| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ROFLChicken
7 Posts
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable. I miss this  It seems to have been subsumed by the debate on externalities where it doesn't really fit that well. It may be a bit fuzzy but if we're going to talk about the "fundamental human freedom" and the like that ACap provide it's probably worth taking note of. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 14:38 adrenaline.CA wrote: monopoly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly market failure: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_failure I'm not explaining things that you should know yourself if you made a thread about economics and philosophy. A monopoly is bad because consumers get screwed over. Monopolies are one form of market failures. Alright, then tell me, are you a monopolist of your own body? Are you a monopolist of your property? Isn't each one of us monopolists of our property? What is wrong with that? Aren't you entitled to exclusive control over what you produce? If you make the new product X, that everyone wants to buy, you can charge whatever the fuck you want, legitimately so. If it weren't for you, X would not exist. But the government would say that's unlawful, you don't have a right to charge too high, or too low, or to charge what they think would be collusion with the second best competitor. All those are lawful charges of monopoly, and it comes down to "you don't own your shit, only if I allow you to". It's ridiculous. And It's a complete misunderstanding of economics. The "monopolist" in the vast majority of cases is not a monopolist at all. He's someone who's leading the market, has the best priced product, and outperforms everyone else. So what do those little twats do? they call monopoly on the leader to break him up, or to bring his prices down, so he's essentially forced to underperform to everyone else's standards. How is the consumer favored in such inteverntion? He now has to pay more for the same product. The state in fact has NOW established an oligarchy in what before was a free market leader who just outperformed everyone. The idea that monopolies are bad are a complete misrepresentation of property rights. That statists have so successfully embedded this idea into people's minds is abysmal to me, especially when the state Is the BIGGEST and TRUEST monopoly of all. I hope that helps | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
On August 29 2010 14:33 Half wrote: I read your post and I missed any kind of central, connecting point :/. What exactly is your point? Everyone one of your responses seemed kind of anecdotal rather then direct refutations or new propositions. I don't think I really made a point in my last post. I'm just trying to understand your claim that companies inevitably evolve into governments in an anarchy. Either I will understand it and agree and you will have changed my mind, or I will understand it and try my best to refute it. Unfortunately I don't even understand it because you seem to be refusing to go any deeper than your simple claim. In which case, sorry but you weren't particularly compelling. Its really quite simple. You defined an Anarcho-Capitalism and then failed to distinguish it from a somewhat libertarian Government. Explain to me how it is different? Choice? No, it isn't choice, not substantially more then it is now. I defined Anarcho-Capitalism? Where? But ok. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (lack of government) that also holds that private property is legitimate where it is acquired without aggression or fraud, etc. This is how it is distinguished from traditional anarchism, which actually more directly means no human hierarchies (including having a boss along with the state). Anarcho-capitalism is different from a libertarian government because... there is no libertarian government in an ancap society. Ancaps hold that even small governments are still parasitic, in the same way that a small tumour is still a problem in a body comprised of 99% healthy cells. I think you know this already though, so I don't know why you asked actually. No it doesn't because the UK (in the context of the nation) does not legitimately own the UK (in the context of the landmass). That's kinda the whole point. But I don't get what the relevance is to your argument at all. The word "own" is not a philosophical proposition just as "is Anarchy possible" is not one either. The UK does have control over the UK regardless of philosophy and Sustained long term Anarchy is indeed impossible equally regardless of philosophy. Um.. ok. I agree that they control it. So how does it follow from the mere fact that they control it that sustained long term anarchy is impossible regardless of philosophy? If people have a philosophical disagreement with the notion that states are actually legitimate, will states still inevitably come about through power alone? Where would they get such overwhelming power from, if not the support of the population caught up by a false meme? I refused to answer your definition of subject because it felt needless and arbitrary and you didn't seem to have a point. But if you insist, subject means "under partial or total power of". Ok, so then answer if am I under partial or total power of Coca-Cola? Of a private security agency when I choose to voluntarily purchase its services? Explain how this gives them such massive overwhelming power to establish a new state, even in a relatively small geographic area? If you honestly think the only reason governments exist is because of religion, I don't even feel like properly refuting that becauses its such an insular viewpoint, no offense. It's distinct from religion now, but regardless it still has a false presupposed legitimacy in the eyes of most, which directly helps to keep the cost of the oppression low. This is true even if it was not directly born from religions, as my argument is not even contingent on that anyway. Unless you can establish why it has real legitimacy, but you don't appear to be arguing that. You're saying it's not legitimate, but still inevitable anyway. Ok, but if people on the whole agreed about it's false legitimacy, would it still be an inevitability? My point is, it would not be inevitable in an enlightened anarchy, unless you can convince me otherwise? | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:12 Yurebis wrote: Alright, then tell me, are you a monopolist of your own body? Are you a monopolist of your property? Isn't each one of us monopolists of our property? What is wrong with that? Aren't you entitled to exclusive control over what you produce? If you make the new product X, that everyone wants to buy, you can charge whatever the fuck you want, legitimately so. If it weren't for you, X would not exist. But the government would say that's unlawful, you don't have a right to charge too high, or too low, or to charge what they think would be collusion with the second best competitor. All those are lawful charges of monopoly, and it comes down to "you don't own your shit, only if I allow you to". It's ridiculous. And It's a complete misunderstanding of economics. The "monopolist" in the vast majority of cases is not a monopolist at all. He's someone who's leading the market, has the best priced product, and outperforms everyone else. So what do those little twats do? they call monopoly on the leader to break him up, or to bring his prices down, so he's essentially forced to underperform to everyone else's standards. How is the consumer favored in such inteverntion? He now has to pay more for the same product. The state in fact has NOW established an oligarchy in what before was a free market leader who just outperformed everyone. The idea that monopolies are bad are a complete misrepresentation of property rights. That statists have so successfully embedded this idea into people's minds is abysmal to me, especially when the state Is the BIGGEST and TRUEST monopoly of all. I hope that helps The state has a monopoly on things like the military and the police because there's a public interest for them to do that... Please read the wikipedia article on what a "monopoly" is. A monopolist has the power to price products above what market equilibrium is and thus exploit consumers for money, among other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats". | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest. You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service. You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest. So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there. Sounds a lot like government. You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution. No Private defense agency would ever be built in a place where they wouldn't talk over how they would interact. No one makes even a $50,000 investment someplace without doing some market probing first. Don't be retarded. No PDA would have a policy of "not stopping murderers". If you knew anything about market law, is that it wouldn't be popular, they wouldn't be hired ever, and the other PDAs would probably be better funded to stop them if they tried anything funny, which they wouldn't anyway, because it would just make things worse for them. Competing PDAs can interact just as good as competing cellphone companies can, or competing software companies, competing ANYTHING companies do TODAY. There is such a thing as cooperation even among competitors, if you spent the least bit of time reading a bit instead of coming up with this ridiculous scenario you'd at least be better educated on how not only it could work but how certain business models alike are working right now. | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:20 Yurebis wrote: You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution. Sounds like you're appealing to some "unknown futuristic market model" that will be so super duper awesome because the anarcho-capitalism ROCKS!!! Seriously, this paragraph you wrote really sums up the attitude in your posts -- you strawman the government state and try to impose solutions that have little empirical, historical, or philosophical rigour. Instead, you just resort to "anarcho-capitalism" because "government is bad." | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
Firstly, it assumes that is natural for humans to optimize their material wealth and that they will attempt to do so rationally. The basis for this rational approach working is some fairly complex, abstract economics which the average person does not understand. If everyone in the system actually understood it then it would work perfectly. The problem is, not only is this not the case (almost the opposite in fact), but an AC system would probably be even worse. A person (from the initial rational standpoint) does not feel the need to understand the system, and so there is no external pressure to do so like in some cases in our society. It's the fundamental assumption behind the iterated prisoner's dilemma- if both players understand that if they cooperate they will both ultimately end up ahead, then you get an ideal society. If either of them don't however, you get the absolute opposite, an initial backstab and subsequent descent into a betrayal race, a bottom out, brief period of cooperation and then another back-stab loop as soon as the lesson gets forgotten (since the system does nothing to make sure it is remembered). In almost every debate and model I have entered into on this, there is no evidence that an AC system would create or maintain this pre-requisite to its own functioning For an AC system to avoid this, we would have to create some kind of situation in which a critical mass of participants were intelligent and educated enough to understand when to cooperate, when to betray and by how much, if this mass could not be reached, the system would be ultimately unstable. The second issue is a more practical, cultural one. As much as an AC system works well in theory, these theories do not generally factor the economic and chronological cost of overcoming 4 millennia of cultural inertia built up on the side of the state system. Every part of our life, language and upbringing is saturated in seeing things from a state frame of reference. For example, an informed person with no prior bias, if placed in a situation where they could steal and get away with it, might quite easily come up with the AC assumption that this is detrimental to the society as a whole, will inevitably in the long run cause them more problems via economic ripples and is actually an inefficient use of time in any case. But a human from any culture on earth today, if given the chance to take something of material worth to them that belongs to someone else, with the surety that no high authority could punish them for it, would take it the vast majority of the time. That's what having an authoritarian system does. If someone can figure out a way to disentangle the minds and culture of five and a half billion people from this notion then congratulations, an AC system will have a chance to function as intended (if you can also solve the issue of informed rationality above). TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse. | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse. Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 14:51 adrenaline.CA wrote: Yes yes yes -- which is why even libertarians draw the line at security and defense -- because the common interest has such high marginal utility that it's imperative. I know a libertarian that was forced to at least supporting government-funded Medicare simply because of the effects of disease -- that a private system would be much more inefficient when it deals infectious diseases that spread easily -- or any general 'vector' in epidemiology. What the... high marginal utility of what? Do you even know what marginal utility is, or are you just throwing that word to act smart? I'd be impressed, even though it's a basic concept. I don't mean to offend but I absolutely did not get the use of the word in that context. You mean security is a market with wide gaps of marginal utility, so therefore... what? People don't want to spend twice on the same service? So what? Does that mean that there can only be one PDA? If the marginal utility of mp3 players are low (I think it's more correct to say low for wider gaps, since marginal utility is diminutive), then does that mean Apple should be given legal monopoly, and other companies can't make generic ipods because...? It makes no sense. If an entrepreneur believes he can outcompete the current leader of a market, he should not be restricted from doing so; at worst, no one will hire him, but it's completely his own loss; at best, you got a more efficient provider of security, or ipods, or whatever! How's that bad? How's open competition bad? I can't fathom! | ||
|
Half
United States2554 Posts
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution You're right, I have no fucking clue how it works, until you just told me. You just explained IN DETAIL how said system would work, and I explained to you the repercussion of locality based laws, one demonstrated throughout history. In an area where multiple common interests are present, and their is a need to defend them, people will obviously gravitate towards common interest, it is absolutely no way they won't. You either have two choices. This isn't business models, its simple logic. Every property and thus the person in them has their own values. These values inevitable conflict. As they conflict people with common interest will naturally band together (not necessarily involving physical violence). You say people would be quite happy living in a neighborhood filled with people who don't share their values in distinctive ways (as to require different laws) and would be indifferent towards moving to one filled with like minded people This is of course, has never happened and will never happen. The result is quite simple. Homogenized values (one state), where dissidents are marginalized, or fragmented states with polarized values (many smaller states). It's distinct from religion now, but regardless it still has a false presupposed legitimacy in the eyes of most, which directly helps to keep the cost of the oppression low. This is true even if it was not directly born from religions, as my argument is not even contingent on that anyway. Unless you can establish why it has real legitimacy, but you don't appear to be arguing that. You're saying it's not legitimate, but still inevitable anyway. Ok, but if people on the whole agreed about it's false legitimacy, would it still be an inevitability? My point is, it would not be inevitable in an enlightened anarchy, unless you can convince me otherwise? Legitimacy is relative :/. So you don't think its legit, ok. I don't really like it either. I defined Anarcho-Capitalism? Where? But ok. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (lack of government) that also holds that private property is legitimate where it is acquired without aggression or fraud, etc. This is how it is distinguished from traditional anarchism, which actually more directly means no human hierarchies (including having a boss along with the state). I'm talking about this Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy). Companies fulfilling the role of government is government. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 14:55 adrenaline.CA wrote: Here is paradise for anarcho-capitalists: http://mises.org/daily/2066 Somalia, most developed country in the world! The article at no point says somalia is the ideal anarchy, nor that it's completely capitalist. The article claims that people in Somalia, without the overhead of a state, are better able to accumulate capital and prosper, as shown by some pretty graphs. At no point it says we should all adopt Somalias' law structure (which is pretty garbage and not capitalistic at all in my opinion), nor any policy. It just notes that Somalia isn't as bad as people say it is, and compared to it's neighbors, it's prospering the most. I don't endorse empiricism, but I do endorse you shutting up if it comes to talking about articles you didn't even read. | ||
|
adrenaLinG
Canada676 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:28 Yurebis wrote: What the... high marginal utility of what? Do you even know what marginal utility is, or are you just throwing that word to act smart? I'd be impressed, even though it's a basic concept. I don't mean to offend but I absolutely did not get the use of the word in that context. You mean security is a market with wide gaps of marginal utility, so therefore... what? People don't want to spend twice on the same service? So what? Does that mean that there can only be one PDA? If the marginal utility of mp3 players are low (I think it's more correct to say low for wider gaps, since marginal utility is diminutive), then does that mean Apple should be given legal monopoly, and other companies can't make generic ipods because...? It makes no sense. If an entrepreneur believes he can outcompete the current leader of a market, he should not be restricted from doing so; at worst, no one will hire him, but it's completely his own loss; at best, you got a more efficient provider of security, or ipods, or whatever! How's that bad? How's open competition bad? I can't fathom! Marginal utility means that protecting one more citizen does not come at much of a cost. The rest of your post is too incoherent for me to address, especially when you start talking about MP3s and Apple. | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats". I don't think it's fair to say he is "defending" imperfect markets. He's saying it's descriptive, not prescriptive. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:04 adrenaline.CA wrote: So you're complaining about perfect competition being "homogeneous products" -- do you instead prefer to spend money on brand names and reputations instead of the actual product? In perfect competition, brand names don't matter -- the products are identical. Think of wheat and corn markets. Food companies don't care about the brand of corn is supplied by them by farms -- they just want corn. I think you need to understand some general economic concepts before going this far into economic philosophy. The example of market failures is where the state intervenes to improve the market. Don't you understand your own concept? You cannot have wheat and corn markets, as they compete over food. If they compete over a common end, then these products have to be merged in a homogeneous form. In fact, perfect competition would result in a non-market with a single product, whatever it is, because every product is competing over money. Perhaps if money itself is considered a product, then you could have a supermarket of fiat notes where you trade your fiat notes for other exactly even fiat notes. What a superb exchange! I think you need to understand what you're vouching for. You're vouching for the lack of consumer choice by human intevention. You're vouching restricting what companies can do, and in turn, what can the consumer receive. How about letting the consumers choose what products they like, and what competitors should stay afloat, instead of screwing that over some vague concept of perfect competition that you yourself doesn't understand? | ||
|
Thereisnosaurus
Australia1822 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:27 adrenaline.CA wrote: Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy. I don't get it... that in no way talks about what I was talking about, nor have I assumed that people are methodologically individualist if that means what I think it does. I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to shoot down every single argument everyone else makes (not sarcastic), but chill and try and frame your counters more... coherently. | ||
|
ROFLChicken
7 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:46 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I don't get it... that in no way talks about what I was talking about, nor have I assumed that people are methodologically individualist if that means what I think it does. I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to shoot down every single argument everyone else makes (not sarcastic), but chill and try and frame your counters more... coherently. Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary. And no one is bothered by the use of 'consensus' and 'popularity' to determine laws and values? Protection of minority rights and privileges is almost always definitionally anti-majoritarian and it doesn't seem like they'd fare too well under ACap. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: I guess what your saying. Your saying that "laws" would be privately applied to private property, then privately enforced depending on whos property it was. So if I wanted to buy property and allow people hunting, sure, I could, but only on my property and without violating the local rules on other peoples property (plus people would probably kind of hate me lol). Which is workable. Likewise, in less extremes, it would basically be like everywhere you went had a shopping mall system, local rules. Allow "people hunting"...? You'd allow people to kill eachother in your property? No, you'd be sued for letting people be killed in front of your eyes for no justifiable reason. You're not entitled to do whatever you want to other people even when they're in your property. There's a degree of cultural limits to what you can do. You can't shoot whoever steps on your front yard. You can't punch whoever comes past your door. Yes, your would become extremely unpopular and PDAs would reject protecting you, and you probably would have no one to rely on that wanted to keep a good reputation, and could be killed with no repercussions. And you could be killed yourself, in your own property indeed, by your own rules. That's a retarded idea, a waste of real estate, and a waste of human life, if I knew you any better that is. Sorry if I completely misunderstood what "people hunting" meant. But even then, it's worth evaluating how much feasible such worst case scenario is. On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Sounds awesome and workable right? Totally! No conflicts of interest, the consumers needs are satisfied, nobody is coercing money from you, a society built on mutual respect. And conflicting security companies aren't killing each other Deus Ex style on the streets. There are conflicts of interest, but they're significantly less prevalent as compared to a statist system. If you would be honest enough to spare half the criticism towards it instead, you'd see it in an instant and I wouldn't have to stay here trying to explain why your scenarios are non-issues. On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Except that's the problem. Its still built upon mutual interest, and people with mutual interests will gravitate towards each other. Your not going to want to be the only guy on your block whos property has the "Murder and Rape allowed rule". Nobody is going to come to your dinner parties. If everyone simply decides to kill each other and themselves, not even the state would be able to stop them. It's just not the case, and you can't draw a complete chain of interest for someone to do so, except for the very less than 1% of sociopaths who do it today anyways. And that you cite "mutual interest" as if it were an imaginary motive, but not "social contract", which is a much more laughable binding matter, shows that you're biased and not working from the ground-up, but from the state-down. Loose the arguments from ignorance a little, will you? On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Likewise, in a poor neighborhood, people are going to maybe share one security company, and hang out with people who have similar rules. You don't know that. It may very well be ppossible for multiple agencies to coexist. As there are multiple delis, or multiple car insurances. There's no a-priori reason to why there can't be, it's circumstantial to the entrepreneurial ingenuity of the area, demand, capital accumulation, standards of living, cultural prefence, so many things... On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Logistically, you can't have 10 security companies enforcing 10 rule sets on a single block. It would be absolute chaos. Moreover, people aren't going to want to live in that kind of situation. Absolutely. And you knowing that, why don't you put the entrepreneurial hat and try to solve your way through? Do you think: 1- 10 PDAs would even be built before coming to an agreement first? 2- 10 PDAs are needed in the same block? And if so, why not? 3- Why is there a need for different codes of law? They could very well agree to enforce the same laws. On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: The end result is simple, the one I already said. A bunch of little states, built on common interest. People who have common interests gravitate towards each other and eventually the system becomes set in stone due to a monopoly over the area. They aren't states, because no single PDA has monopolistic nor coercive authority. They're service providers. They do what they're paid to do. And if you're concerned that they someday may use the guns coercively, then the entrepreneurs too, will want to provide insurances to ease your demand for transparency, stability. Since they aren't hindered by bureaucrats sitting in some white building, they can adapt to such demands as fast as the customer requires it. There's a long explanation why it wouldn't be profitable for PDAs to aggress, too, but it's pointless for me to go there if you don't even understand the basics... On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: I think the differences in our viewpoints are caused by one thing. I don't view Government as a state artificially imposed upon us by what? Aliens? Government is an intrinsic part of human cooperation on a larger scale. Systems of government, or structures of power, exist everywhere, in the office, in the family. Sometimes these systems can become too power, or too bureaucratized, and the freedoms of the individual are infringed. Yeah, and slavery was also once a common course of action by man too. Does that mean it's ideal, efficient, or desirable? No, the merits of a system have to come from the system itself, not from an appeal to nature, the status-quo, or ignorance. On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: But these systems are so basic, so intrinsic, that it isn't even something that can be removed. The basic structure of government -someone telling you what to do-, isn't something that can be removed. And the slave apologist would say slavery can't be abolished. That's an empty assertion. You don't know that. And it's not about hierarchy, hierarchies and division of labor are good things. It only isn't when it's obviously forced upon you; coercive. Duh. Employers and rulers are different things for the employer and ruled respectively, and I hope you can understand why, someday at least. On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: If you don't like it, you have three options, become a hermit, start a revolution, or be powerful. And the thug on the streets says, "if you don't like being robbed by me every weekend, you can go out of town, fight me, or become one of us thugs" Another non-argument. I'm not here to debate what can be done. I'm here to debate the feasibility of a future system of human organization exempt of coercion. | ||
|
dvide
United Kingdom287 Posts
Except that's the problem. Its still built upon mutual interest, and people with mutual interests will gravitate towards each other. Your not going to want to be the only guy on your block whos property has the "Murder and Rape allowed rule". Nobody is going to come to your dinner parties. Why would there be a block with an explicit murder and rape allowed rule. And if it there were for some strange reason, would people not defend themselves from murder and rape regardless of some stupid, arbitrary nonsense rule? Likewise, in a poor neighborhood, people are going to maybe share one security company, and hang out with people who have similar rules. Logistically, you can't have 10 security companies enforcing 10 rule sets on a single block. It would be absolute chaos. Moreover, people aren't going to want to live in that kind of situation. Yes. 10 security companies enforcing 10 different sets of arbitrary bullshit laws on one block would be chaos. But why would this happen? The end result is simple, the one I already said. A bunch of little states, built on common interest. People who have common interests gravitate towards each other and eventually the system becomes set in stone due to a monopoly over the area. Ok, but that's not a bunch of little states. A state has the supposed authority to initiate force in a given geographical area (in order to supposedly solve social problems like rape). Defensive force is not the initiation of coercion; it is a response to it. So therefore security companies are not states. Defensive agencies are no longer defensive agencies if they subsidise rape (or collect taxes to fund themselves), and even then they wouldn't necessarily be states because people wouldn't automatically think they have any legitimacy to do that. But there wouldn't be fucking neighbourhoods where rape is deemed ok, and other neighbourhoods where rape is not. That's just retarded. We're talking about defence agencies, not aggressive rape agencies. I think the differences in our viewpoints are caused by one thing. I don't view Government as a state artificially imposed upon us by what? Aliens? Government is an intrinsic part of human cooperation on a larger scale. Systems of government, or structures of power, exist everywhere, in the office, in the family. Sometimes these systems can become too power, or too bureaucratized, and the freedoms of the individual are infringed. Cooperation being a euphemism for violence? Cooperation to me conjures up images of peaceful people working together, where as apparently you think human slaves being beaten to build pyramids constitutes cooperation too. But these systems are so basic, so intrinsic, that it isn't even something that can be removed. The basic structure of government -someone telling you what to do-, isn't something that can be removed. If you don't like it, you have three options, become a hermit, start a revolution, or be powerful. The same argument could be made for religion in the dark ages. Thankfully society progressed through the enlightenment. Though you're right in one sense: that a philosophical enlightenment could be considered a revolution. But isn't that what we are sort of trying to achieve, even if only on some very small level in this very thread? Every little bit helps. Legitimacy is relative :/. So you don't think its legit, ok. I don't really like it either. Ok. Say it's relative to mere opinion. Would states emerge if there is an inter-subjective consensus that it is not legitimate to initiate coercion in any circumstance? Is slavery legitimate, or do people now understand (even if only merely inter-subjectively and not purely objectively) that slavery is not legitimate? Companies fulfilling the role of government is government. Yes, agreed, but it wouldn't happen which was my point. It's far to expensive without the handrail of presupposed authority. And companies don't get money out of thin air either. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:17 adrenaline.CA wrote: The state has a monopoly on things like the military and the police because there's a public interest for them to do that... Please read the wikipedia article on what a "monopoly" is. A monopolist has the power to price products above what market equilibrium is and thus exploit consumers for money, among other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats". Oh, there's a public interest for that, really? How do you go about proving that? Forcing everyone to pay for it? "You see, I threatened they would go to jail if they didn't pay me for this, and then, everyone paid me! The public is very much interested in this." You're the one who doesn't understand a thing about markets, to say that you can even know what the market equilibrium price for any given product at any given time is. Markets naturally fluctuate, and that may not be perfect for you, but who gives a shit about what you think? The market isn't you, it's millions of people acting voluntarily, and whenever they do exchange, it's because the price was good enough for them. The aggregation (God I hate that word) of everyone's preferences do point to a market equilibrium, but it is no more attainable than looking for an absolute truth of anything, empirically. The market price is a constant research on what value exchange best makes both supplier and consumer happy, most efficiently. There can't be a time where you say "wow, this is THE intersection this time". It's all subjective preference. Those curves on the board? That's just estimatives, predictions, subjective as well. You haven't brain-scanned every individual around the globe to know that's what they're willing to pay for every amount. And even if you did, it would have changed by the time you put it up for show! The list of anti-competitive practices are retarded. The only ones that are relevant are those that necessitate state force to accomplish. Barriers to entry, coercive monopoly, subsidies, regulations, patents, are all aberrations of the state. The rest are non-violent, non-coercive, and are no less anti-competitive than you doing whatever you want with your own property. The very first for example, an apprentice filling a company's job opening could be said to be "dumping" his labor, denying entry level workers from their jobs because the apprentices don't charge anything, but then by the time they're done being apprentices and are then paid, workers will be working somewhere else already and the apprentice got the job. There is nothing wrong for the top business to raise prices, do all sorts of non-coercive shenanigans with other companies, because the consumer isn't entitled to the leader's (I'll call the "monopolist" a leader if you don't mind, because that's what he should be called, if non-coercive) products at the exact price the consumer wants. That's not how the market works. The leader isn't obliged to serve the costumer at their rates, it serves at whatever rates it wants to, and if you don't like it, then get the fuck out. Go to the second best, at which time, he should no longer be second best and the leader now, right? But that's not what usually happens, the leader is leader for a reason, and even if it's something silly like being the first to arrive at an isolated province or fill a niche market with some silly product, it's still a function people are paying for it to do more than anyone else. If people were discontent of the leader's price, then don't fucking buy it. A leader cannot be both undesirable yet the most popular in sales, it logically has to be at least as desirable if not more desirable than the second best, or else it wouldn't be the most popular. I really can't add anything else on the non-issue that monopoly and market competition is. I'd dump links but you probably can search mises yourself. Only this in particular: https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf And http://mises.org/media/1160 which I had posted already, the second one being slightly less relevant but still talks about the industrial revolution quite a bit throughout the series. | ||
|
Yurebis
United States1452 Posts
On August 29 2010 15:23 adrenaline.CA wrote: Sounds like you're appealing to some "unknown futuristic market model" that will be so super duper awesome because the anarcho-capitalism ROCKS!!! Seriously, this paragraph you wrote really sums up the attitude in your posts -- you strawman the government state and try to impose solutions that have little empirical, historical, or philosophical rigour. Instead, you just resort to "anarcho-capitalism" because "government is bad." I don't have to act like an argument has been made when none has. "People will kill each other" is a non-argument in the scope that we were debating, and on grounds that he himself had conceded already. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 mouzHeroMarine StarCraft: Brood War 592uThermal 470SteadfastSC  269BRAT_OK  91UpATreeSC 84ProTech59 IndyStarCraft  53trigger  46goblin 44MindelVK 21Rain Dota 2 2671PianO  99Aegong 62sas.Sziky  60Movie 38Rock 25scan(afreeca)  18zelot 16IntoTheRainbow 7League of Legends Counter-Strike Heroes of the Storm Other Games |
|
OSC
SHIN vs Bunny
Cham vs MaNa
SKillous vs TBD
PAPI vs Jumy
Gerald vs Moja
ArT vs TBD
Replay Cast
The PondCast
RSL Revival
ByuN vs Classic
Clem vs Cham
WardiTV European League
Replay Cast
RSL Revival
herO vs SHIN
Reynor vs Cure
WardiTV European League
FEL
Korean StarCraft League
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
