|
On August 29 2010 23:13 vetinari wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 21:30 dvide wrote:The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription. Do you honestly believe I said that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because IT was a peaceful ancap society? Of course not. I know you don't actually think that's what I said, so come on man. Forcing people to into armies and to forcing people to keep guns is not the only reason that people will have guns. I'm sure most people would keep guns voluntarily in an ancap society. So the same point still applies. Of course not. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because its like invading afghanistan before 9/11. There was nothing there that Hitler wanted (basically, it wasn't on the road to anywhere and had no oil) and the mountains make it a pain in the ass to conquer and hold. I don't think people really appreciate how much of a difference terrain makes to the difficulty of holding a place after the standing army is defeated. I'm just making the point and I believe it to be the correct one, that a "peaceful ancap society" has absolutely no chance against the army of a state (or quasi-state). The state can simply direct resources towards war much, much better than an ancap society and generally, if you will pardon the pun, better resourced armies win. As a result, ancap cannot exist as anything other than a transitory period between one state and another. Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 22:57 Phrujbaz wrote:On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote:
OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages? I did not agree to it. Did you? You did, by not renouncing your citizenship and emigrating when you reached age of majority.
Yeah, but remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The US can invade iraq easily too, but at what cost? It's expropriating additional billions of dollars, and again, Iraq wasn't even ancap, ancaps would be revolting and terrorizing the occupants much more. It would cost much more to maintain the quagmire than ancap would turn into. So the state has to oppress both his own servants and the colony, more than before. It's risky for himself too, I mean, he's fighting resistance twice as much. I think you overestimate the ability of the state to contain constant rebellion, not superfluous rebellion, but of the individualistic kind. Not the "I want my medicare!", but the "Get the fuck out, scum" kind.
Oh yeah, and by the same token, you renounce your wallet to the thug every weekend at that backalley when you don't move out of town? Nope. Coercion is coercion, stop giving excuses ty.
|
On August 30 2010 06:10 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote:On August 29 2010 17:25 Kishkumen wrote:On August 29 2010 17:02 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote:
Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy. Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity? You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin. Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages? There can be such a thing as market law, and there has been such a thing in the past. International trade laws, even from the middle ages. I've explained a bit on page 1 even though I didn't even cover the basics. Read this for an introduction http://mises.org/daily/4147I believe that someone signing some document hundreds of years ago doesn't account for me accepting such system. I didn't sign the constitution, nor did you. The idea that someone could sign for you a document hundreds of years in the past, let alone that they're not even your direct relatives (probably), is laughable. I could sign a document here right now that says you have to give me $100. Is that a "social contract" It's a joke of an excuse. It just goes on because people don't see it for what it is. It won't go on forever.
I think you should stop driving on the roads, using electricity, and using the internet because these are things that you did not "contract" to and a product of government "monopoly".
|
On August 30 2010 05:07 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism. Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
Anarchism is more than simply "no government."
Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism.
As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions.
"Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?"
By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
|
On August 30 2010 06:16 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:07 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism. Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory? Anarchism is more than simply "no government." Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism. As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions. "Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?" By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. I have respect for anarchists because their philosophical arguments are cogent.
Anarcho-capitalists are a bunch of babies that hate government, but think capitalism and big business are acceptable. They like to glorify entrepreneurship and how efficient capitalism is. In reality, both government and business are oppressive forces, and in many places, there is no difference between big business and government -- politicians are frequently bought out by the interests of the private sector.
Anarcho-capitalists like to view business and individualism as a solution to the oppressive government, when really, it ignores how organized "business" itself is a form of oppression. The very concept of a monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour is problematic for them, because they don't have any coherent explanations for it, other than 'monopolies are fine, they must be fine because that is why they are monopolies to begin with' or some other circular logic.
|
On August 30 2010 00:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
I didn't say they won't. I said you don't know that they will. They will tend to buy those services that best satisfy their ends. Not I nor you can tell what the specifics are, without background or context, and without the government in reality allowing such a thing to occur. We'll only know for sure how it works when it's go-time. I'm presenting you ideas on how it could work, but it is not my obligation to predict how it will, nor even that it will "work" in some arbitrary standard. The slave didn't have to show the whitey where would he be working at to be freed. The founding father didn't have to tell everyone how a minarchy would work as opposed to a monarchy. No, the first step is to recognize what now exists is coercion. It doesn't matter what is done next, if you know that what's going on now is absolutely wrong and subpar to what people themselves want to do.
In fact, if I could show to you every single answer, it would be more of an argument in favor of a flavor of statism, as I the ultimate central planner, was able to devise the exact plans in which society can best be ran. The truth of the matter is that I don't, the central planners don't either. The ones who know best is Everyone, free to chase their own ends. And it just so happens that humans are empathetic enough to cooperate without the need of coercion. It is unnecessary at this point; and that's my point.
Yes, I do know they will, because human history has shown people with common interests settle together in EVERY SINGLE TIME WITH EXCEPTION. Can you find a reason why this precedent would stop in ancap?
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
In sum, strawman.
On August 30 2010 00:29 Half wrote: By conflict I don't mean (necessarily) physical confrontation. By conflict I mean that these values are inherently going to be incompatible with each other.
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on?
I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
On August 30 2010 00:29 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Strawman, and again, lack of perspective. Even with different laws, people can still respect each other to the degree that conflict is unnecessary. You have your house and I have mine, as long as you leave me alone, what evil can you do to me? You talk like different people living to each other necessarily makes them incompatible and want to force one another to do things. That's ridiculous, be more specific on the incentives there are for one to do so, and we can actually debate something useful like arbitrage, property contracts, dispute resolutions, etc. All I'm saying is if you have 12 houses on a block, and their are two sets of drastically different governing rules on each, 6 for one and 6 for the other, humans would inherently gravitate towards each side of the block having one rules. On a large scale this leads to the formation of states within an ancap.
Also the lack of perspective again, is not comparing your scenario in a statist world vis-a-vis. What's there stopping people wanting to kill one another in the state? Public Police? Laws? And why do you feel those things don't exist in ancap...?
Thats not what I'm saying at all lol. [quite] Dissidents are marginalized. Okay. What kind of dissidents do you picture in ancap, as opposed to statism? Tax avoiders? well, there are no taxes in ancap, so that's one less. Black marketeers? no such thing in the free market. Drug dealers and users? drugs aren't illegal as much as rat poison isn't. Victimless crime offenders? there is no dispute to settle in a victimless crime, so no crime is committed. Prostitutes and pimps? Consensual sex isn't illegal. So I say, if you're worried about people being picked at by PDAs, I'd say you should be more worried about the people that are unjustly jailed TODAY all over the world. If you wanted to be any consistent that is. If you just want to cling to your believes and arguments from ignorance, then that's fine too, but at least be honest that you have no clue. Except laws DO exist in an Ancap. They're just private. I mean, ok, you can call them "rules" if you want, but they're functionally just private applied sets of laws. And as private property holders organize and make macrostates or microstates, certain common values are going to marginalize people who do not hold them. You seemed to have missed the gist of my argument.
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
On August 30 2010 00:29 Half wrote:
When you put two groups of people with opposing values together...they may not fight...they may not physically conflict. But you can bet that these people will self segregate so they hang with people with similar values. On a large scale, this is what makes communities, and eventually, this is what makes states.
For example.
Your not going to have cities where you have 6 "no Muslim" properties interspersed within 6 "muslim allowed" properties. No, these six properties will be close to each other. Maybe not with no exception, there are always anomalies, but in a city of millions, people with common values will seek to cooperate with each other.
Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government.
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
|
To put it briefly:
Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
|
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 21:32 Phrujbaz wrote:On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote:
because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative:
each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples Market institutions follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. People trying to act in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones, and voluntarily associating with others that are trying to do the same, are usually able to create a decently attractive society. The reason for that has to do with supply and demand, price theory, and all kinds of mechanisms that get people to act efficiently. the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government) in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
So you mean, people are going to be stupid enough to keep funding an organization that's openly raping them in the ass?
And somehow, security is such an specialized service that people can't open a new police force or defend against it themselves?
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote:why anarcho-capitalism does not work Show nested quote +
...
However, I don't think it's true that the government necessarily produces an attractive result. Government institutions, just like market institutions, follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. A government institution might completely waste a part of its budget that it doesn't need, because it worries that if it doesn't spend all of its budget, it won't get as much money next year, when it does need it. This is one of the reasons government spending rarely, if ever, shrinks, and instead increases every year.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
So they can get REELECTED, but that is a subpar incentive, and it only happens every few years.
You can't possibly think theres' a better incentive for a subsidized, COERCIVE MONOPOLY, to work as good as a free market competitor would. They're not competing, they're just working enough to save face, get reelected, and prevent revolution!
PROFITS GOOD
COERCION BAD
I should change my signature to that someday.
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +
There is a bigger problem with democracy. Even if governments were to efficiently act out the preferences expressed by the majority through their votes, people might not vote in their best interest. My friends and colleagues generally do not spend much time and effort deciding their vote. They tend to vote for the most charismatic politician, or vote for the party they have been voting for all their lives. From what I can see, a completely insignificant percentage of people actually makes an in-depth decision weighing pros and cons of voting for various politicians.
You might say that this is not democracy's fault but a fault of the population. I think that's a cop-out. With perfect people, it doesn't matter if we choose anarcho-capitalism, government institutions, or whatever institutions. Perfect people will make perfect choices and we'll have a perfect society.
It is more useful trying to figure out WHY people don't put as much effort into their votes as they do into other decisions. I think it's because people have learned that who you vote for doesn't really matter. If you choose to buy a different house, or a different car, that decision has a lot of effect on your life. If you choose to vote democratic instead of republican, how much really improves for you? You are just one vote out of millions.
that the voter base in many democracies is becoming near-apathetic in regard to politics is in my opinion (and as you point out) due to the fact that their vote counts for so little in the mass of votes.
Well duh. The expected value of a vote is probably something like $10 for voters themselves, if I am allowed to guess. It's valued more for those who drink the democracy coolaid of course, but as in direct, monetary returns, I think $10 is about right.
But it's much more worth it for the Lobbyist, for the interest group, who can get votes like it's no big deal with massive campaigns, millions of dollars in ads, and get that key regulatory legislation passed which will raise bariers of entry by the tens of thousands, and allow him to profit in the long run many times as much as they contributed to the candidate's campaign.
Welp, that probably'll go over your head...
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote:
you see much more involvement from voters in smaller population countries (like my own) while you see disinterest in larger countries (like the US) and this is a known problem I think.
in the states they have tried to solve it by dividing the country into smaller states, the only problem with this is that the purpouse of these states seems to have been denied as the federal government piece by piece has claimed greater and greater power, making the state-elections uninteresting to the voters
(media and press also has blame in this; they hype presidential elections to bolster national identity and patriotism/pride while drawing attention away form the elctions that have most impact on the individual voter)
I think it's an issue that there is such a thing as a vote in the first place. It's a failed idea at emulating market demand, precariously. And they forgot to include price signals too. Fail. Well, it would be sub-par still.
|
On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote:
[bla]
ty
|
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote:On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote:
the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government) In anarcho-capitalism, multiple, competing private private agencies negotiate law amongst themselves. It's unreasonable to think that an agency stealing from its customers (as the Mafia does) would have very many customers: those it had would soon flee to other protection agencies, which would not allow the thieves to continue. The protection agencies will compete on how well they protect you, price, and the deals they have negotiated with other protection agencies. The last one is important because that's effectively the law you live under. if this were true, how do you explain the existance of maffias? obviously the maffia would not conduct itself in a way that short-circuits it's operation, that would be defeating the purpose of forming the crime syndicate in the first place...
Mafias are actually protected by the government. It's a symbiotic relationship, both are coercers, and both profit off other people's proportional losses. The mafia lives in black markets which are disallowed to compete freely in the open market, due to regular legislation. Both the state and the mafia work to crush the efficient entrepreneur, and steer him away of these dangerous business. Prostitution, drugs, gambling, these OUTLAWED practices are the exact businesses mafias THRIVE.
Consider this analogy. There is a street where sidewalk vendors sell stuff at. Imagine that the government owns all street lights, and forbids people from raising their own lamp posts on the street. This is analogous to the law system. The law system serves to illuminate human interaction. However, for a particular street where people sell, say marijuana, the government chose to shut down the lights. Thats right, the vendors are now fucked. People can steal their shit, they can shoot them dead, and customers don't even feel safe going there anymore. But you know who feels safe? The thugs. Which thugs LOL? Well, both thugs, the state and the mafia. Because they have guns, coercion is their business, stealing is their deal. That dark street is now filled only with thugs and reluctant consumers who are willing to pay the increased price and risks of going at such a venue. Mafias sell their shit, and bribe the state to keep the dark barriers of entry up. Symbiotic I say.
Sure, mafias do fight with the government sometimes. But as long as the mafia doesn't get too cocky, and keeps paying it's dues, it's all sunshine and flowers. And as you can see, if only vendors were allowed to shed light into their practices, they'd be less aggressed against, the business wouldn't be so risky, and they'd outperform the mafias with lower prices. The moral sentiment against dangerous drugs is just a pretext to keep this dark business going. YOU HAVE BEEN LIBERATED FROM THE LIIIIES OF THE STATE.
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
That's like saying a baker has it in his best interest for people to be hungry, so he will make bread that doesn't feed people properly. It doesn't work that way in the market for food, and there is no reason to expect things to work that way in the market for protection. Competition will make protection agencies offer high quality protection or make them lose their customers to agencies that do. the difference being the service delivered, a corrupt police that is already in place would obviously not allow another organization to form and compete with them, this applies to the first point aswell; you can't have matters of security and healthcare be solved by the free market principles because if there is ever an imbalance there is no mechanism to self-correct the market.
So you mean the thugs wouldn't allow people not to pay them? Coercion comes at a cost to themselves. They can't keep busting down doors and stealing people's wallets. They're just one group. The rest of the population can and will eventually organize to take it down, AS LONG AS IT'S SEEN AS ILLEGITIMATE. The government does what you fear already - it steals from the population and keeps competition out, literally. But they can keep going because only a few percentage of the population, perhaps even less than there are government employees, see it as illegitimate.
Coercion comes at a price and risk for the coercer! You can't 6 pool people forever.
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote: the only reason this model works in respect to security firms today is because there are governmental bodies keeping track of them to make sure they behave, in short there is always a more powerful entity that can beat them down if they misbehave that is under the will of the representatives of the people.
Nope, if they misbehaved, even without cops, they'd be sued against, they'd lose popularity, then clientele, then profits. If there's one thing about capitalism, is that to profit, you have to serve customer demand best, and people don't pay body guards to aggress, they pay guards to defend. If a guard wastes a single bullet on something he wasn't paid to do, that's one bullet out of his pocket. That's one bullet that can risk retaliation against him, and infer more costs. That's one bullet that will hurt his reputation. Etc. Try to think a bit more like an entrepreneur when you criticize the market pretty please.
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate
imagine an electorial debate where one side says
"well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected"
the example is ridiculous but you get my drift
it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it. well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
Republicans are dirty lying rats. There is no consistency in government, there can't be, because there is no consistency in the base premise of "I will steal from you to give back what you want".
If you're giving me back what I want, then you don't need to steal from me. I can pay you, like any other normal transaction. But no, with coercion, there is no obligation. Politicians can break promises and not be sued, lol. They won't get reelected, *maybe*, but then so what? By the time he's out he's probably done some sweet deals with lobbyists enough to make up for it. In fact, that's the only market price he responds to - the price lobbyists are willing to pay, how much he needs for a campaign, how much can subsidies or monopolist market inteventions he can legislate for the lobbyists, etc. Thinking about the people? Not as much.
|
On August 30 2010 05:58 adrenaline.CA wrote:
It's those capitalists that you love in the name of your bullshit Austrian "theory" pseudoscience with things like "praxeology".
Go back to George Mason University you troll. Mmh, since mainstream economists failed pretty miserably to prevent the last few economic crises ( most of them didnt even see them coming ) and the austrians on the other hand did exceptionally well predicting it I would prefer to give this "pseudoscience" a chance.
|
On August 30 2010 05:22 Mindcrime wrote:
If the state were to wither away, what would you propose be done about existing unjust ownership? i.e. the kind of ownership the that comes about through partnering or colluding with the state?
Auctioned off, money distributed to the taxpayers who funded it. Can't be done perfectly, as the original taxpayers may have moved, died, etc. but it can be done to the extent that no one's unhappy or objecting.
On August 30 2010 05:22 Mindcrime wrote:
Does Lockheed Martin just get to keep the massive amounts of wealth accumulated at the expense of others through cooperation with governments?
Good question. Really good question. I don't know what to do about private companies that profited heavily off the state. A private entity who buys off stolen material is obliged to return the material as soon as possible, as it would be no better than stealing himself, but it's exempt from retribution if it did not know the material was stolen. It still has to restitute though.
The problem with restitution is that the figures of how much money the company owns are hard to get, but if they're available and all, yeah I think I would support demanding from them the money back after it's been shown in court and publically agreed on, physically if needs be (I'm not as pacifistic as other ancaps but that's how I feel).
On retribution... it's very much debatable.. I really don't know if you can retaliate on a government contractor, anymore than you could a former government employee. I think people would just forgive and forget most occasions, but if it's something like blackwater and shit, then yeah, I think it would be forcibly shut down, dissolved, dividends paid to whoever has a non-coercive claim over it (taxpayers again I would think)
|
On August 30 2010 05:58 adrenaline.CA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:51 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 19:51 Fireflies wrote:On August 29 2010 18:57 dvide wrote:History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose? People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics? I don't know what's up in those cases. I will investigate with my leet google and mises searching skills. But a few questions arise. 1-Who owns the diamond mines, 2- who owns the ivory coast, 3- who owns the 'people working in the foxconn fact.' and do you mean they suicided or "got suicided"? In the former, what's wrong with that, in the latter, wow what really? I'm using a foxconn motherboard right now, so cheap LOL Hint: it's not the government that owns Foxconn or blood diamonds It's those capitalists that you love in the name of your bullshit Austrian "theory" pseudoscience with things like "praxeology". Go back to George Mason University you troll. EDIT: For anyone who wants to see why Austrian economics will never work, here is someone that could explain it better than I ever can: http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htmI love how Yurebis finds nothing wrong with buying things like blood diamonds. I hope in your next life that you're born into a poor Sub-Saharan African family that's starving and continue talking about "bootstraps."
I didn't say I found nothing wrong, I'm haven't even started studying the case because I've been answering previous posts until now. When I get to the end (I think I'm there already), I'll see what I think and answer.
Obviously there can be a private coercive agency, but it's just that usually, they're supported by the government. I don't know this specific case yet so please wait for my verdict.
Also I'll read that critique asap.
On August 30 2010 06:12 Jameser wrote:
wow yurebis, 9 posts back-to-back in the same thread
nice... ^^
Yes. I have nothing better to do.
|
On August 30 2010 06:12 adrenaline.CA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 06:06 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 22:35 makopluxx wrote:
OP's point about cops being men and therefore as likely to be violent are flawed. Police officers are motivated by salaries which are paid by governing bodies. You can't simply discount violence. That's absurd. I didn't say they're likely. I didn't even say they are more likely (even though I could say it, np), I said that whatever argument that is made against man in general, is just as applicable to men in the state. So human nature is violent -> therefore we can't have ancap, applies just as equally to human nature is violent -> therefore we can't give absolute power to a few men Ancap solves the "who watches the watchmen" by giving everyone an equal opportunity of solving that issue to the best of their ability. If the current watchmen can't be trusted, they can be replaced immediately, or a third party hired immediately, as opposed to depending on a central planner to solve those issues. He cannot - solve as better as thousands of others. And even if he could, I believe he should be contracted voluntarily, not coerce everyone into giving him money. If he's really good, then he'll be voluntarily and mutually accepted. Meh I went a bit too far to answer such a short objection. And who watches the watchers of the watchmen? And the watchers of those ad infinitum? (this is a central problem of anarcho-capitalism) It becomes so inefficient to police that government arises simply from the utility of public goods -- this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan. He assumes methodological individualism but concludes that its in mutual self-interest to create government, because the alternative -- anarchy -- is not optimal behaviour, and economically costly.
Well and if you know anything about austrian economics, is that you can't know what the market optimum is when you coerce. So, you can't prove that I wanted to die by shooting me. You can't prove that your plan is the best one by forcing upon me. That's not methodological individualism at all. If it were, he'd respect each assembling individual's preferences, not establish some outer criteria to which judge efficiency from.
Also, the "who watches the watchmen" is a question for every single individual to think about. It's about thinking how can a system can be most efficient. It's a process everyone is able to think about, and if enough people agree on, then things can optimally be done. Even if they don't agree, then it's optimal that they're not done. Forcing upon people the number of watchers is stepping over everyone's evaluations but yours, the central planner.
In the end, it's not an answerable question, as much as "how should one live one's life" is.
|
On August 30 2010 05:32 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 18:35 Kishkumen wrote:On August 29 2010 18:21 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 17:25 Kishkumen wrote:On August 29 2010 17:02 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote:
Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy. Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity? You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin. - Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea. Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise. Evidence that government contributes to market inefficiency does not mean that it is worse than a purely free market. Sure, the government creates its fair share of market inefficiencies. The point is that the government can fix all of those problems I listed much more efficiently and easily than the free market can. If the free market is so perfect, why were things like collusion and externalities a much bigger problem during the gilded age when there were far less laws regulating business? Why were workers essentially enslaved to their employers? Do you really think that the market back then was so much more efficient without all the regulation we have now preventing these problems? Certainly not, and as I said, I'm no empiricist, because deeply into empiricism, lies a-priori motives to reject or accept the theories anyway. That is why I prefer talking a-priori. If there's any agreement with a set of premises, something can always be built. The problem is with the people that have absurd premises like "man is stupid so it needs another man to rule it", or "man has incomplete knowledge so it needs another man with even more incomplete knowledge to rule it". I mean... such failure... at least argue something that makes sense. I'd prefer an appeal to tradition anytime TBH. Or empiricist claims... The government can't fix your problems without creating more, because for anything the government does, it is already being paid for by coercive measures. It's not a solution. It's like saying, "I can make your pain go away by killing you", or "I can make your sadness go away by giving you this pill that inhibits all emotions". There's always more externalities when the government interrupts a natural process. It's always better if you don't shoot people. I hope you don't disagree. I've addressed collusion repeatedly, and externalities too. Guilded age...? Lol, I wikipedia'd it and it says " n American history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States" LOL empiricist fail? Workers can't logically be said to be enslaved if they chose to work for the employer he chose; it means he values that work better than any other work available to him at the time. Not something bad at all. Catallactics please. The market back them was as efficient as people could manage it to be. I'm sure of that. You ask if it's more efficient than it could have been if the magical all-knowing central planner had even better ideas and forced people into complying for their own good? Well, I don't believe in miracles, so no.
See, this is the entire problem with your position. You say you're not an empiricist, and so there's no way that I can argue that your perfect world isn't perfect. If you set all the terms for how people will act in your perfect world, I really can't argue with that. All I can argue with is what I can observe will likely happen if you try to implement your perfect world.
It's also such a stupid tactic to blame all problems on the government. Since no anarcho-capitalist economies currently exist (thankfully) there's nothing to compare it to. So whenever I bring up a problem with a market system, you can blame it on the government. It's just a cheap cop out for actually addressing any of these actual problems with a free market.
I don't think you have a good understanding of what is meant by a government fixing externalities. If a large company is poisoning a small town with pollution, the government can easily correct this externality by limiting the pollution. Now, the market is balanced, with all effects of a transaction being accounted for, including externalities. The free market does not correct easily for externalities, if it did, we would not have problems with things like pollution or systemic risk. This is basic economics.
Your understanding of the gilded age is incredibly flawed. While it was a time of extreme economic growth, much of the lower class were effectively enslaved by their employers. That's part of the reason why the economy grew so fast. It's a lot easier to turn a profit if you don't have to pay a fair wage to your workers. You can read more about the system they used to effectively enslave their workers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
|
On August 30 2010 06:16 adrenaline.CA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 06:10 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote:On August 29 2010 17:25 Kishkumen wrote:On August 29 2010 17:02 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote:
Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy. Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity? You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin. Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages? There can be such a thing as market law, and there has been such a thing in the past. International trade laws, even from the middle ages. I've explained a bit on page 1 even though I didn't even cover the basics. Read this for an introduction http://mises.org/daily/4147I believe that someone signing some document hundreds of years ago doesn't account for me accepting such system. I didn't sign the constitution, nor did you. The idea that someone could sign for you a document hundreds of years in the past, let alone that they're not even your direct relatives (probably), is laughable. I could sign a document here right now that says you have to give me $100. Is that a "social contract" It's a joke of an excuse. It just goes on because people don't see it for what it is. It won't go on forever. I think you should stop driving on the roads, using electricity, and using the internet because these are things that you did not "contract" to and a product of government "monopoly".
I would, if there were alternatives.
I'm a bit of an egoist I admit. I see ancap merely as the best means that society could be organized at, to best maximize my satisfaction, and as a bonus, everyone else's too, to the extent it doesn't minimize anyone's else.
|
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote:
To put it briefly:
Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
Y'know, after reading these types of statements I really do understand why Marxism failed. You say things are going to be said briefly and they end up being extremely congested, incoherent and just plain out wrong. No wonder communists have to use violence to force their opinions on others; there's no way in hell any layman is going to understand what you're trying to say.
|
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote:
There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it. well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
![[image loading]](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/art/fig07.jpg)
2009? 53%
|
On August 30 2010 06:16 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 05:07 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism. Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory? Anarchism is more than simply "no government." Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism. As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions. "Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?" By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
No, it's not against hierarchy at all. There's nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchy, and it naturally happens no matter the interaction. When I speak, you know it's time to hear, and you voluntarily become a listener. Then when I finish speaking, I let you rise in the hierarchy of speaker.
The problem are rulers; imposed hierarchies, where the statesmen can steal, kill, and enslave to the extent that it doesn't provoke a revolution; while the citizens can't do any of that.
One could argue that private property establishes an imposed hierarchy, yeah, and I agree. I completely understand that point. But I can make a much, much better case as to why that's desirable to the communist, than the statist can make he case that his state is desirable to me.
The difference between property and possession is use. Property concerns with the creator, possession concerns with the user. There's theories of control to either side. And I don't feel that anarcho-capitalism is necessarily the most "proprietary" of them all. I think there's still a lot of leeway in ancap to counter absolute property, because the functions of the market law are still based on "popularism", as I heard statists say, and they're kind of right. If everyone agrees to a court's ruling that a factory owner has killed babies and I don't know, "exploited" the workers, I think the case can be made that his property should be sold out and he incarcerated out of society. You can still do statist stuff, just that it would be less frequent and it would require more public support. As well as being compatible with the spontaneous code of law.
Annd more specifically addressing your factory issue, the case of the factory owner not contributing to production is a fallacious one. He already has contributed to production by making the factory exist in the first place. If he had done nothing, and you were able to produce those products out of thin air, then you could do it yourself. Start your own labor group. Make it as syndicalist as you want. The issue here is of course, that the communist simply doesn't recognize the work that the entrepreneur has done. It starts down low the structure of production, at the last stop in the assembly line and says "hey, I'm the one painting the car, these other guys behind me aren't doing shit! Proletariat, unite!". It's ridiculous. Either the factory owner hasn't done anything, in which case it requires the workers nothing to start their own business, or he has in fact done something, like, I don't know, creating the business model? raised financing and attracted investors? Managed the capital structure and accounting? Marketing, research and development? Contacting and negotiating deals to get the best prices? There is so, so much work that is required to start a business, and communists just say "pfff, fuck that, we do everything." No you don't.
And if you do go ahead and take over that factory you know what happens? Congrats, you just blew the fabric of private property, and denied any potential entrepreneur the opportunity of making a new factory; to enter the market and compete, to inovate and profit, yes, profit, because profit is a good thing if you were to understand what it is. But you don't. You fucked up. No more factories will be built when no factories can be kept.
|
On August 30 2010 06:22 adrenaline.CA wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 06:16 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:On August 30 2010 05:07 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism. Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory? Anarchism is more than simply "no government." Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism. As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions. "Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?" By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism. Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. I have respect for anarchists because their philosophical arguments are cogent. Anarcho-capitalists are a bunch of babies that hate government, but think capitalism and big business are acceptable. They like to glorify entrepreneurship and how efficient capitalism is. In reality, both government and business are oppressive forces, and in many places, there is no difference between big business and government -- politicians are frequently bought out by the interests of the private sector. Anarcho-capitalists like to view business and individualism as a solution to the oppressive government, when really, it ignores how organized "business" itself is a form of oppression. The very concept of a monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour is problematic for them, because they don't have any coherent explanations for it, other than 'monopolies are fine, they must be fine because that is why they are monopolies to begin with' or some other circular logic.
Oh you were a communist all along and I didn't know... damn. Sorry to hear that
Read my last post if you want. Anti-competitive behavior isn't a problem if it's not coercive, as much as it isn't a problem if you want to monopolize your house, your bed, your personal belongings. You can't both hate monopoly and be a monopolist of your own stuff. You're the one being contradictory. Everything that has been cited in here would be an easy case for a market court to raise a verdict. I'm even getting bored having to repeat myself.
There is a difference between big business and government that you still don't understand. One is coercive. Steals, kills, enslaves. The other is voluntary. It has raised capital voluntarily, assembled voluntarily, and is efficient exactly because everyone at every steps agree to work with it. The state, not so much
|
lol you labelled me a communist, lol
i dont think you know what communism is
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
