What are you on about now? First you present an assertion, then you set about contradicting yourself. What you present is sloppy and lacking in precision- a reflection of terribly muddled thinking.

Why do you place quote marks as you did? Is it supposed to indicate that the enclosed words magically possess an elastic and unconventional meaning? Goodness gracious!

Here is some homework for you.

Learn the history. Find out what actually happened. While you are doing the research make sure you clear your mind of the national mythology conventionally taught at school throughout the USA. That way you’ll avoid the prejudices and biases which do so much to obscure truth and reality.

Next, compare the condition/attributes/structure/condition of society prior to and after the war. Was there a difference? Specifically what were the differences? (BTW check and see specifically WHEN it was that the billeting of troops/forces in private homes was undertaken, why it was done, specifically in response to what situation it was done and who was doing it- clue, check both sides). Which suffered the greater government impositions- taxes, fiat money, enforced tributes, extractions and the like?

Now you are ready to answer the questions. Did the violence expressed in the Revolutionary War CREATE a minarchist society (check carefully the attributes of the society that was present prior to the outbreak of violence)? Did the violence preserve a free market (be honest)? Did it increase societal standards of living and life expectancy? Did it cause a lower infant mortality rate etc. for generations. Did the violence cause any of that?

Answer honestly. Answer only AFTER you’ve done the research and acquired the knowledge to be able to develop a meaningful answer. That means no rationalisations, baseless assertions, vague confusions or word games. It means finding out the facts and developing logical conclusion from those facts.

Sione

It is fallacious in your world where you can analyse something alone and keep all the other variables fixed – you ignore the fact that in the real world this is impossible.

This is precisely what you are doing. You are concentrating on the restraining the robber, even though you provide no apriori reason why it is necessary. You present loosely related factors which might or might not be connected to the robber’s movements.

Seriously, who cares – I am at a loss as to why you think what you personally do or do not “object to” is so important and so much more important than what everyone else does or does not “object to”.

I am looking for ways of constructing logically correct statements. Whether someone likes the result or not does not influence the validity of my statements.

I have no doubt that things never thought of would happen…</blockquote.
However, things that are logically impossible (i.e. combinations of contradictory assumptions) cannot occur.

But you are concentrating on the details of this particular…

No, you are concentrating on the this particular example. You attempted to use it to explain an alleged problem. When it turned out that there is most likely no problem, you just shift your argument and say that “other situations could hypothetically occur where your argument would not hold”. Now, my claim is that you are to provide a logical reason why such a situation is possible.

You’re back to your irrational fear of the uncertainty which you presented already in some of the previous debates we had. You neglect that there is a difference between the uncertain and the logically impossible. Instead of attempting to clarify the issue you’re having, you’re obfuscating it.

Can you at least clarify what the problem is:
- some people might not like not being able to initiate force
- in NAP, remedying some crimes might be impossible
- the result of NAP might not be Pareto-optimal (e.g. too high law enforcement costs)

?

It was, among many other things, the interference with the “minarchist” state that led to revolution. You cannot tax freely and punitively, occupy the houses of colonists, etc. without being a tyrant by force.

I will concede that there are some things that can be pointed to where the British were “ahead” of the US; slavery for example was already outlawed in Britain and slave trading was being attacked by British naval forces. But fundamentally, you are wrong.

In relation to the US colonies, Britain was a tyrant prior to the revolution. As with most revolutions, it did not bring nirvana or perfection. It brought a change in tyrants, to some degree. But even today, I prefer the fundamentals of US governance over those of the British system.

I know Peter hates it when I do this, but I analogize his approach to these discussions as a child using his toy building blocks to demonstrate how he thinks sky scrapers should “really” be built. Let’s say simply that the tools are not up to the task. But, he will go on endlessly defending his tools, and claiming that we are all fools for not realizing that all that “structural engineering” and “aesthetics” are simply irrelevant.

To paraphrase, “People who can’t see that are simply emotional, whereas I am purely logical, so I win.”, never having realized that if he actually tried to build his sky scraper, he would encounter all those nasty “irrelevancies”.

You are completely correct, there is nothing to be done about it.

You misrepresent my position. I do not object to evolution of criminology, but to violations of property rights. These are two separate issues and connecting them is fallacious. It’s like the statists’ objection that without the state, everyone would be without work or healthcare.

Connecting them is not fallacious – it is painfully, vomit-inducingly clear that your inability to conceive of why this might be is not something I can do anything about. It is fallacious in your world where you can analyse something alone and keep all the other variables fixed – you ignore the fact that in the real world this is impossible. I mean, who cares what YOU “object to”? Seriously, who cares – I am at a loss as to why you think what you personally do or do not “object to” is so important and so much more important than what everyone else does or does not “object to”.

Another misrepresentation, probably skewed by the workings of current system. You imply that in order to punish the thief, you need to capture him first. That’s untrue. It is not even necessary to know the location of the thief per se in order to enact justice. It is sufficient to know only some of the following: the identity of the thief, the location of the goods he stole, and maybe some other possessions for compensation. A successful prosecution can be done in absentia, as well as non-dispossessory effects of the ruling, such as a decreased credit or security rating. If the thief decides not to cooperate, it will end up worse for him. Even if the thief eludes capture, he will find it difficult to interact with others (whether the interaction is peaceful or not), as they will be more ignorant or even hostile to him. People who are helping him might also end up being ostracised. The only case where his location is helpful is if he keeps much of the loot on himself. but that’s not necessarily the typical case.

I don’t lack imagination, I have no doubt that things never thought of would happen (this is equally true for the methods of thieves by the way). But you are concentrating on the details of this particular (and unimportant in itself) example scenario in order to avoid tackling the fundamentals of the problem, which is that people might (collectively, by a common law evolutionary process) agree not to do a certain act X that is not in itself a violation or cause of a violation – and agree that doing X is worthy of punishment by force – because they agree that the costs of agreeing this are less than the costs of not agreeing it and allowing X to continue. And whether they are right, wrong, idiots, geniuses or creating a monster in the form of a tyrant or whatever is irrelevant – if common law rulings come about and the people don’t object, why should your objection take precedence?

The exercise in Libya achieved the downfall of a leader who murdered over 100 American women and children over Lockerbie at a cost of a little over one hour of federal government spending and exactly ZERO American lives

The one positive thing about the Iraq war was that Khadaffy gave up his WMD program for fear that he would be next. His reward for cooperating with the West was death. The illegal war (no permission from Congress after 60 days) in Libya ensured that no tin-horn dictator will ever give up his WMD program.

In order for your absurd claim that Libya cost zero American lives to be true, no American can ever die from a WMD attack from now until the end of time.

I rest a very good volume.

Is there any chance to get Wicksell’s review of Mises The Theory of Money and Credit in English? Thank you.

As it happens the monarchy provided a better (as in freer) government than that which upsurped its sovereignty (in the 13, as well as later in Great Britain).

To answer the question I originally put you need to carefully consider the society immediately prior to the Revolutionary War, as well as after it. The historical record does not demonstrate that the pre-revolutionary situation was that of an evil tyrany. Far from it in fact. It was closer to minarchistic in nature with lower taxes, regulatory imposts, tribute extractions and emburdenments of the people than what replaced it (when the King’s sovereignty over his colonies was removed). Further, the violence unleased in the war destroyed much life, health, welfare, wealth and property. Nothing created there.

What was achieved was that certain insiders gained power, priviledge and position. Sure there were those who realised the threat, saw what was going on and valiantly agitatated against it (Jefferson for one), but they were well outdone (often by their own error and sometimes by personal hypocracy). And even though those persons existed and that lofty ideals were espoused, the fact remains that the violence did not create a minarchistic society. It did not enhance or preserve a free market. It did not increase societal standards of living, life expectancy or cause a lower infant mortality rate etc. for generations. Violence achieved nothing of that sort for what is required to achieve those societal attributes is the very opposite of violence.

Interestingly enough, not so long after war the new government demonstrated its consistent deeply held comittment to freedom, free markets, peace, voluntary collaboration and co-operation and trade, personal liberty and sovereignty etc by employing ruthless force to crush a tax revolt.

Sione

Acknowledgement

In the interim between 2006 when I published DIVINE MICROECONOMY: A Tapestry of Human Virtues and the present I became aware of a book written by Milton Shapiro. It came to my attention when I was browsing on the Mises Institute website where it was very highly recommended as a book about microeconomics from an Austrian economics perspective.

Dr. Milton Shapiro considers himself a devoted student of Mises, who he says ‘humanized economics.’ Inspired by Human Action and other works of Ludwig von Mises Milton Shapiro wrote Foundations of the Market Price System.

I found myself greatly impressed with this book written by Dr. Shapiro, who taught economics at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona for 25 years. After corresponding and speaking with Dr. Shapiro he agreed to allow me to acknowledge my indebtedness to the clarity and precision of his insights put forth in his book.

Part of my indebtedness to Dr. Shapiro is due to the information conveyed in the diagrams found in Foundations of the Market Price System which I modified and used in Chapter Three to help me to describe the core economic concepts. These include Diagram III B, Diagram III C, Diagram III D, Diagram III E, Diagram III F, Diagram III G, Diagram III H, and Table III A.

Who are “we” here? I certainly wouldn’t make that argument.

Thieves are engaged in an arms race with property owners and law enforcement, and the process never ends. Thieves adapt to law enforcement procedures and law enforcement has to adapt in turn, so if this wave of the hand above dismissing this evolutionary process is what you mean by having shown that I’m wrong, then we’ll just have to agree to differ.

You misrepresent my position. I do not object to evolution of criminology, but to violations of property rights. These are two separate issues and connecting them is fallacious. It’s like the statists’ objection that without the state, everyone would be without work or healthcare.

Aside from your assumption once again that everyone is a robot and emotionless, the success rate of catching thieves (or however you want to phrase it) clearly has an effect on the number of people who decide to become thieves, this is economics 101.

Another misrepresentation, probably skewed by the workings of current system. You imply that in order to punish the thief, you need to capture him first. That’s untrue. It is not even necessary to know the location of the thief per se in order to enact justice. It is sufficient to know only some of the following: the identity of the thief, the location of the goods he stole, and maybe some other possessions for compensation. A successful prosecution can be done in absentia, as well as non-dispossessory effects of the ruling, such as a decreased credit or security rating. If the thief decides not to cooperate, it will end up worse for him. Even if the thief eludes capture, he will find it difficult to interact with others (whether the interaction is peaceful or not), as they will be more ignorant or even hostile to him. People who are helping him might also end up being ostracised. The only case where his location is helpful is if he keeps much of the loot on himself. but that’s not necessarily the typical case.

You’re presenting an overly narrow and stagnant situation. While you complain that I object to the evolution of crime fighting, you lack the imagination to consider alternatives to the current system. The current system is retarded, because it ends up with the victims being forced to pay, through taxes, for the imprisonment of the thief, rather than the other way around, the thief being forced to compensate the victim.

it is certainly not “irrelevant”

If it is not irrelevant, then show an example where it is, and is not accompanied by other factors, such as him keeping the loot on himself.

…This already makes the example more an academic exercise rather than a sound robbery plan.

Thieves are engaged in an arms race with property owners and law enforcement, and the process never ends. Thieves adapt to law enforcement procedures and law enforcement has to adapt in turn, so if this wave of the hand above dismissing this evolutionary process is what you mean by having shown that I’m wrong, then we’ll just have to agree to differ.

The perception of “injustice” might be skewed by us being accustomed to the current legal system, which assigns a high priority on putting A in jail. In a NAP society, the whereabouts of a jewelry robber A are irrelevant, what is important is repossession of his possessions and transferring them to the victim, for which A’s presence is not required, and B may not hinder anyway.

You have to be kidding with this – “the whereabouts of a jewelry robber A are irrelevant”. Aside from your assumption once again that everyone is a robot and emotionless, the success rate of catching thieves (or however you want to phrase it) clearly has an effect on the number of people who decide to become thieves, this is economics 101. I don’t know the numbers, neither do you, there are too many variables – but it is certainly not “irrelevant”, there is some balance which one could argue that hundreds of years of the common law has tried to find, although it is complicated admittedly by the state intrusion in the process.

I think your worry is unfounded. Now, of course, people may reject pure NAP for emotional, rather than rational, reasons, but that’s a different topic.

I know many such people who reject things on a emotional basis, but I’m not one of them.