to build on a solid base leaving every individual correcting and controlling his own preference / destiny than to try and control through a central authority divorced from responsibility or consequence.

 Of the fundamentals you list I can understand why one should model on them - except Property rights, I have yet to be convinced. 

http://analyticaleconomist.blogspot.com/2013/06/anarcho-capitalistic-dogmatism.html

"Yet another problem is the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist rejects model theory in economics because they believe that models cannot properly capture reality.  So for example, the perfect competition model shows what an economy would look like given these assumptions:

    Infinite buyers and sellers
    Zero entry and exit barriers
    Perfect mobility of goods and services
    Perfect information
    Zero transaction costs
    Profit maximization
    Homogeneous products 
    Non-increasing returns to scale
    Property rights               


All economists realize that these factors do not exist in real-time but nonetheless, it is a theory that can be utilized for advancement of a free society.

Here is the problem for the Neo-Austrian/Neo-Rothbardian anarcho-capitalist; while rejecting models for lack of realism, the perfect competition model IS the anarcho-capitalist theory of society.  This, of course, is highly problematic."


thoughts??...