|
On March 08 2008 12:21 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime. This is no more likely, actually less likely, then our own military turning against us imposing their will on us. You're assuming that a large amount of people are really evil and want world domination, but most people are not this way. Show nested quote +The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes. War is expensive. There is no reason companies would actively seek conflict, and no they wouldn't be totalitarian.
History shows both of your counterpoints to be completely incorrect, fyi.
|
The problem here is that there is no code of ethics for company behavior. They could threaten to kill anyone that tries to run away from their protection, which would mean that in order to poach customers, another company would have to attack the oppressive one, and then you just get conflicts all around regardless of profitability.
Again you're assuming that people are pure evil here. Yes this is possible, but it's not likely, and less likely then our own government becoming oppresive, although to some extent our gov already does this (try not paying your taxes, see what happens).
|
On March 08 2008 12:23 TheTyranid wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 12:21 Lemonwalrus wrote:On March 08 2008 12:18 CaptainMurphy wrote:So....it's ok because Stalin did it? What? When did I say it was okay? How could you possibly even deduce that from my post? Are you trolling? I was just pointing out that you avoided his question by pointing out that worse cases of mass starvation have happened under other systems than the one you support. Just because there are other ideas that are worse than yours doesn't make your idea the right one. Socialism worse than Anarchy? LOL
I don't believe so, but obviously he does. I'm just saying that responding to criticism by pawning it off on another idea doesn't improve your argument.
|
On March 08 2008 12:23 Lemonwalrus wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 12:21 CaptainMurphy wrote:Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime. This is no more likely, actually less likely, then our own military turning against us imposing their will on us. You're assuming that a large amount of people are really evil and want world domination, but most people are not this way. The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes. War is expensive. There is no reason companies would actively seek conflict, and no they wouldn't be totalitarian. History shows both of your counterpoints to be completely incorrect, fyi.
Which history are you referring to?
|
On March 08 2008 12:21 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime. This is no more likely, actually less likely, then our own military turning against us imposing their will on us. You're assuming that a large amount of people are really evil and want world domination, but most people are not this way. Show nested quote +The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes. War is expensive. There is no reason companies would actively seek conflict, and no they wouldn't be totalitarian.
Ideally a government should be independent of human nature, that is, able to work with any given set of people. I am just assuming worst-case scenarios in which the government would do quite badly. Of course, the likely scenario would be that 99% of the people would not be violent, but that 1% will still be able to oppress the 99% using weapons, because there would be no laws to prevent them from doing so. A security company could help remedy the situation, but as soon as you get a company that is sufficiently powerful headed by an evil person, you'll get the scenario I mentioned above.
|
I don't believe so, but obviously he does. I'm just saying that responding to criticism by pawning it off on another idea doesn't improve your argument.
My point was that communism creates starvation because it arbitrarily sets the price and amount of food to be produced, which is guaranteed to bring about market failure. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite, and it would lead to less starvation than any type of government.
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On March 08 2008 12:25 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +On March 08 2008 12:23 Lemonwalrus wrote:On March 08 2008 12:21 CaptainMurphy wrote:Here you're assuming that competition will be of the fair type. However, with no laws, nothing stops a powerful security company from simply destroying a less powerful competitor with weapons. Eventually the best security company will destroy everyone, and impose whatever laws they want on their people, and you'd get a totalitarian regime. This is no more likely, actually less likely, then our own military turning against us imposing their will on us. You're assuming that a large amount of people are really evil and want world domination, but most people are not this way. The best-case scenario you could hope for is the "power triangle", where you have 3 companies, and each one fears attacking the others because losing soldiers will put the company that is not fighting ahead of the 2 that are fighting. But then you just get 3 totalitarian regimes. War is expensive. There is no reason companies would actively seek conflict, and no they wouldn't be totalitarian. History shows both of your counterpoints to be completely incorrect, fyi. Which history are you referring to?
War can be profitable. The most apparent example is WWII getting the US out of it's depression.
|
Ideally a government should be independent of human nature, that is, able to work with any given set of people. I am just assuming worst-case scenarios in which the government would do quite badly. Of course, the likely scenario would be that 99% of the people would not be violent, but that 1% will still be able to oppress the 99% using weapons, because there would be no laws to prevent them from doing so. A security company could help remedy the situation, but as soon as you get a company that is sufficiently powerful headed by an evil person, you'll get the scenario I mentioned above.
Anarchy isn't a perfect system, we don't live in the Garden of Eden and not everyone is a saint, so you can paint a worst case scenario where everyone would get fucked, but that could happen in any government as well. The scenario you bring up is more likely to happen with a government. First, more people would own guns, since no one would sign up with an agency that doesn't allow you to carry your own protection. So this outlaw firm you mention would be going up against armed citizenry, PLUS any competing PDAs whos customers are violated by the outlaw firm. If a government wanted to do this, it would be a very simple thing since they are already in complete power.
|
Some sort of body would have to be set up to have a standard in currency. That would be a governing body.
Also, what guarantees your rights? You say that the free market will, but how? Executives aren't stupid, they know that if every company is screwing you over, then you have no where to go. You just have to bend over and take it.
|
You don't believe that those that become rich and powerful will use their wealth and power to keep themselves at the top? You don't believe that monopolies are the natural progression of unhindered economic activity?
|
War can be profitable. The most apparent example is WWII getting the US out of it's depression.
That's arguable, but I'm talking about private firms warring against other private firms.
|
Russian Federation4333 Posts
On March 08 2008 12:27 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +I don't believe so, but obviously he does. I'm just saying that responding to criticism by pawning it off on another idea doesn't improve your argument. My point was that communism creates starvation because it arbitrarily sets the price and amount of food to be produced, which is guaranteed to bring about market failure. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite, and it would lead to less starvation than any type of government.
I don't know much about anarcho-capitalism but if you have no government to regulate the economy, you are going to have a HUGE gap berween the rich and the poor. The majority of the people will be poor obviously and this could lead to unimaginable starvation.
Communism is a perfect system. It has never existed and probably will never exist due to humanity's greedy nature. Ideally there should be no problems of mismanagement in a true commiunist system.
The "communist" regimes throughout history were NEVER under a communist system. They were either dictatorships or socialist republics. And yes mismanagements did happen but it is not like the central govt. blindly sets prices and amounts of food to be produced. Local governments participated as well and they had knew more or less the optimal price and quantity.
|
On March 08 2008 12:21 EmeraldSparks wrote:
How do you avoid stuff like "wildcat banks" and the savings and loan crisis?
I don't know what you mean, please elaborate.
How would public goods be provided (defense, fire protection, etc)? (The free-rider problem.)
The public goods theory is one of the most flawed, perpetuated economic concepts.
Good article on it:
http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE4_1_4.pdf
How would goods such as roads be provided?
Private companies.
How would the airwaves be managed?
Hrm?
How would pollution be handled?
If people don't like a company that pollutes, then they can take their business elsewhere.
How would those unable to pay for protection be protected?
Ideally through charitable organizations.
Who would arbitrate disputes?
Arbitraters.
|
Anarchy isn't a perfect system, we don't live in the Garden of Eden and not everyone is a saint, so you can paint a worst case scenario where everyone would get fucked, but that could happen in any government as well. The scenario you bring up is more likely to happen with a government. First, more people would own guns, since no one would sign up with an agency that doesn't allow you to carry your own protection. So this outlaw firm you mention would be going up against armed citizenry, PLUS any competing PDAs whos customers are violated by the outlaw firm. If a government wanted to do this, it would be a very simple thing since they are already in complete power.
There's a reason governments have checks and balances. And how often has an army turned on its people? Take a look at the mafia - that's the kind of people you would have running security in absence of a government. Take a look at drugs - theoretically nonviolence should be cheaper, but that's simply not the case. It's misleading to blame it on the government for making drugs illegal - the drug business is not violent because of the inherent illegal nature of drugs, it is violent because the government does not enforce property rights for said producers/distributors.
My point was that communism creates starvation because it arbitrarily sets the price and amount of food to be produced,
Hardly arbitrary.
which is guaranteed to bring about market failure.
And in the absence of a market?
Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite, and it would lead to less starvation than any type of government.
You can come up with systems where nobody will starve, such as anarcho-capitalism + the guarantee of food. As people can theoretically starve under anarcho-capitalism, this is not true.
|
Even the most adamant conservatives believe government plays a vital role in keeping society going. I've come up with some objections based on these roles.
In most capitalist economies, there are ways for one corporation to become so powerful it can kill off all competition. We call this a monopoly. In a society under "free-market anarchism", what would keep one or more companies from becoming so powerful they're able to manipulate all the other companies -- protection/insurance companies included -- into doing what that company wants, and not what's best for the market? When there is no competition, the market will never operate at peak efficiency.
The protection agency idea is flawed on so many levels. Money is a form of power, yes, but force is an even stronger source of power. Why would a protection agency protect when it could extort? If you have the military means to protect a region, you also have the power to rule it. This would be a much more profitable for the protection agency. You wouldn't have protection agencies, you'd have warlords. From there, each protection agency will want to further expand its power by gaining control over other regions. Eventually, it will be contesting territory held by another agency. War is a terrific stimulus to help get an economy industrialized, but it is a terrible waste of resources. Instead of going back into society to help the economy grow, everything will be used for the war. The standard of living for people living under these protectorates will diminish considerably.
That seemed to me like the biggest problem. The second issue has to do with public works. Who would invest in infrastructure like roads or dams? The cost of such investments and the free-rider problem make them infeasible and unprofitable for private companies. The good they do for society however, is considerable. Say by building a system of freeways across this continent you can increase productivity by 15% continent-wide. Yet the cost is beyond what any one company can afford. A bunch of companies come together and say "we need a these roads." Company A, which imports fish and currently distributes them using trains, stands to gain the most. Company B, however, competes with company A in areas trains don't reach. Company B refuses to contribute to the road. Company A can't afford it himself. The road does not get built. Everyone suffers.
Finally, and this isn't a critical problem like the above two, but it is substantial. Free markets can actually be less efficient than a government-run organization. A good example is private health care. It's estimated about 30% of the cost of health care in the US is due to the staggering size of the health care bureaucracy. The more private agencies you have, the more redundancy develops. Instead of one, centralized database, there are hundreds. Ten people are doing the same job, ten times over, that under a consolidated organization, one person could do. Etc. etc.
|
On March 08 2008 12:27 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +I don't believe so, but obviously he does. I'm just saying that responding to criticism by pawning it off on another idea doesn't improve your argument. My point was that communism creates starvation because it arbitrarily sets the price and amount of food to be produced, which is guaranteed to bring about market failure. Anarcho-capitalism is the opposite, and it would lead to less starvation than any type of government.
All real-world "communist states" are failed communist states. Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" has never existed in any form in any country. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," has never been implemented.
It's sort of funny because anarcho-capitalism would meet the same fate. Either the anarchy, or the free market (or both) would end pretty quickly if it were to be attempted in the real world.
|
I don't know much about anarcho-capitalism but if you have no government to regulate the economy, you are going to have a HUGE gap berween the rich and the poor. The majority of the people will be poor obviously and this could lead to unimaginable starvation.
I disagree, you're going to have to make a compelling argument for this, you can't just toss it out as a fact.
The "communist" regimes throughout history were NEVER under a communist system. They were either dictatorships or socialist republics. And yes mismanagements did happen but it is not like the central govt. blindly sets prices and amounts of food to be produced. Local governments participated as well and they had knew more or less the optimal price and quantity.
No, they didn't know optimal price/quantity because those can only be known through the free market, unless the people setting the prices were some type of gods. That's the biggest problem with communism, and why it never has and never will work.
|
On March 08 2008 12:41 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +I don't know much about anarcho-capitalism but if you have no government to regulate the economy, you are going to have a HUGE gap berween the rich and the poor. The majority of the people will be poor obviously and this could lead to unimaginable starvation. I disagree, you're going to have to make a compelling argument for this, you can't just toss it out as a fact.
I'm sorry, but you have been tossing out untested conjecture as fact this whole time.
|
All real-world "communist states" are failed communist states. Marx's "dictatorship of the proletariat" has never existed in any form in any country. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need," has never been implemented.
It's sort of funny because anarcho-capitalism would meet the same fate. Either the anarchy, or the free market (or both) would end pretty quickly if it were to be attempted in the real world.
Nope, there is a big difference between the two. Communism can't work because it tries to change human nature. Communism assumes that people will work without incentive. Anarchism can work because it works with human nature. Companies are working for profit, and to profit they need to create the best product at the cheapest price. Free market anarchy makes greed and efficiency coincide.
|
On March 08 2008 12:30 CaptainMurphy wrote:Show nested quote +Ideally a government should be independent of human nature, that is, able to work with any given set of people. I am just assuming worst-case scenarios in which the government would do quite badly. Of course, the likely scenario would be that 99% of the people would not be violent, but that 1% will still be able to oppress the 99% using weapons, because there would be no laws to prevent them from doing so. A security company could help remedy the situation, but as soon as you get a company that is sufficiently powerful headed by an evil person, you'll get the scenario I mentioned above. Anarchy isn't a perfect system, we don't live in the Garden of Eden and not everyone is a saint, so you can paint a worst case scenario where everyone would get fucked, but that could happen in any government as well. The scenario you bring up is more likely to happen with a government. First, more people would own guns, since no one would sign up with an agency that doesn't allow you to carry your own protection. So this outlaw firm you mention would be going up against armed citizenry, PLUS any competing PDAs whos customers are violated by the outlaw firm. If a government wanted to do this, it would be a very simple thing since they are already in complete power.
I agree that the armed citizenry will pose a significant problem, but competitors can be defeated without armed action before the evilness starts by a simple monetary buyout, just like in regular capitalism. So eventually, if there is the "microsoft" of protection companies (no anti-trust laws without government), and that company somehow gets an evil leader, the only thing in his way would be the armed citizens. This however, can be solved through simply not letting anyone bear arms if they want protection, since you are the top company so you get to set the rules.
Competitors could let their people bear arms, and people would flock to them, but now we have to take into account human laziness. If you have been protected by company A for many years, and all of the sudden you have the choice of either throwing away your gun, or redoing all your paperwork and moving locations to live with company B, you will get people who are unwilling to change companies because it's inconvenient. At that point a smart evil leader will have no obstacles to conquering everything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
