TCS Daily

The Limitations of Economics - Part 1

By Jon N. Hall - March 27, 2009 12:00 AM

Not so very long ago we often heard this: "The business cycle has been repealed."

Economics, it was suggested, was such a complete, mature science that the experts could engineer "soft landings," sparing us the pain of recession and the heartache of depression. All we needed to do was put our faith in the economists. This was also about the time we heard about "the end of history."

In a book review from the summer of 1997, economist Paul Krugman wrote:

Anyone who reads the business press knows that the mood these days is one of "what, me worry?" optimism. After six years of fairly steady growth with surprisingly quiescent inflation, every major newspaper and magazine has either suggested or flatly declared that the business cycle is dead -- that the recession of 1990-91 was the last such slump we will see for many years to come.

Well, that was then, and this is now. It seems economists didn't understand the economy quite so completely as they had thought. Not only have we had a "hard landing," we're looking into the maw of a possible depression. Indeed, some parts of America may already be in depression. Maybe the experts didn't wield as much control over the economy as they assumed. And history? History is back, and with a vengeance.

I'll leave it to today's social scientists to determine whether the social scientists of the 1990s suffered from delusions of grandeur, or just good old-fashioned hubris, but given the reversals in the economy of late, one might ask:

Is economics really a science?

In a "hard science," like physics, prediction is paramount. A star that you'd think would be obscured in an eclipse of the sun is nevertheless visible, just as Einstein predicted. Without the ability to predict, a "science" isn't truly a science.

The paucity of predictive ability in economics is illustrated by economist Alan Greenspan's surprise at the current downturn. (Slashing interest rates to the bone might produce a bubble? Who knew?.) Lester Thurow, another economist, thought neither America nor Japan would be able to compete with the European Union in the economic arena. But Europe is a mess, and pretty soon, Europe won't even be Europe. (If you doubt that, check out America Alone by Mark Steyn.)

In addition to prediction, the hard sciences involve measurement. In 1969, for example, the hard sciences enabled us to do what no man had done before: We "slipped the surly bonds of Earth" and went to the Moon. We were able to do this (and on the first attempt) because we had made all the measurements. We knew precisely how much fuel would be needed, and how much oxygen the crew would require (we included a little extra for good measure). In the 1940s, we invented a device that produced a form of energy no one had ever seen. We knew precisely how much fissile material would be needed to achieve critical mass, and how much force to use in slamming the hemispheres together, and it, too, worked on the first try. These are examples of real science.

One of the things practitioners of a "soft science" do when trying to gain stature for their discipline is to "mathematize" it. It can't be all just theory; it must incorporate data if it's to be taken seriously as science. So, economists start devising formulae, applying numbers to things, and amassing mountains of "data."

But just what are these things economists apply numbers to? Are they the discrete measurable phenomena we find in the hard sciences? What are consumer confidence, productivity, gross domestic product, and the other economic phenomena?

The things to which economists apply numbers are nothing less than the constructs of economists. They are things that economists come up with, things they invent. They are abstractions, and as such are highly debatable. In his new book Enough: True Measures of Money, Business and Life, former head of Vanguard Mutual Fund Group John C. Bogle writes: "By worshipping at the altar of numbers and by discounting the immeasurable, we have in effect created a numeric economy that can easily undermine the real one." [p. 100]

Measurement in economics, then, is highly problematic. How do you measure GDP? Again, that depends on what it is. What do you include in GDP? Should the "product" of homemakers be included? GDP is a measure of the health of an economy. But as we drift further into becoming a nation of consumers, not producers, how do we measure our product? Our apparel, consumer electronics, and other manufacturing industries have been shipped abroad -- so is our post-industrial economy's GDP to be measured by our burger flippers and baristas? What's more, we have economists changing the criteria by which they measure, as they've done in dating recessions.

When you measure GDP, you must wait for the data to pour in. And this data will come from numerous sources, some of which will be unreliable, even corrupt. And then, the number will be revised. The 4th quarter of 2008 first showed a 3.8% contraction of GDP. But it's been revised down to 6.2%, and even that will surely be doubted and debated.

Measurement in the hard sciences is much more straightforward. If, for instance, you want to know what a cubic inch of gold weighs, you refine gold, pour it into a mold, and put it on the scales. Each such cube of gold will weigh the same, roughly. But if you could refine gold to absolute purity and control the number of atoms in each such cube, each such cube would be literally identical in weight. This kind of precision in measurement is pretty much outside the realm of the social sciences.

It is precisely this imprecision and tentativeness that allows everyone to think his opinion about the economy might have about as much validity as the next guy's. Folks don't do that with the hard sciences; folks don't have opinions about physics. (Except for the wacky ideologues who believe physics and, for that matter, reality itself, is a social construct. See Sokal Hoax.) In physics, there are ways to prove things. So folks defer to physicists. But in economics, things are often a matter of opinion. That's why you see major disagreements between economists over basic things. Economics may be more akin to the humanities than to the sciences.

Continued in Part 2...

Jon N. Hall is a programmer/analyst from Kansas City.
Enhanced by Zemanta


How do theories begin?
The most important aspect of science today that is ignored is observation.
Before a reasonable theory can be postulated one must observe. Astronomers observed the stars for centuries before a reasonable theory was postulated and then proven with more observations to be a pretty good idea.
Economics benefits from hard science type observations and a hard science component exists, entropy. The wild card are the choices billions of people make every day and why they make those choices.
Reminds me of the Foundation books by Asimov. It was thought economics could be predicted then, too.

You are guilty of the same “sin” Marjon. In your quest to promote “anarchy”, you ignore observations
of (human) nature.

You ignore the observation that sh!t happens, Government or no Government.

You ignore the observation that - Government or no Government - people have “free will”; meaning, you cannot rule out the possibility of violent actions from them under ANY dispensation.

And YOU comment on others ignoring observations?

It's because those economists are politically/ideologically motivated. Paul Krugman likes socialistic notions like redistributing wealth, and Keynsian notions like pump priming.

Even the Austrian economists are totally biases(for freedom)so they told Greenspan and the whold world that if you have low interest rates you'll get a bubble; just like their theory of the business cycle seems the most accurate.

One of the problems is that most mainstream economist don't even ackowledge that they are biased since they've been brainwashed by the Keynsian/Marxists professoriat who think that is the default setting.

There will NEVER be a complete theory. Probably not even a good one...
Economics demonstrates emergent phenomena. Supply and demand laws work for isolated systems. Throw enough together and new behaviors due to interacting systems emerge.

That being said, one can count on (and as Soros showed, bank on) the stupidity of governments and their enablers, to fck up everything, reward failure, dishonesty and incompetence while discouraging thrift, hard work and self reliance.

If we rewarded politicians as we rewarded factory workers, the whole bunch would be out of work and on their butts in some employment office looking for a mop pushing job somewhere.

But we don't so they aren't. So, any theory of the economy, even if half right and partially useful would be ignored by the Franks, Pelosis and BOs of the world. It would be labeled racist by the media and as we now know, congress would pass a specific punitive tax irrespective of constitutional prohibitions against it.

Yeah, I wrote it and I meant it.

Laws of economics follow the laws of physics
The laws of physics provide immediate feedback when one attempts to violate them. Jumping off a building and hoping to fly will demonstrate the law of gravity to immediate effect.
The effects of violating free markets are just as severe. The time constant to observe such a violation can be quite long. It reminds me of the latent heat of vaporization/fusion. Water can exist at 0C in a liquid state until that last Joule of heat is removed to cause it to freeze and still remain at 0C.

An economy reminds me of tectonics and atmospheric physics with a statistical uncertainty of unpredictable human action tossed in.

Emergence no only describes economic systems. It also describes the physical world.

Man is NOT an AUTOMATION. He has “free will”, which you DERISIVELY DISMISS to suit your argument
Economy is JUST a word coined to refer to the aggregate of a particular kind of interactions between these free willed non- AUTOMATIONs.

As of now, there is NO MECHANISM that can PREDICT the frequency, quantum and quality of the trillions of possible interactions with sufficient degree of accuracy to make a “PHYSICAL LAW” out of them.

And the most important thing to remember is; PAST choices are NO GUARANTEE that the same KIND of choices will be made in the FUTURE, EVEN if the EXTERNAL appearance of a specific free willed non- AUTOMATION APPEARS to have NOT changed.

Then man has the free will to NOT kill and he has the free will to be objective.
No need for any 'third party'.

But you can’t ESCAPE the FACT that a SPECIFIC man MAY translate HIS “free will to KILL” into action
Every time you act as if such a thing is impossible, you make a fool of yourself one more time Marjon.

When the “free will to KILL” of a monster of a man is translated into action and results in the death of a girl like that of the unfortunate student of the University of North Carolina, and when the “free will to take revenge” of HER family member (or her boyfriend, or her girl friend, or her same-race-colleague or her .... you get the idea, don’t you?) translates into action and results in YOUR arrest and TORTURE, by what RIGHT can you fight them, when you have helped spread the canard that having a pre-determined system (and a group of pre-selected people to manage that system) to handle this kind of INEVITABLE sh!t is IMMORAL?

By what RIGHT can you appeal for help from a Third Party – such as, for example, yours truly – when you helped spread the canard that there are no Third Parties to ANY dispute and that having a pre-determined system (and a group of pre-selected people to manage that system) to handle this kind of INEVITABLE sh!t is IMMORAL?

You can EVADE all you want Marjon, but these things don’t go away. And your own Nature (as Man) won’t let you forget that you have heard them.

You refuse to acknowledge that people can do what is fair and right without being forced by governme
Government really can't force ALL of us to to the right thing all the time. Therefore for any government to function it must have voluntary cooperation.
No government entity is required to investigate and prosecute such a murder as I have pointed out to you many times.

Then let's give up on this ever working...
Our sovereign government does what they all do whether we like it or not because that is the way those people play their game. Sometimes we don't like the rules the enforcement and the egregious behavior of Football and Football players either...but we still watch...and we scream at the TV.

Same thing with our Supply Side economy. Too much power concentrated at the top. In the hands of our politicians and the astoundingly overpaid executives of our multinational corporations...not to mention our 20 largest banks. We have been playing this Supply Side game since 1982 and it got us here. If we not want to be further enslaved to it then we need to do something else.

Benjamin Franklin told us we did not like the deal then we could always go live among the savages...and that was our only real choice as citizens according to the Founding Fathers.

Warren Zevon said "send lawyers, guns and money Dad, get me out of this". I like this option better.

B. Franklin
BF was a guy who abused his position in government to his own benefit. He made his living feeding off the public trough. So he was part of the oligarachy and it's no wonder he said people could just leave if they didn't like it; he didn't want the system to change.

When kids could play games on the playground...
Kids around the country, and world, get together and ply soccer or baseball or basketball without government support. They all know the rules and they willingly follow the rules of the game because they want to play. People who don't follow the rules are not allowed to play, by the group, or the game is dissolved.
It is no different in the adult world. The government is messing with the economic rules now and people have decided not to play (they pulled their money out of the markets). I am one person who has no desire to pursue starting a business because of all the constantly changing government rules increase the risk. I wonder how many are like me?

EVADE all you want Marjon, but you KNOW the topic; What IF people are UNFAIR and WRONG. And, like
every other murderous dictator – small or big - that has ever existed, ALL YOU want is to be able to use PRE-MEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY you “feel” “Wronged” you, with a CLEAN conscience.

Shorn of all your posturing, you are like any other absolute power monger Marjon.

Defending oneself is pre-meditated?
As for power mongering, you advocate government force (a murderous dictator for example) is the only solution.

But how does the Third Party KNOW that you are NOT killing your alleged “attacker” for GAIN?
That’s what you are EVADING. You can go through all kinds of contortions, but this question won’t leave you Marjon.

And your own Nature (as Man) won’t let you forget that you heard that question.

The hallmark of a dictator is his insistence that he has the “Right” to his whim based subjective actions affecting the life and death of others. You fit that perfectly.

You INSIST that using PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY you “feel” “Wronged” you, is your “Right”. You are the perfect specimen of power monger.

I want the use of PREMEDITATED DEADLY force – including my own - under Objective Control. That’s not power mongering.

"I want the use of PREMEDITATED DEADLY force "
Of course you do.

What is 'objective control'? Who decides?

Marjon INSISTs he has the Right to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever he feels like it,
on whomever he feels like it. Way to go Marjon.

Those are YOUR words.

Not MY words; YOU promote a System where ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY
It logically follows that you YOURSELF want to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY you “feel” has “Wronged" you.

Police are not required to protect you.
The system we have today cannot prevent the use of premeditated deadly force.
The case in question, a man murdered a woman even though he had a restraining order against him. The police were not required to protect the woman from the premeditated murderer.

You don't know much about Benjamin Franklin, do you? He was an author, inventor and entrepreneur, and did not live off the government trough (although he was certainly involved in politics).

Also, I would like some examples of how he "abused" his position.

Finally, he was a radical revolutionary, so hardly one who "didn't want the system to change". Colonel, you are quite ignorant of history.


B. Franklin
He used his political connections as clerk then member of council, and various such positions to gain printing contracts and shut out competitors for them. You might also know that at the tender age of only 17 the governor of Phil. sent him as an emissary to London. How's that for connections?

Of course he did other good deeds and must have been a very clever guy. Nor do I condemn him for proposing to, then shacking up with a 15 year old girl, or having bbastard children with her etc. I'm not a prud.

police protection
It's not even in their interest, so why bother?
They do have a big incentive though to shake down people like petty drug dealers. That way they can steal some of the dope and either use it or resell it to fences; and/or crab some of the cash stash they might find. So do you really think they could be bothered to look for a citizens stolen TV set?

Irrelevant; The issue is, you PERSONALLY using PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever you "feel" like,
on whoever you "feel" "Wronged" you.

Under all your posturing about Liberty and Individual Rights here in, that's all you want;

to be able to PERSONALLY use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever you "feel" like, on whoever you "feel" "Wronged" you, with a CLEAN conscience.

Projecting again? It is YOU that keep talking about premeditated murder.
I advocate being able to protect myself from murderers like you.

Wont' work Marjon; YOU promote a system where you can PERSONALLY use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force
whenever you "feel" like, on whoever you "feel" "Wronged" you.

Based on the “nature” of the system you promote, there is NO escape from this conclusion.

You can EVADE all you want. But your nature as Man won’t let you forget that you have heard the question and have no answer.

So, talking against something is "projecting" it, is it Marjon? YOU talk incessantly against "socialism". Are you projecting your "socialist" tendencies?

Shame on you Marjon, for resorting to such cheap tricks.

As we just saw in Bighampton, NY, we have a system NOW that cannot stop premeditated murder.
Keep promoting such a system that keeps people from defending themselves.

Who said anything AGAINST self-defense? But YOU PERSONALLY want to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force
whenever you “feel”, on whoever you “feel” “Wronged” you, with a CLEAN conscience.

That’s what “anarchy” is all about and you promote it.

What's the difference between a promoter of “anarchy” like you and Bighampton murderer Marjon?

He also might have "felt" that his victims "Wronged" him and "deserved" the "punishment" he has given them.

That's what "anarchy" is all about, isn't it Marjon, ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY?

Like a government sniper shooting Randy Weaver's wife.
Only the 'objective' government can commit premeditated murder?

You just keep lying about anarchy. Are you working for Obama?
"However, given that organized crime tends to become more conservative as it grows and becomes more established, the situation in Mexico could be reaching a tipping point. For example, during the summer of 2007, the Gulf and Sinaloa cartels declared a temporary truce as their rivalry began to impact their business operations. As the competition among the cartels settles, they could begin to draw back their forces and deal with those members who are excessively violent or out of control. This is simply a way of assuring their operations. The American Mafia followed a similar pattern, evolving into an organism with strong discipline and control."
"While the situation is evolving, the main battle in Mexico continues to be waged among various cartel factions, rather than among the cartels and the Mexican government or security forces. The goal of organized crime, and the goal of many of these cartels, is to get rich within the system, with minor variations on how that is achieved."
"Organized crime is not street crime; it is systemic geopolitical crime. It is a significant social force, bringing huge amounts of capital into a system. This flow of money can reshape the society. But this criminal supply chain runs parallel to, and in many cases intersects, the legitimate global supply chain. Whether through smuggling and money laundering or increased investment capital and higher consumption rates, the underground and aboveground economies intersect."

Did you work for Clinton? You lie and attack like Carvelle

In this example it seems like the guy freaked out and commited the violence against others. If he was pissed that he got fire, that's not a good reason to shoot a bunch of people.
Some times rapid dogs go haywire like that, and sometimes people do. This has nothing to say about anarchy, a lack of repressive government.

Ad hominem attacks wont’ do Marjon; it’s clear YOU PERSONALLY want to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force
whenever you “feel” like using it, on whomever you “feel” “Wronged” you. That directly follows from the essential nature of the system – “anarchy” – that you promote.

There is NO ESCAPE from that knowledge Marjon. You can EVADE all you want. You can publicly feign ALL the ignorance you want.

But the fact remains you promote “anarchy” so that, if and when you “feel” “Wronged” by anybody, YOU PERSONALLY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force with a CLEAN conscience.

Yep, you are a Clintonista.

It proves statism cannot prevent premeditated murder.
In fact, it demonstrates state actions contributed by preventing the victims from defending themselves.

But anarchy certainly DOES NOT mean LACK of REPRESSION. If you feel otherwise, EXPLAIN the MECHANISM
The essential characteristic of “anarchy” is the ABSENCE of a pre-selected group of people “authorized” to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force following pre-declared Objective rules and processes in a pre-declared geographical area.

Conversely, the essential characteristic of “anarchy” is; ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY else, WITHOUT following ANY process, WITHOUT obeying ANY pre-declared rules, WITHOUT limiting to ANY geographical area.

If you think I am INCORRECTLY defining what I think is YOUR idea of “anarchy” - and if your aim is to have an intellectual discussion - please give your own definition of “anarchy”.

“Government” and “anarchy” are only WORDS we humans have coined – like so many other words we coined - to refer to specific CATEGORIES of actions we humans are CAPABLE of INDULGING in. You are just throwing around these words without understanding – worse yet, PRETENDING NOT to UNDERSTAND - the actions they refer to.

As you yourself have pointed out in this post, sometimes people go haywire like the guy in the Binghamton case. What you didn’t point out – or DIDN’T WANT to point out – is, it has NOTHING to do with the “WORDS” “anarchy” OR “lack of repressive government”. Such behavior is POSSIBLE ANYTIME from ANY PERSON in ANY “system” we humans “invent” to organize “our lives”. It stems from the very Nature of Man as a being of “free will” and “volitional action”, never mind the “motivations”.

Since you promote “anarchy” as the “panacea” for all the ills of what goes by the name “Government” now, you have to explain – given the essential characteristics of “anarchy” – how these ills are solved under “anarchy” and how SIMILAR ills can be prevented.

Marjon is ADAMANT he has the Right to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever he feels like it
There is no ESCAPE from this conclusion Marjon.

EVADE all you want. Indulge in all kinds of ad hominem attacks you want.

But the fact remains you promote a system in which you can PERSONALLY use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever you feel like it, just like the Binghamton mass murderer.

It also demonstrates that PC kills
"On Saturday, Binghamton's Police Chief Joseph Zikuski told NBC's "Today'' show that people "degraded and disrespected'' the gunman -- believed to be a Vietnamese immigrant -- over his poor English. Mayor Matthew Ryan told ABC's "Good Morning America'' he was angry about his language issues and his lack of employment."

It is those who love government who don't want citizens and those working in the USA to have English language skills.


"Iceland is known to men as a land of volcanoes, geysers and glaciers. But it ought to be no less interesting to the student of history as the birthplace of a brilliant literature in poetry and prose, and as the home of a people who have maintained for many centuries a high level of intellectual cultivation. It is an almost unique instance of a community whose culture and creative power flourished independently of any favouring material conditions. and indeed under conditions in the highest degree unfavourable. Nor ought it to be less interesting to the student of politics and laws as having produced a Constitution unlike any other whereof records remain and a body of law so elaborate and complex, that it is hard to believe that it existed among men whose chief occupation was to kill one another."
"The Icelandic system developed without any central authority comparable to the Anglo-Saxon king;[14] as a result, even where the Icelandic legal system recognized an essentially "public" offense, it dealt with it by giving some individual (in some cases chosen by lot from those affected) the right to pursue the case and collect the resulting fine, thus fitting it into an essentially private system."

Of course you will ignore this AGAIN.

Yes, no escape, you promote a system that cannot prevent premeditated murder.
And, as a matter of fact, the police WAITED, as they did in Columbine, to try and protect the victims.

And, the state of NY has onerous gun laws prohibiting the right of self defense.

""That government is best which governs not at all;"
" Some writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only different, but have different origins ... Society is in every state a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.

--Thomas Paine,
Common Sense"

"4. If a man wants "protection," he is competent to make his own bargains for it; and nobody has any occasion to rob him, in order to "protect" him against his will. "

"5. That the only security men can have for their political liberty, consists in their keeping their money in their own pockets, until they have assurances, perfectly satisfactory to themselves, that it will be used as they wish it to be used, for their benefit, and not for their injury. 6. That no government, so called, can reasonably be trusted for a moment, or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view, any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support."

NIMROD, you always disregard the power of human society and always equate 'society' with 'the state'.

And by always attacking institutions like religion that reinforce a positive society, you weaken society and strengthen the state. Just like a good communist.

I NEVER supported the system as it exists now. Show me where I did. But YOU promote "anarchy" as THE
panacea for ALL the ills of the current system. So, the onus is on you to prove that your system prevents the ills of the current system and does not give rise to more horrible ills.

Since the essence of your system is; ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever they “feel” like it, on whoever they “feel” "Wronged” them, and since YOU are SOMEBODY – as opposed to a NOBODY – it follows directly that YOU PERSONALLY want to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever you “feel” like it, on whoever you “feel” ‘Wronged” you, just like the Binghamton murderer.

It’s you Marjon, who is disregarding the power of humans to commit ATROCITIES, “State” or “No State”
You do that because that fact blasts your “alleged” proof of the efficacy of the system – “anarchy’ – that you want.

What kind of “society’ is it Marjon, where ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY they “feel” “Wronged” them?

Consciously or subconsciously, people gravitate towards the kind of systems that reflect their deepest held desires and principles.

Since you support a system where ANYBODY can use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force on ANYBODY they “feel” “Wronged” them, it shows what your deepest held principles and desires are.

The desire is to ACT OUT your EVERY whim. The principle is it’s your RIGHT to ACT OUT your EVERY whim, no matter how adversely such actions affect others.

How is that different from the "philosophy" of the Binghamton murderer Marjon?

Yes, people who want to control others move to socialist states like NY.
"Consciously or subconsciously, people gravitate towards the kind of systems that reflect their deepest held desires and principles."

States like NV used to support individual liberty. They also support an individual's right to self defense just as have many other states that have concealed carry laws and even VT, which essentially has NO gun laws. There is no rash of premeditated murders in these states because the state does not restrict their right to self defense. Anyone who contemplates premeditated violence in such systems must take into account the risk of getting killed by his 'victim'.

Socialist states like CA, NY and MA attract all sorts of criminals because the state does not allow citizens to defend themselves. MA attracts pedophiles because they don't punish them and citizens have no way defend themselves.
States that promote limited government and maximum liberty, like NV and AK do attract people who respect liberty, property and have ZERO desire to infringe upon the rights of others, as you advocate.

Even the police in Pittsburg can't protect themselves from premedited murder.
Your argument is specious since your system cannot deny the use of premeditated force whenever someone 'feels' like it.

Your state system DOES get police killed. The city of Oakland, CA prohibits police from approaching a vehicle with guns drawn to protect themselves. Two government police were murdered because their government prevented them from self defense.

YOU offer "anarchy" as THE solution. So, the onus is on YOU to prove that your alternative is BETTER
Say Marjon, since your stated philosophy is that "Police" is an INHERENTLY EVIL institution, you must be "celebrating" the removal of some evil from the world in recent days, in Oakland CA and Pittsburg.

IRRELEVANT. talk about YOUR desire to use PREMEDITATED DEADLY force whenever you "feel" like it
That's what you want. That's why, in spite of so many glaring contradictions in "anarchy" that I and others - including the article you yourself quoted - have pointed out, you promote it.

another false claim re anarchism
I read anarchist material all the time yet I've never seen them make the claim you do; that they advocate "premeditated deadly force whenever you feel like it".
I see them saying that nobody should 'initiate' the use of force against anyone; that's quite different, right?

So you attribute to them something they themselves don't want. There's nothing to argue about then.

Accept it, NearRNoaD is an irrational statist who learned at the knee of Bill Clintion.l

What do ACTUAL anarchists DO, other than JUST saying "NO ONE initiate force"? That's what you EVADE
More precisely, what you EVADE are the logical consequences of merely repeating "NO ONE initiate force", WITHOUT preparing (the “society”) on how to deal when the results of “somebody initiating force” are found. One example is a dead body or two on a college campus.

Just because you refuse to acknowledge it, does NOT mean it DOES NOT follow from the essential nature (of the system).

TCS Daily Archives