In a free market, there are only three ways of acquiring property (that is, in a non-aggressive way): homesteading (which actually denotes the “first-user-first-owner principle”), production, and voluntary contracting. In reality, however, things may be somewhat different. Franz Oppenheimer pointed out that “There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others.”  The logic of human action tells us that there is – in fact, there must be – for the individual an economic incentive to aggress against other peoples’ property. Two interrelated praxeological insights explain this. First, we know for sure that an earlier satisfaction is preferred over a later satisfaction of wants; we also know for sure that a satisfaction of wants associated with low costs is preferred over a satisfaction of wants associated with high costs. In other words, individuals try to achieve their ends with as little input as possible and in the shortest period of time. Second, the process to civilization does not extirpate man’s inclination to aggression. Individual A can be expected to aggress against B (that is against B’s property) if and when he gets away with it—that is, if the (expected) benefits for A from aggressing against B will be higher than the (expected) costs he has to bear by doing so. It is the individual’s economic incentive to aggress against other peoples’ property that is at the heart of the emergence of what is typically called "government."
That is a great article. It also says a lot of human minimal intelligence, as to why libs are clueless on monetary and economic matters.
Basically, the social engineer separates economics from the concept of human action. Actually, social engineers separate everything from human action, which is why they're surprised when people react in a way opposite to what they would have assumed.
Excellent point, one I apparently I didn't get across to TL, he is under the assumption all people think like him and will act accordingly.It's not a slam, it's an observation, if we were all malleable, there would be no wars, but .....
These people come up with some great analysis.TowardLiberty associates himself with them. Apparently he's chosen to take libertarianism to the extreme, which is anarchism.
Why would you need to get that across to me?As a student of praxeology, is not this something that is rather foundational to my world view?
It is not just me. The Mises Institute is a hotbed of anarchists.
Back to theory again I see.
Perhaps there is something those anarchists may have to say that you hadn't thought of?Or are you completely certain that the state is necessary?
I am just wondering why you said what you did, knowing that this is something foundational to my world view..That central planners discount human nature is undeniably the center of economic theory.Without such an understanding, the explanation for how price controls leads to shortages, would be impossible.Ditto on Austrian business cycle theory.So I am just trying to make sense of your post..
Your world view is that of an inexperienced individual, all you know is what you've read as in the form of other peoples opinion.Give yourself 10 years of real actual world experience, and I guarantee your views will completely change.
So you have given up trying to debate the issue and have concocted a fallacious argument from authority.I will change as I grow, we all do.But my knowledge of the nature of human action is pretty well grounded. I don't see that changing without at the same time over turning the entire corpus of economic theory.And I dont see that happening...A more likely scenario is that I will further refine my arguments and understanding, and hopefully share some of it with you in the process.So far, I have clearly failed in that endeavor.Our conversations are down right nonsensical and pointless, at this point. Hopefully that changes.