Let's go through the history of mankind, slow and nice. It is intended to illustrate how the current state, i.e. evil government which makes you all red with rage, is in fact the exact product of your anarchism.
First, there were solitary people. [Note: Simplification. We would need to start before the history of man to actually cover this, with various pack animals.] They went around and enjoyed their anarchist freedom, making fur clothing and tiny straw houses. Everything was fine and dandy. Then, some of these solitary people banded together and figured, Hey, why the fuck are we making our own clothes and houses? Let's go rob somebody else's shit! They did, and solitary man was history - man was bound to mob together in families and tribes to protect their shit.
Now, at this point one might have expected all of mankind to make some kind of supermob. There was, however, one thing preventing this from happening - the world is more than one square mile large, and everybody can't be anywhere at once. An arbitrarily large supermob would overtax their lands and kill itself off. Instead, we had the largest-possible-groups-of-people forming, as limited by gradual agricultural advances (animal husbandry, farming, i.e. ad naseum).
Already at this point, you have governments developing. Take Egypt, where you eventually wind up with various religious leaders. Let's keep thing simple and undetailed. You have a fucking Pharao. For some or other reason (actually, this is a natural consequence of anarchy), the fucking Egyptians say, This motherfucker is our leader, we'll do whatever he says. The Pharao says, Hey, you Egyptians are a dandy bunch - all non-Egyptians have to pay me 50% of their BPP (Gross personal product). That way, we Egyptians can stop farming and instead start making swords and fucking pickaxes.
At this point, one and other moron goes Fuck this government shit, they are stealing my cash. These are, of course, the non-Egyptians, seeing as the Egyptians are getting free food and spending their time shaving their heads, fucking their non-Egyptian slaves and killing motherfuckers who don't pay their 50%BPP with their fucking pickaxes. Obviously, the forementioned morons are cut down and gutted, their entrails decorate the streets and the less stupid people realize, the best thing is to pay the 50%BPP and hope your wife isn't sexy.
One particularly stupid prick is going around thinking this is freedom, because there is no government. Well, yes, it is the freedom to do whatever the fuck the Egyptian with the pickaxe tells you to do or gave your entrails used for improvisational theatre. Great shit, right?
Now, one and other fuckwipe figures out, hey, this Egyptian government thing is really working out for them - they have fucking pickaxes, they fuck our women and goddamnit, we are slaving day and night. Let's make our own government and fucking kill these Egyptians.
Now, the Egyptians have played their cards right. They have pickaxes, remember, and nobody else does. They were the first to band together, so they have established a monopoly. Tough fucking luck.
As it happens, there is another government across the Mediterreanean. This government, the Roman Motherfucking Empire, happens to have even more people. They have got shortswords and tower shields and fucking iron brigandines. Their Emperor knocks on the Egyptians' door and says, hey, dickweeds, 25% of your BNP (Gross National Product) or we fucking feed you to the Huns.
So, we have these governments shitting all over people right's and flinging poo at eachother, basically making eachothers' lives miserable. War is really goddamn fucking profitable for the Roman Fatherfisting Empire - they are raking in taxes from all kinds of play-pretend governments around them within really having to lift a finger. Roman Women spend their time fucking Roman Men and gossiping, while Roman Men spend their time fucking Roman Women and Egyptian slaves and Greek boys and Hun Barbarians and drinking fucking wine and watching Gladiators battle eachother to the death.
This shit goes around and comes around for about 1700 more years, Romans taking turns fucking and getting fucked. Then some important stuff happens which kind of changes exactly how governments (read: large fucking groups of people who give eachother handjobs) extort lesser governments (read: smaller fucking groups of people who give eachother handjobs). This is some complicated fucking shit, but let's take a look at some of the simpler stuff:
- Boomsticks, i.e. rifles, combined with massive industry. For one thing, these motherfucking thundersticks can be massproducted, ten per head, and takes about three minutes of training to use. Whereas at an earlier time, a smaller group of well-armed and well-trained people could a huge fucking lot of catle in check, power now becomes much more evenly distributed per head. - Sophisticated economies, meaning people aren't taking a fucking spear and going to the forest to hunt boar every day, means that the demand for educated and cooperative labour grows. You can't threaten a guy with a fork to make him develop explosives and build fucking trains. When it takes three years of education to make a dickweed do his job properly, it is more economic to feed him well and take care of his health.
And, thus happens magic - whereas the government was earlier relying on slave labour, it now needs a system to make people shut their fucking mouths, learn their job and storm headfirst with a rifle towards the other motherfucking government whenever it is needed. We move from various despotisms, monarchies and feudal systems into nationalistic republics, because the forementioned can no longer supply educated labour and war-eager youth.
Note that slavery is still not completely out of fashion - it is just generally done abroad, in Africa, Asia and South America.
Now, we could have hoped that this meant the Roman Brotherboffing Empire was no longer extorting everybody within fifteen zillion leagues, and that is true. Instead, we have France trying to conquer the whole of fucking Europe (which it seems every country has to try at some point) and subjecting Italians, Spaniards and Germans to their rule. Great shit.
What happens, what happens? Well, big surprise, the British and the Russians and the godfuckingdamned Austrians scratch eachothers' backs and say, Hey, Vladmir, how 'bout them French, we don't want to have them fuck our wives and steal our food and piss in the mouths of our children. We need to make a larger goddamn mob than them.
As said as done, we get a new alliance. Cultural, religious and racial diversity, but more importantly the logistic impossibility of a super-European Empire create some sort of balance of power in Europe, and we proceed through a couple of World Wars to arrive in the Cold War.
Note, that at this point, everybody in the fucking world have picked a super-government, either US of fucking A with groupies or Soviet Russia and her cubs. Try and stay out of the shit, and the US and Russia shows up at your fucking door and shove their cocks down your throat.
Some countries entertain dreams of freedom and think large multinational alliances, i.e. governments, are stupid. These are the same which cough mansperm a few thrusts later.
Well, big surprise, Soviet Russian Cubs need to keep up with US of fucking A, so they invest ridiculous amounts into military (i.e. protection) so as to not get rubber-gloved by the US. Needless to say, US economy is about ten times as strong and eventually the Russian Bear collapses of exhaustion. The Cold War ends, the Cubs join the US, and, we are arriving at the end of the story here: We have one single motherfucking world wide alliance, i.e. NATO, ruling the world and doing pretty much as they damn well please.
At this point in time, technology has advanced so much that uneducated manpower is pretty much worthless, and natural resources most easily accessed through fair trade agreements, i.e. ecofuckingnomical extortion. Sell us your shit cheap, or nobody buys it and you die of fucking AIDS.
So, there you have it. Anarchism through about a hundred thousand years of the history of man, evolving from solitary man to the super-PDA known as NATO/UN.
This is exactly what happens. This is what is bound to happen. There is no magical, mysterious force at work, creating and orchestrating governments and the US. Large bodies of people fighting together survive, motherfuckers who don't die, and, simsalabim, we have a government. If you ignore the fucking letters, it is completely indistinguishable from a PDA.
There is no argument here. The world has, by necessity, gone through exactly what Captain Murphy advocates, and just as everybody has prophesized, you get large PDA-monopolies otherwise known as national states which extort people of taxes and provide protection. There is no difference between anarchism, whatever way you bag it, and modern national state socialism/capitalism. There are no external forces, there is no bullshit. This is the natural evolution of survival of the fucking fittest. We have no fucking choice - the national state and the post-modern Worldwide Alliance is the strongest, most sensible and only possible organization. It is the inevitable evolution of anarchy.
L's position has been that it's okay to arbitrarily draw a line somewhere, based on where he thinks this it is appropriate (never mind that everyone would probably draw it in a slightly different place). He used the comparison of a scientist testing a result and (this is how I took it, anyways) trying to determine whether, for instance, the actual results are far enough from the expected results to justify accepting or rejecting the null hypothesis, a process which is up to the judgment of the scientist.
That position is vaguely correct, but the comparison is incredibly off. The comparison I've used repeatedly is one that matches a chemist's view on the spontaneity of reactions. Chemical reactions can be spontaneous, and yet not occur despite the presence of all the required reagents in a flask. The reason why most of these reactions will not occur and bring the species to a lower energy level is that like in the case of a rock on the mountain, it will not tumble downhill until it is pushed from the small depression it is currently in. This push is called the activation energy, or Ea.
With Ea, there is a clear objectifiable formula to figure out what level of Ea is enough that it would cause the rock to fall. With economics, this cannot be quantified.
In terms of economics, we can view it as the following: assuming there are various needs and wants, generally those with small Eas will be dealt with efficiently by the free market, because they have low start up costs and are thus easy to reach equilibrium. Those with massive Eas, however, like construction of a nuclear power plant, or research into a field which will not yield significant economic windfall in a generation (but are still cost effective over the entire span of research) will be much harder to reach equilibrium because of the scarcity of reaction events leading to the proper outcome. If nuclear reactor company A does a bad job, its not like concerned citizens can conjure up millions and millions of dollars for the creation of nuclear reactor company B. This extends to an incredible array of infrastructural elements, including highways, sewer systems, and nearly all other natural monopolies.
Where do you draw the line? You say that it's hard for a group of citizens (entrepreneurs) to build a competing power plant. Sure, it's difficult to pool together enough money. What if I don't like the Burger King down the street. It would be hard for me to get enough money to start my own fast food chain, but enough peolple got together and decided to do it. There's no reason entrepreneurs can't pool their money together, it would just take alot of people and money. Other businesses require less people and money. Where is your cut off point for how much money is required to enter an industry that justifies government interference? Cost will always be a natural barrier to entry in any market, no matter the size; it is inescapable. I don't think it is appropriate or reasonable to decide on a certain point, using no objective criterion, where it is okay for government to intervene.
Despite what you've stated, these monopolies ARE coercive, in that the only option to avoid them and exert market pressure on them is to move.
Coercion is initiating aggression against someone to force them into doing something, or accepting your service. Consumers are not forced to pay monopolies. Even if the demand for a good is inelastic, it is not the producer that dictates the consumers preferences, and they can't be held responsible for them.
On top of that, there's the priorities and direction of societies under the two different forms of government, and the consequences of a failed transition to your prefered method of non-government. Yours is based on the paramount supremacy of the individual, and the capability of corporations to provide for them, whereas democratic societies have an interplay of personal and community rights.
My theory is indeed based on the supremacy of invidual rights. And when you speak of community rights, you are talking about ceding the freedoms of the individual- something I am already suspect of- to the judgment of the "community; other individuals. You are creating artificial hierarchy.
Added to that, even a very slim government with minimal to 0 personal taxation (which is both possible and in existance in the world) can allow for near complete control of the free market in most matters. The question isn't whether or not there are slim government options, but rather that the government option can evolve to fit your ideal of how society should be directed, whereas the reverse is not true. If you believe, contrarily, that society should band together to form a highly socialized system in order to promote the well being of citizens based on their intrinsic humanity, for instance, there would be no way for that political will to express itself.
I don't believe people "should" or "shouldn't" band together, but I do believe people should be free to make this decision for themselves. Government takes that choice away.
The free market ISN'T evolutionary in that respect, unless it turns into a government, or develops an analogous hierarchy. In my rebuttals, I noted that a rich oligarchy would essentially develop into this hierarchy by default. While we have the option of voting out ineffective or improper leaders in a democratic government, no such option resides in an economic oligarchy, besides armed insurrection.
I don't think a rich oligarchy would have to develop. If one did, it would be in the economic interest of another firm(either previously nonexistent or already within the oligarchy) to offer the same services at a lower price. So I don't grant your premise that these oligarchies would have to form. Even if they did form, I don't grant your implication that they are necessarily bad. I'm actually reading an article right now related to that, if you're interested: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_2.pdf But I also dispute your conclusion. Customers have the option to stop buying from the oligarchy.
There's quite a bit more than that. Society has more of a role to play than a distributor of goods, which is something economists have problems quantifying, and thus understanding. A pure free market society would likely fracture under the crushing weight of class struggle, and has no method of preventing the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few dominant industrialists. This society is fundamentally flawed by the fact that its priority isn't the well being of its constituents.
Basically, you've taken a system which can adapt the best parts of a free market economy, and stripped from it the regulatory mechanism which keeps the system working for the people, instead of just working the people, like it did in the past. A more sensible approach would be to take the position that nearly every other economist in the world does, and refine the current system's hybrid benefits, without the risk of the world being plunged into the dark ages again.
I disagree with this because I believe regulating bodies can arise on the free market, assuming people wish to have regulation (which they clearly do).
Thanks for the history lesson. The point you are trying to make has already been discussed at length in this thread so I will not go over it in detail again. To go over it quickly; anarchy is not the same as anarcho-capitalism. Like any political philosophy, the general public must accept it or there will be revolution. Anarcho-capitalism has not been tried except for in a few rare instances, none of which you've mentioned. When people first came to be, they naturally formed communistic tribes. The fact that anarcho-capitalism has not thus far been successfully implemented on a long term basis does not mean it cannot work.
Where do you draw the line? You say that it's hard for a group of citizens (entrepreneurs) to build a competing power plant. Sure, it's difficult to pool together enough money. What if I don't like the Burger King down the street. It would be hard for me to get enough money to start my own fast food chain, but enough peolple got together and decided to do it. There's no reason entrepreneurs can't pool their money together, it would just take alot of people and money. Other businesses require less people and money. Where is your cut off point for how much money is required to enter an industry that justifies government interference? Cost will always be a natural barrier to entry in any market, no matter the size; it is inescapable. I don't think it is appropriate or reasonable to decide on a certain point, using no objective criterion, where it is okay for government to intervene.
I already drew the line repeatedly. And if you have an issue with that point, its a shame. The criterion have already been posited in the thread as well. Feel free to do more than skim over posts : ). The only time the 'point' varies, is when you vary your definition of what society's ultimate aim is. Even the Austrian scheme has its own assumption in this regard, which is built on an irrational position borne of preference. Despite that, the government system allows you to closely attain the Austrian system's goal, but also allows you freedom to adopt other configurations according to public opinion. Is that currently true and borne out by history? Yes. Even today there is a wide variety of different options for you to choose from across the globe. Again, your system doesn't give that identity option, ours does.
Coercion is initiating aggression against someone to force them into doing something, or accepting your service. Consumers are not forced to pay monopolies. Even if the demand for a good is inelastic, it is not the producer that dictates the consumers preferences, and they can't be held responsible for them.
No, coercion is not 'initial' aggression. Coercion is the act of using force to make something occur, period. If there is a monopoly on an essential (and don't state that food and water are the only essential goods, they just plain aren't) service, then the corporation which controls that service leaves no choice but to solicit payment for their service. Transport is a fantastic example. Clearly essential in an urban environment, because without it people simply cannot work, feed themselves, clothe themselves, or heat their houses. If roads in general aren't sufficient for you, take the case of a bridge. There may be multiple bridges between destination A and B, but the distance difference between the two can make paying a toll at one bridge a fait accomplis. Even then, consider the case of a single bridge system, and you've returned to the duplication error originally stated against your market efficiency if a solution was to come into effect by the free market. Any statements contrived in the form of "well, one could do xyz to correct that" are of the same form that I stated earlier in regards to how to deal with taxation. This is an indirect tax, and from your account, that would be stealing no matter what the return was.
I do believe that's the concrete proof for a reductio ad absurdium on your initial position too with regards to taxation, despite the fact that I already disproved it using the wallet bank reduction.
My theory is indeed based on the supremacy of invidual rights. And when you speak of community rights, you are talking about ceding the freedoms of the individual- something I am already suspect of- to the judgment of the "community; other individuals. You are creating artificial hierarchy.
No I'm not. There is nothing artificial about communities having rights as a summation of the individual rights of many trumping the individual rights of one. You do not have the right to build a nuclear reactor on my front lawn, not because the 'community' is raping your rights, but because your action is infringing on a collectively larger amount of individual rights in the form of the community. If your position is that individual rights are supreme, then community rights inevitably follow. The only way to escape from this dilemma is to argue that individual rights are not supreme and that there is another form of 'merit' other than being a human which confers rights. In your case, it would be wealth.
This, again, under the argumentation that you've stated yourself is ridiculous. You admit you've accepted individual rights as supreme, and thus unwittingly as you may, you have the choice between accepting that individuals in the free market society have no value intrinsically (as they do in democracy by a 'coercive' set of government mandated rights), or accepting that the 'community' must have rights by the simple summation of rights. That leads to another interesting example: without an altruistic overtone to society, there is no basis for the abolishment of human trafficking in your ideal society, since humans are goods in the form of labor. Even assuming that physical labour is not a predominant or valuable form of labour at this point, which is dubious in many underdeveloped areas, the sex trade has, and will likely continue, to use indentured workers.
Child labour is another type of economically sanctionable form of pseudo-slavery. Class friction between industrialists and workers in a largely ungoverned free market during many countries' industrialization period led to such large social problems that many which didn't have extensive natural resources or capital to maintain national control of developing industries overwhelmingly turned to socialist replies to their issues. What wealth redistribution does a pure free market have? Oh, None. That's why your reply to a rich oligarchy forming is false: How do you start up large competitive institutions when wealth concentrates itself in the hands of those who have wealth? You presuppose a large middle class with the ability to pool funds towards a large goal, but large middle classes have typically never been achieved without the aid of wealth redistribution. More importantly, societies with small middle classes tend to be overwhelmingly unstable.
I don't believe people "should" or "shouldn't" band together, but I do believe people should be free to make this decision for themselves. Government takes that choice away.
Government also takes away such extraneous choices as 'living in a thatched roof hut'. You clearly DO believe that there is a societal choice, since you haven't left society (which you can do). You've accepted the benefits of a governed system, yet refuse to remove yourself from that system in order to develop your ideal choice filled existence. What you're lamenting is that you cannot live outside of the government system while benefiting from all of its accoutrements. Like all choices, accepting something by necessity deprives you of something else. By choosing to write a reply here, you lose the ability to have flown to jamaica in the same time. Choices are finite, and eliminating them is in no way evil. What is good, however, is providing quality choices, and by your inability to separate the CURRENT stateless societies that exist from the obviously superior state based societies implies that you already realize that governments have given you fantastic options.
That has nothing to do with the efficient distribution of public goods, it has to do with your wishes to simply be a free rider on all issues that you can rationalize as acceptable as private.
Also, in many of your replies, you state that customers can exert a negative market pressure on companies that they don't agree with morally. This relies on customers being able to identify the products they're purchasing with the companies which manufacture them, which in many cases, is incredibly difficult. Second, you assume that customers care enough, which in many cases they clearly don't (Built here, sold in UK, for instance, as noted before). Third, you assume that consumers are rational, which they aren't. Four, you rely on consumers being informed. Each of these four pitfalls have been independantly verified by various economic models as being significantly important towards the purchasing power of consumers.
Take Dupont as a case study:
Without wikipedia, google, or any sources you wouldn't have a point of purchase, tell me what dupont manufactures, precisely, to the point that you can identify products with dupont as a supplier. Now, tell me that if you lived in easy asia and dupont was found to be spilling excess chemicals into a river in the US, if you'd boycott their goods (i'll do this one for you, you wouldn't even know about it :D). Lastly, even if you knew that dupont products were potentially bad for the world or some shit like that, but they cost 50% less than their competitors products, would you still buy them? Yes you would, because your bottom line would get much better.
The fact that anarcho-capitalism has not thus far been successfully implemented on a long term basis does not mean it cannot work.
The fact that XYZ has not thus far been successfully implemented does not mean it can't work, but that's the thing: we don't need it to work. Societies needed communist/socialist regimes to deal with certain social problems. What stimulus naturally draws people to anarcho-capitalism? Putative slightly increased efficiency with a massive side order of instability? No thanks.
I already drew the line repeatedly. And if you have an issue with that point, its a shame. The criterion have already been posited in the thread as well. Feel free to do more than skim over posts : ).
If I missed where you drew the line, please point it out. What I've seen you do is give two extremes from opposite sides of the spectrum, and use that to justify the existence of said line.
The only time the 'point' varies, is when you vary your definition of what society's ultimate aim is.
Everyone's 'point' is different because everyone has different preferences and ideas of ethics.
Even the Austrian scheme has its own assumption in this regard, which is built on an irrational position borne of preference.
The position of the Austrian "scheme" is that people should be able to determine how to spend their money based on their own preferences, not on anyone elses.
No, coercion is not 'initial' aggression. Coercion is the act of using force to make something occur, period.
Coercion is using force against someone; it involves infringing on their property rights. If company A lowers or raises their price, that is not using force against anyone.
If there is a monopoly on an essential (and don't state that food and water are the only essential goods, they just plain aren't) service, then the corporation which controls that service leaves no choice but to solicit payment for their service. Transport is a fantastic example. Clearly essential in an urban environment, because without it people simply cannot work, feed themselves, clothe themselves, or heat their houses. If roads in general aren't sufficient for you, take the case of a bridge. There may be multiple bridges between destination A and B, but the distance difference between the two can make paying a toll at one bridge a fait accomplis. Even then, consider the case of a single bridge system, and you've returned to the duplication error originally stated against your market efficiency if a solution was to come into effect by the free market. Any statements contrived in the form of "well, one could do xyz to correct that" are of the same form that I stated earlier in regards to how to deal with taxation. This is an indirect tax, and from your account, that would be stealing no matter what the return was.
So we can just group these into goods that have an inelastic demand, right? Anyways, if a firm charged "too much" (assuming such thing exists) the value of all property that rely on those roads is going to go down. People would stop buying houses in that area, and other people who don't depend on those roads but use them frequently anyways would stop patronizing them as well, so it is in the bridge owners ineterest to adjust to consumer demand.
I do believe that's the concrete proof for a reductio ad absurdium on your initial position too with regards to taxation, despite the fact that I already disproved it using the wallet bank reduction.
What you described above isn't a tax. Taxation is "pay me or I will take your property (or you)".
No I'm not. There is nothing artificial about communities having rights as a summation of the individual rights of many trumping the individual rights of one. You do not have the right to build a nuclear reactor on my front lawn, not because the 'community' is raping your rights, but because your action is infringing on a collectively larger amount of individual rights in the form of the community.
Disagree. The reason I do not have the right to build a nuclear reactor on your front lawn is because you own your front lawn. I would be violating your property rights, aggressing against you as an individual.
If your position is that individual rights are supreme, then community rights inevitably follow. The only way to escape from this dilemma is to argue that individual rights are not supreme and that there is another form of 'merit' other than being a human which confers rights. In your case, it would be wealth.
Please explain what community rights follow.
This, again, under the argumentation that you've stated yourself is ridiculous. You admit you've accepted individual rights as supreme, and thus unwittingly as you may, you have the choice between accepting that individuals in the free market society have no value intrinsically (as they do in democracy by a 'coercive' set of government mandated rights), or accepting that the 'community' must have rights by the simple summation of rights.
You have not shown how community rights must follow. The only belief I hold is that of property rights; people have the right to exercise their own discretion to use their property how they see fit, so long as they do not infringe on the property rights of others in the process.
That leads to another interesting example: without an altruistic overtone to society, there is no basis for the abolishment of human trafficking in your ideal society, since humans are goods in the form of labor. Even assuming that physical labour is not a predominant or valuable form of labour at this point, which is dubious in many underdeveloped areas, the sex trade has, and will likely continue, to use indentured workers.
Voluntary human trafficking would be permitted.
Child labour is another type of economically sanctionable form of pseudo-slavery.
If the contract between the child and his employer is voluntary, how is that slavery?
Class friction between industrialists and workers in a largely ungoverned free market during many countries' industrialization period led to such large social problems that many which didn't have extensive natural resources or capital to maintain national control of developing industries overwhelmingly turned to socialist replies to their issues. What wealth redistribution does a pure free market have? Oh, None. That's why your reply to a rich oligarchy forming is false: How do you start up large competitive institutions when wealth concentrates itself in the hands of those who have wealth? You presuppose a large middle class with the ability to pool funds towards a large goal, but large middle classes have typically never been achieved without the aid of wealth redistribution. More importantly, societies with small middle classes tend to be overwhelmingly unstable.
I would argue that oligarchies are not necessarily a bad thing. Here is an article I am currently reading on oligarchies and cartels, if you care to read: http://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/RAE9_2_2.pdf I don't think "high" natural barriers to entry are reason for government intervention. You seem to think there is an arbitrary point where a company is making "too much" profit (ignoring the fact that all the employees benefit, and it allows the company to expand and then hire people who were formerly unemployed, and that the consumers are willing to pay the price), that it is okay for the government to step in. I don't believe this to be the case.
Government also takes away such extraneous choices as 'living in a thatched roof hut'.
It does? I don't remember reading about the passing of a Thatched Roof Act...
You clearly DO believe that there is a societal choice, since you haven't left society (which you can do). You've accepted the benefits of a governed system, yet refuse to remove yourself from that system in order to develop your ideal choice filled existence.
The love it or leave it argument regurgitated. I should not have to forfeit my property to be free from tyranny.
What you're lamenting is that you cannot live outside of the government system while benefiting from all of its accoutrements.
What I'm lamenting is that I cannot live outside the government system without leaving my home and moving into the wilderness.
Like all choices, accepting something by necessity deprives you of something else. By choosing to write a reply here, you lose the ability to have flown to jamaica in the same time. Choices are finite, and eliminating them is in no way evil. What is good, however, is providing quality choices, and by your inability to separate the CURRENT stateless societies that exist from the obviously superior state based societies implies that you already realize that governments have given you fantastic options.
I think a western democratic government is better than any government that has more power, I just think that less government would be even better.
That has nothing to do with the efficient distribution of public goods, it has to do with your wishes to simply be a free rider on all issues that you can rationalize as acceptable as private.
This is bullshit and you know it.
Also, in many of your replies, you state that customers can exert a negative market pressure on companies that they don't agree with morally. This relies on customers being able to identify the products they're purchasing with the companies which manufacture them, which in many cases, is incredibly difficult.
With mass media and the desire for standards which most people have, this is not difficult, and there it is not less difficult in a capitalist society than in a government one.
Second, you assume that customers care enough, which in many cases they clearly don't (Built here, sold in UK, for instance, as noted before).
If they don't care, I don't think you have a right to force them to.
Third, you assume that consumers are rational, which they aren't. Four, you rely on consumers being informed. Each of these four pitfalls have been independantly verified by various economic models as being significantly important towards the purchasing power of consumers.
If consumers aren't rational or informed, sucks for them. What does this have to do with government?
Take Dupont as a case study:
Without wikipedia, google, or any sources you wouldn't have a point of purchase, tell me what dupont manufactures, precisely, to the point that you can identify products with dupont as a supplier.
Why are you saying I can't use any sources to find this info? What is the point of that?
Now, tell me that if you lived in easy asia and dupont was found to be spilling excess chemicals into a river in the US, if you'd boycott their goods (i'll do this one for you, you wouldn't even know about it :D). Lastly, even if you knew that dupont products were potentially bad for the world or some shit like that, but they cost 50% less than their competitors products, would you still buy them? Yes you would, because your bottom line would get much better.
Maybe I would, maybe I wouldn't. It depends if I, personally, thought the 50% price reduction was worth whatever level of pollution was caused. My point is that this decision is mine to make and no one elses. How I spend my money is my business.
Hey can we at some point pretty soon just agree to disagree? Most of the issues we're talking about stem from whether there is a real difference between public and private goods, or whether all economic goods are of the same character in that respect. Can we just agree that I think there is no difference, you think there is, and neither one of us will convince the other? We can go on endlessly about how this or that would function in a stateless society, but I would like to reiterate at this point what I said above that it is the institution which I think is evil, and getting rid of that should be the priority; not the consequences, just as with slavery.
Now I realize it isn't fair to ask this debate to stop since I am still posting here, and if you want to continue it I will oblige, but I do hope we can rap this up soon. Anyways, here is a quote I would like to share on morality:
"The first thing that philosophers must do is lead by example. A key ingredient in the moral ideal of a stateless society is that there is no such thing as positive obligations. Being born in a country does create a moral obligation to pay taxes. Being poor does not create a moral obligation for others to give you money. Being successful does not make you a slave; failure does not give you the right to be a parasite. Having children does not create a moral obligation for others to give them an education. Getting old does not create a moral obligation for others to pay for your retirement." http://freedomain.blogspot.com/2007/06/freedomain-radio-faq-part-2.html
No, it really isn't. Efficiency can be achieved through a multitude of intra-system means without the gross inefficiencies associated with rebuilding pretty much all of our main institutional players for compatibility with your ideal world. Since that's case, efficiency cannot be the sole reason you wish for a switch, and since you haven't posited a 'goal' which you wish to achieve in the current system, but cannot due to its flaws, your motive falls straight back to you wanting to opt out of as much as possible.
It does? I don't remember reading about the passing of a Thatched Roof Act...
Zoning laws and fire ordinance regulations do pretty well there, don't they : ). A thatched roof hut in the middle of an urban area would be evicted and condemned.
What I'm lamenting is that I cannot live outside the government system without leaving my home and moving into the wilderness.
Your home and the utilities built to support it are direct results of the government. If you want to opt out of their system, stop trying to do so by stealing their goods.
Please explain what community rights follow.
I did, thanks for reading the entire post.
Voluntary human trafficking would be permitted.
Involuntary human trafficking would also be permitted, and encouraged under your system, as it is in the sex trade.
Disagree. The reason I do not have the right to build a nuclear reactor on your front lawn is because you own your front lawn. I would be violating your property rights, aggressing against you as an individual.
Front lawn is a euphemism for nearby. Say you own the lot across the street, now you build your nuclear plant. According to your logic, there's no problem here.
So we can just group these into goods that have an inelastic demand, right? Anyways, if a firm charged "too much" (assuming such thing exists) the value of all property that rely on those roads is going to go down. People would stop buying houses in that area, and other people who don't depend on those roads but use them frequently anyways would stop patronizing them as well, so it is in the bridge owners ineterest to adjust to consumer demand.
Remember how you posited that moving is not acceptable? Net flux of people from the area which got gouged is not sufficient to justify the gouging in the first place. More importantly in the road situation is that there ARE people who are dependant on those roads, and they have no recourse but to move to a place where the same situation has no societal safeguards against the exact same abuse. Again: moving is not an acceptable solution because it has prohibitive cost for most individuals. The very fact that the road building company has a captive market makes them a monopoly in a certain area, one which can be far more coercive than government based on the directives of both institutions. You've essentially ignored that and pretended like a road building company will not have a sizable portion of an urban area under its control. Even then, you've admitted that there is no recourse for someone other than relocation in the case of a particularly aggressive company.
Either way, the coercive taxation analogue reoccurs, which makes your entire drive for implementing this rest on efficiency, which you can't prove, or a selfish desire to free ride as much as possible. Human desire being what it is, and given the risk/reward ratio for a simple efficiency gain over something massive like emancipation or free agency, the only logical choice, again, is the third one.
I would argue that oligarchies are not necessarily a bad thing.
Oh good, then you accept a form of government, making the rest of this topic moot. Good day, sir.
What you described above isn't a tax. Taxation is "pay me or I will take your property (or you)".
The above is "pay me or you have no way to make money and die in a month when your cash supply runs out". That's even worse than jail time. Proof stands.
If I missed where you drew the line, please point it out. What I've seen you do is give two extremes from opposite sides of the spectrum, and use that to justify the existence of said line.
I'm not going to do your reading for you. You've consistently ignored points because you didn't understand them, couldn't dispute them, or didn't feel like touching them. I'm not going to go and start reading for you because you can't be asked. Why would you tax my time in that manner? That's stealing.
I think a western democratic government is better than any government that has more power, I just think that less government would be even better.
Okay, and in attaining your preference, you'd remove that choice from everyone else living in your environs, or you'd be hypocritically living off their tax improvements to your surroundings. Again, leave your house and start your own commune, or you doing the first thing that philosophers must do, which, I believe, is leading by example.
Cake.
Eating of Cake.
You can have but one.
I should not have to forfeit my property to be free from tyranny.
You don't wish to pay the Ea for exacting the change you want, but you'd request that everyone else that enjoys the current system give up their world for yours? This purely selfish stance explains both your ineptitude in seeing anything but a purely individual viewpoint, and why you want to ride on other people's work as much as possible :/.
If consumers aren't rational or informed, sucks for them. What does this have to do with government?
Its one of the fundamental assumptions you've been repeatedly vomiting out when faced with instances of market failure and other large flaws in pure capitalism. That's what it has to do with your proposed replacement for government: everything.
Why are you saying I can't use any sources to find this info? What is the point of that?
One does not walk into a store with pre-researched lists of environmentally friendly peanutbutter brands, from peanut to storefront. Why would you pretend to have information that other consumers generally don't have at the point of purchase? Oh, because you'd like to idealize a capitalist transaction so that it fits a perfect free market system.
My point is that this decision is mine to make and no one elses. How I spend my money is my business.
Haha, No. That's wrong. It isn't no one else's decision, because they're all gravely impacted by the result of your choices. If this entire generation sold the next one into 24/7 acid rain, deforestation and mass starvation, you're saying the next generation shouldn't have agency because of the fact that they didn't react in the market to your choices? I guess that's what you're saying, because that's how capitalism has always worked from its inception.
Now I realize it isn't fair to ask this debate to stop since I am still posting here, and if you want to continue it I will oblige, but I do hope we can rap this up soon.
Okay, then the fastest way to end this is to just stop posting.
Most of the issues we're talking about stem from whether there is a real difference between public and private goods
No, they don't. Most of the issues I'm talking about are created by a lack of agency of a wide swath of population based on the fact that the two systems have dissimilar aims by definition. This lack of agency is only partly created by the lack of true public goods. That said, 'public goods' and 'private goods' are both subclasses of 'goods' which is the natural state of an item or service, with the only difference being that private goods are assured to be yours by some coercive force. Similarly, there is no assurance of private goods without the very coercive force you seek to dismantle in another form, which by definition will grow and reassemble into government, as it already does in half your articles in all but name.
But yeah, most of my main points were flat out ignored. I've systemically answered all of yours, whereas you largely used one-liners to debate semantics. I can see why you want to end this.
No, it really isn't. Efficiency can be achieved through a multitude of intra-system means without the gross inefficiencies associated with rebuilding pretty much all of our main institutional players for compatibility with your ideal world. Since that's case, efficiency cannot be the sole reason you wish for a switch, and since you haven't posited a 'goal' which you wish to achieve in the current system, but cannot due to its flaws, your motive falls straight back to you wanting to opt out of as much as possible.
And now you're changing your disputed claim. I want to opt out. What you said was that I wanted to opt out and continue using government provided services. Big difference.
My goal is freedom. I believe that efficiency is a natural by-product of freedom.
Your home and the utilities built to support it are direct results of the government. If you want to opt out of their system, stop trying to do so by stealing their goods.
How exactly am I stealing goods that I pay for?
I did, thanks for reading the entire post.
I thought you said we weren't playing this card anymore? Anyway, I did read your post, and you did not explain how 'community rights' naturally arise from individual rights, which doesn't even make sense since all these community right must step on at least one persons individual rights in the process.
Involuntary human trafficking would also be permitted, and encouraged under your system, as it is in the sex trade.
No, it wouldn't. PDAs would protect against it. They may not be perfect, but they would be better then the police.
Front lawn is a euphemism for nearby. Say you own the lot across the street, now you build your nuclear plant. According to your logic, there's no problem here.
Right, there's no inherent problem. But are you saying this nuclear plant produces pollution? Is it hurting the people who live nearby, infringing on their property rights? Then the people who live near by may have a strong court case, like how things are currently. If the plant is not causing pollution, then the nearby citizens have no right to forcibly prevent another person from building on their own land. What if, for instance, I don't want you to build a house next to me because the construction noise will bother me? Do I have the right to compel you, by force, not to build the house even if you own the land next to me?
Remember how you posited that moving is not acceptable? Net flux of people from the area which got gouged is not sufficient to justify the gouging in the first place.
Gouging is just a pejorative for charging a price, arbitrarily deemed by some as being "too high" (never mind that the market is clearly willing to pay that price). I don't need to justify "gouging"; you should justify why it is okay to force others not to sell their own goods at any price they choose.
More importantly in the road situation is that there ARE people who are dependant on those roads, and they have no recourse but to move to a place where the same situation has no societal safeguards against the exact same abuse. Again: moving is not an acceptable solution because it has prohibitive cost for most individuals. The very fact that the road building company has a captive market makes them a monopoly in a certain area, one which can be far more coercive than government based on the directives of both institutions. You've essentially ignored that and pretended like a road building company will not have a sizable portion of an urban area under its control. Even then, you've admitted that there is no recourse for someone other than relocation in the case of a particularly aggressive company.
If one firm decides to charge lower prices then the one you decide is charging an "unreasonable" price, then everyone is going to flock to his neighborhood and he will make a profit. So every road providing firm has incentive to lower his price, and that's how market price gets established. Road prices, btw, would likely be worked into housing contracts so people know what they're getting into before they sign them.
Either way, the coercive taxation analogue reoccurs, which makes your entire drive for implementing this rest on efficiency, which you can't prove, or a selfish desire to free ride as much as possible.
What analogy? The one you said before that somehow coercive taxation can arise on the free market? That's false. And no I haven't attempted to prove that the free market is more efficient because I thought we were taking for granted that the free market is better than a centrally planned economy. The burden of proof is on you to show why some goods are exceptions to this rule. And enough with telling me that I want to free ride. I have no such intentions, so don't assign them to me.
Oh good, then you accept a form of government, making the rest of this topic moot. Good day, sir.
Sorry, I thought you were talking about oligopolies, not actual oligarchies..
The above is "pay me or you have no way to make money and die in a month when your cash supply runs out". That's even worse than jail time. Proof stands.
It's "pay me, or don't and I won't do anything to you or force you to pay me." Consequences beyond that are outside the scope of whether or not it is coercive.
I'm not going to do your reading for you. You've consistently ignored points because you didn't understand them, couldn't dispute them, or didn't feel like touching them. I'm not going to go and start reading for you because you can't be asked. Why would you tax my time in that manner? That's stealing.
Or you could just admit that you never actually drew the line. Not that it matters, since we're probably the only ones still following this thread.
Okay, and in attaining your preference, you'd remove that choice from everyone else living in your environs, or you'd be hypocritically living off their tax improvements to your surroundings.
My preference is that people should get to choose what institutions they give their money to! If people want to band together and pitch in money to fund services in their community, that's fine. All I'm saying is don't force others to join. Let them decide for themselves.
Again, leave your house and start your own commune, or you doing the first thing that philosophers must do, which, I believe, is leading by example.
I'm working on trying to get people to realize the evils of government, that government cannot grant you freedoms, it can only take them away. Going off to join a commune isn't leading, it's running away from the problem. I'd rather work on getting rid of government here.
You don't wish to pay the Ea for exacting the change you want, but you'd request that everyone else that enjoys the current system give up their world for yours? This purely selfish stance explains both your ineptitude in seeing anything but a purely individual viewpoint, and why you want to ride on other people's work as much as possible :/.
Lol so now you're ragging on me for using sources to help prove my point? Get bent. As for everyone else who 'enjoys' the current system; they would be free to voluntarily fund similar organizations in a free society. The only difference is that those who don't want to fund or participate in any type of organization like that would be free to opt out. You're asking "why not let the people who currently enjoy stealing from you to redistribute your wealth continue doing so? Selfish!" The only selfish stance is to say that it's okay to force others to fund whatever the hell you want to fund.
Its one of the fundamental assumptions you've been repeatedly vomiting out when faced with instances of market failure and other large flaws in pure capitalism. That's what it has to do with your proposed replacement for government: everything.
Most people are rational and somewhat informed. You just brought up a hypothetical saying what if people aren't rational or informed. Everyone except retards are rational, and information isn't perfect whether or not you have government. Let me try one; hey, what if government turns the military on its citizens and rapes the women and kills the men. So much for government society!
One does not walk into a store with pre-researched lists of environmentally friendly peanutbutter brands, from peanut to storefront. Why would you pretend to have information that other consumers generally don't have at the point of purchase? Oh, because you'd like to idealize a capitalist transaction so that it fits a perfect free market system.
So you are saying researching products would be impossible under stateless society? Research would be just as possible whether or not you have an oppressive institute.
Haha, No. That's wrong. It isn't no one else's decision, because they're all gravely impacted by the result of your choices. If this entire generation sold the next one into 24/7 acid rain, deforestation and mass starvation, you're saying the next generation shouldn't have agency because of the fact that they didn't react in the market to your choices? I guess that's what you're saying, because that's how capitalism has always worked from its inception.
If it's not my decision, who's is it? Yours? The person you vote into office, even though I didn't vote him in? You're just deciding that there is one person who is more fit to handle my property than I am. If everyone is 'gravely impacted' by the result of my choices, lets just cede all my choices over to government because, hey, government knows best.
Okay, then the fastest way to end this is to just stop posting.
I'm sure you know how hard it is when you vehemently disagree with anothers position ;D
No, they don't. Most of the issues I'm talking about are created by a lack of agency of a wide swath of population based on the fact that the two systems have dissimilar aims by definition. This lack of agency is only partly created by the lack of true public goods.
Yes, they do. Most of your argument for government intervention stem from the idea that the community could get hurt by the actions of an individual- externalities. So it does go back to the public goods theory.
That said, 'public goods' and 'private goods' are both subclasses of 'goods' which is the natural state of an item or service, with the only difference being that private goods are assured to be yours by some coercive force.
Lol, just present the very basis of dispute as a blanket fact. I can do that too: private goods and public goods are not real distinctions, all economic goods are economic goods.
Similarly, there is no assurance of private goods without the very coercive force you seek to dismantle in another form,
Difference again between murder in cold blood and murder in self defense.
which by definition will grow and reassemble into government, as it already does in half your articles in all but name.
Except that participation in stateless society is voluntary. You may not see that as a big difference, but I see it as the biggest.
But yeah, most of my main points were flat out ignored. I've systemically answered all of yours, whereas you largely used one-liners to debate semantics. I can see why you want to end this.
I covered all your main points, I cut out snippets that were either just empty rhetoric or weren't making any point. And it's not like you've ever omitted any text I've posted... Anyway, I want to end this debate because we are going in circles over the validity of the public goods theory.
Not a direct argument by any means, but if you're in the mood here is a fun rant against government:
On March 11 2008 07:12 Zherak wrote: Read a-fucking-gain. There is no communism. There is nothing but pure fucking PDA.
PDAs, by definition, are not coercive. Governments, by definition, are coercive.
Hint: Coercive PDAs, i.e. governments, eat non-coercive PDAs alive, simply because they are that much more efficient. A PDA is never going to be able to protect you from a coercive PDA, i.e. a government. Simply because, a government is a PDA with more freedom, thus stronger.
You can pretend anarcho-capitalism is something very different from regular anarchy, which is as far as you can explain nothing but let's take anarchism and pretend that people are going to act in this specific way even though they have no incentive to do so whatsoever. Essentially, one dose anarchism and one dose naive.
I give you altru-communism. It's like communism, except we pretend that people have no self-interest and are going to look out for everybody else. Really, it is the best government. I promise. It would work if only people were altruist.
Or maybe you prefer übermensch-tyranny. It is kind of like tyranny, except all people are geniuses.
Hint: Coercive PDAs, i.e. governments, eat non-coercive PDAs alive, simply because they are that much more efficient. A PDA is never going to be able to protect you from a coercive PDA, i.e. a government. Simply because, a government is a PDA with more freedom, thus stronger.
Coercive PDAs depend on public support. They can't get big without public support. If they tried to use coercive tactics against a society that didn't want government, there would be revolution. If enough people didn't currently want coercive PDAs, there would be revolution. I don't think, if it were even possible, dismantling government this instant would be stable. But if enough people are able to realize the problems of having a government, I think it can be stable.
You can pretend anarcho-capitalism is something very different from regular anarchy, which is as far as you can explain nothing but let's take anarchism and pretend that people are going to act in this specific way even though they have no incentive to do so whatsoever. Essentially, one dose anarchism and one dose naive.
If people are as evil as you seem to think they are, we would be living in chaos. There would not be thousands of charitable organizations, or people protesting on the street for animal rights or free Tibet or what have you. Humans, by nature, have morals, that are not given to them by government. I'm with Ghandi on this one: "We find the general work of mankind is being carried on from day to day be the mass of people acting as if by instinct....If they were instinctively violent the world would end in no time...It is when the mass mind is unnaturally influenced by wicked men that the mass of mankind commit violence." Communism ignores human nature, not capitalism.
govt is not necessarily coercive, just like yer mom is not necessarily coercive. it just has the position of having the initiative in organization and also the last say. leaving aside the absurdity of capitalists going against the concept of government in general, the simple fact is that humans are limited in their ability to process information and their organization follow patterns outside of their choices. in fact, the very space of their choices is very much a peculiar and open question. government happens to be the form through which public actions take place, and the question of participation is posed to the individual, whether to take part. leaving aside again the question of ultimate justification for govt coercion, we can admit that this is not a justified solution without saying that the individual then is absolved of all obligations and duties (not necessarily in the ordinary sense). we do this by treating cooperating with the government as a fully open ethical question. on the point of whether one should endeavor to contribute to society, help others, or simply choose the solution of most welfare or good life for all, the anarchist does not have any defense. in fact, most of them sweep aside the question, saying coerced contribution is not right. but maybe it is right, maybe there is nothing honorable in rights in defense of callousness. if it is honorable, then surely it is still bad to be callous, even if you have the right to do so. that the right to be bad is given more weight than the badness of the activity speaks volume. perhaps the central motivation for anarchocapitalism is reactionary self regard, that, we don't really give a shit about the rest of the bums and we'll frame our understanding of political theory on this crude impulse. if one is not under possession of such a logic, the very fact of arguing for the rights instead of the good is already taking a particular social attitude. this is fair game for condemnation.
if we even recognize the point of social welfare in the first place, and keep in mind the limits of human organization, it is easy to see that the govt or some form of centralised decisionmakign is arguably necessary. (the anarchist does not seem to object to forms of centralised decisionmaking, as the status of corporations and really the entire capitalistic system of production demonstrates. you are fine with a factory owner directing the behavior of laborers, and coercively at that) but at this point, already the question concerns instrumentality. the effectiveness of a certain political arrangement of power and institutions that would be best fit to deliver the consequences we care about. on this point, the anarchocapitalist position is sweepingly blind.
the point is, most of your average 'anarchocapitalists' are simply alienated from government and society in general, and hence they respond to govt as if the govt is holding them at gunpoint in an alley. well, part of this perception is really their own attitude. one may in fact be involved in government without also 'being a slave.' because government, as it stands, is how society operates. it is a begrudging fact of political reality, but one that has weighty functions, functions we care about. it is fine to argue about the forms of government, but one must do so on the condition of being a participant in society, with a sense of commitment to others and the general welfare.
I believe that efficiency is a natural by-product of freedom.
you are painfully wrong. not to mention, efficiency is not the only criterion for judging a society.
in any case, coercion and power in society extends far beyond the simple idea of government.this is a common blind spot for anarchocapitalists, in fact, this is the critical blindspot. if you are privileging somehow this vague idea(vague in the sense of incoherent without the concept of government) of a private group's coercive activities, while condemning the arguably more sophisticated, progressively minded, and introspective practices of government, your theory is pretty bunk already.
Hint: Coercive PDAs, i.e. governments, eat non-coercive PDAs alive, simply because they are that much more efficient. A PDA is never going to be able to protect you from a coercive PDA, i.e. a government. Simply because, a government is a PDA with more freedom, thus stronger.
Coercive PDAs depend on public support. They can't get big without public support. If they tried to use coercive tactics against a society that didn't want government, there would be revolution. If enough people didn't currently want coercive PDAs, there would be revolution. I don't think, if it were even possible, dismantling government this instant would be stable. But if enough people are able to realize the problems of having a government, I think it can be stable.
You can pretend anarcho-capitalism is something very different from regular anarchy, which is as far as you can explain nothing but let's take anarchism and pretend that people are going to act in this specific way even though they have no incentive to do so whatsoever. Essentially, one dose anarchism and one dose naive.
If people are as evil as you seem to think they are, we would be living in chaos. There would not be thousands of charitable organizations, or people protesting on the street for animal rights or free Tibet or what have you. Humans, by nature, have morals, that are not given to them by government. I'm with Ghandi on this one: "We find the general work of mankind is being carried on from day to day be the mass of people acting as if by instinct....If they were instinctively violent the world would end in no time...It is when the mass mind is unnaturally influenced by wicked men that the mass of mankind commit violence." Communism ignores human nature, not capitalism.
Coercive PDAs do not by any means rely on public support. They rely on monopoly on brute force, which may be gained through a small, favourized and powerful elite (read: military dictatorships) or through general acceptance (read: modern democracies). I outlined why a modern democracy is more efficient given the current technological level in my original long-ass post.
PS: How the fuck can you stupid enough to claim that: a) People don't go to war because they aren't evil and war isn't profitable. b) People will revolt against coercive PDAs. Question mark.
It is the same fucking thing. Large group of people sticking bayonets up eachother's number twos. There is not qualitative difference between what happens in a war and what happens in a revolution.
No, evil people do not live in a disorganized chaos. This was also meticiously detailed in my first longass post. Even if everybody was purest Hannibal Lecter evil, government would happen. Put four hundred crazy cannibals on an Island - do you think they are going to live in disorganized chaos, or do you think a hundred of them are going to team up and eat the other motherfuckers at leisure? Sure, as the others have been eaten, you will have the group fragmenting into some smaller groups, same thing again.
(SEE AMERICAN FUCKING SURVIVOR. DO THEY ORGANIZE, WHEN THEIR ONLY GOAL IS TO WIN INFINTE DOLLARS, OR DO THEY LIVE IN A DISORGANIZED CHAOS?)
BIG GROUP = STRONG SMALL GROUP = WEAK
BIG GROUP SMASH SMALL GROUP. BIG GROUP REMAINS.
It's as simple as it fucking gets. And, no you cannot have a big group without order.
The second thing we need to explain is why coercive PDAs are necessarily stronger than non-coercive PDAs. The first, simple truth is that a coercive PDA is just a non-coercive PDA with an advantage. A coercive PDA doesn't have to coerce, always and in all forms. So, a government can be no-coercive wherever that might be the strongest option, and else be non-coercive just like the PDA, and thus only be stronger.
My big, initial longass post also details why PDAs become coercive. Take the Egyptians - they start out as a non-coercive PDA (well, a fucking PDA can't coerce before it gains at least one member non-coercively). The Egyptians hunt and farm together and share the burden of raising children, which is, for obvious reasons, much more efficient than not doing so.
Well, however, we now have a strong PDfuckingA called Egypt. There are other PDAs around - let's Babylonians, Israeli and Zulus. Between some of these PDAs, there exists a balance of power, so that neither PDA benifits from going to war and enslaving the other. However, everybody who is not under their own hugeass PDA are going to get shafted. There is nothing to lose for Egypt if they enslave all insufficiently protected peoples around them. Which is just what has happened throughout history time and fucking time again - we enslaved Indians, Africans, Asians, Aboriginals, stole their land and raped their wives. Because it fucking works. The USA is here today, Native AfuckingMerica isn't.
The only theoretical possibilites for a non-coercive PDA to stay non-coercive are: - a) balance of power. Everybody has a non-coercive PDA to protect them. This has never happened, ever, in history. There may be a reason. - b) altruism from a large-ass PDA, which essentially loops back into A - if a PDA actually gives a crap about non-PDA members, then they will, to this or that extent, actually be PDA-members. Not members-with-all-benifits, but members.
If you agree this far, I can start ramming reasons why stable non-coercive PDA-equillibrium doesn't happen down your throat. It is all fairly logical, though.
PS: How can, strictly speaking, a PDA be non-coercive? A PDA works like a corporation: you scratch my back, I scratch yours. What is the difference between withholding a service, i.e. food and protection, and threatning to excercise force? Is there magical difference between active and passive measures? You clearly define throwing your white ass in prision as coercive. How about, owning all the fucking farmland and not feeding you unless you do whatever the heck we tell you to, is that coercive?
I believe that efficiency is a natural by-product of freedom.
you are painfully wrong. not to mention, efficiency is not the only criterion for judging a society.
Tell that to the Roman Empire, the Native Americans, Imperial Japan, Afganistan, Iraq. Non-efficient socities, or governments, or cultures, or whateverthefuck, get bossed around and vanishes.
You might just as well say that fitness is not the only criterion for evolutionary success.
survival in the evolutionary sense is not the only judge. we are free to evaluate the societies based on other criteria of our choosing. this is rather basic.
the aim of the evolutionary approach is explanatory, not normative. it may shape a certain outlook on things, but to engage in this outlook is not the same as simply going over basic mechanics.
if you take the pda approach, one can say that being in a civil society is already getting in a pda, and this thread is simply a board meeting of such a pda that is not aware of its own nature.
EPT
