Anarcho-capitalism, why can't it work? - Page 20

figq

12519 Posts

August 30 2010 06:30 GMT

#381

On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.

I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good?

keynest

United States57 Posts

August 30 2010 06:35 GMT

#382

It seems most of views are based on scholars who are from Ludwig von Mises Institute. Therefore, I suggest you tryhttp://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm this essay.

Anarcho-capitalism recommanded by Austrian School is an interesting idea, but is built on researches and essays with shaky scientific vigor or fragile evidence to back up.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 06:52 GMT

#383

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.

Then there's no issue.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.

Tell me how can there be an unfair business practice that is not coercive.
And by coercive, I mean that it crosses the bounds of another's private property without their authorization.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.

Exploitation as you defined it is irrelevant. Nature is exploiting me because food doesn't fall from the sky. Physics is exploiting me because I can't fly. There are no violations in your inability to do anything, it's just your current economical state of being, your current choices. You're not forced to work, you can choose to die too, yo. Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice. Coercion is exactly threatening to inflict upon you death, or another very low-priority choice, if you don't choose to do what the coercer wants.

But the current state of choices you have, and how deplorable they are, is no one's fault but yours. If you are going to die of hunger, your fault. If you are going to die of hunger, and another human being is in front of you yet chooses not to give you food, it's still your own damn fault. No one is obliged to give you anything.

It's a complete misnomer to call the inaction of others as POWER over you. God. Bill Gates has power over you by choosing not to give you a billion dollars? That's not what power means, what the fuck. Power means control. Bill Gates has no control over you. For him to do anything against you, you have to interact with him first. And if he does do something to you, then it's coercion, duh. And at that point he does have power over you, because he's exerting control over you - but it's called coercion, because it's considered overstepping your rights.

Please use definitions more closely to their popular meaning. (lol who am I to say that lol)

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.

You hold power my friend. You hold power aka control over your possessions. Should you be kept in check so that you don't EXPLOIT A BUM IN THE STREET for not letting him sleep over? Jesus. Your checks and balances are completely arbitrary. There's always going to be a hierarchy somewhere. Again, an example that I gave, is, when I talk, you shut up. That happens naturally. And then I give you voluntarily the command by letting you talk when I finish. SHOULD THAT TREACHEROUS CHAIN OF COMMAND BE REGULATED BECAUSE YOU CANT TRUST THAT I WILL LET YOU TALK? And then what? You have a hierarchy over a hierarchy. And then a hierarchy is needed to be on top of the second one. And on, and on, and on.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes?
The question is a long one, and can't be answered completely, it can only be approximated to the optimal structure. And the optimal structure may be any series of complicated hierarchies and separations of powers. But the best way to approach it is by going for the least common denominator. Let each and every individual voluntarily assemble, and they will figure out what works best for everyone to the degree that everyone cares. Any other coercive solution, will twist the structure further away from the optimal structure, because you're denying people the ability to chose, because you as a central planner can't know what's up better than the sum of everyone else. Because you lack the market incentives, price mechanisms... oh fuck it.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely.

WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU A CAPITALIST? YOU GO THROUGH ALL THIS COMMUNIST BULLSHIT AND THEN AGREES WITH ME? WHAT?

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?

They most likely won't, but they'll ask that you give something back. If not money, labor. Something. at which point, THEYRE USING THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL AND THEYRE BEING GREEDY CAPITALISTS FUCK THE BOURGEOIS PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD UNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?

Yes, most cost-efficient tbh.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?

That's their choice, not mine. If the best business turn out to be those that do what you say, then they'll be more popular, and will profit more, and others will soon copy them.
Voluntarily, you see how it works now?

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical?

Investors, stock holders.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners?

To the degree that capital is invested in them, we can assume that the aggregation of every stockholders and investors watching the business closely are very prudent, yeah.
Much more than any single central planner can wave a pen and put some jackals of some agency on them yeah. Most most most definitely. And as soon as you understand that, the sooner will my fingers stop hurting.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).

Not the same type of power, and then, even if they do become corrupt over the power that they exert OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY, they're going to fuck up their own business.

Government has total power OVER EVERYONES PROPERTY. That my friend, is absolute power.

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
So the government takes role of being a watch dog over the corporate state.

More like RABID DOG AMIRITE

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.

No, it's not. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calculation_problem

On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
The results are as such:
1. People need a means for survive.

You don't know which means. You cannot know, unless people are free to choose what they want or need. Everything else is second best. Last best. Worst best. Worst. Everything else is the woooorst. Central planning fails, at the very first premise...

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors

You can't make such distinction. Tell me, is a worker who retains stock share of the company he works in a worker or an entrepreneur? OH MY GOD HES BOTH

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) Skill set of any given person
B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources).
C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc).

This is kind of irrelevant.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation.

You don't know that all of them need workers. There is such a thing as one-man-businesses. And he can use contractors, third party employees, nothing quite fixed as their own. But okay.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power"

I don't mind such illustration, only noting that the workers VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED the entrepreneurs to ride on their backs, because it was THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. If it wasn't...

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position.

Uh.. companies work to become more efficient? Okay.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy.

The worker has to earn his pay. So?

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc)

They're in power to do what they want with the capital that is properly theirs. I thought you conceded that already. What is wrong with exerting power over your own property, your own house, your own body? Jesus.
And LoL@greed.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder.

Not really, people choose to elect officials for a variety of dumb reasons. But I assume you just want to focus on that oversight aspect. Welp, I think you forgot to consider the constitutional republic of the US at least specifically doesn't oversees just for overseeing, the purpose of it was to withhold individual rights, property, etc. etc. Not overseeing people to make sure they're angels. It's to make sure they don't overstep other people's boundaries. (and they do so by taxing everyone but yeah)

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position.
B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier
C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level.

This is competely wrong as I said above. The scope outside of government, besides the separation of powers stuff, is to protect both individual liberty and private property, mainly by the part of the judiciary. Not to impose your flavor of ethics, which is arbitrary as hell.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.

That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has. Actually, even if you added every corporate property and pretended they were all under a secret cabal of capitalist interest (LOL I BELIEVE THAT TOO), it STILL doesn't come close to the power of the state. Probably not even 1% still.

You don't seem to understand. Corporations come and go. As quickly as they've been raised, they can fall as fast. Sure there are hundreds of notable corporations today, but think how much time it's needed to amount what they have? It's a matter of less than a century on average. Governments last more than a century, and they own much much more. In one century, many corporations may have solved, merged, remade. But most states will still be there. Because they're like the plague, these fuckers.

Also, why do you give a fuck about a corporation's finance? And why do you think it's a good thing that the government can knock down any door, read any book? I think that's awful. If they can do it to the corporation, they can do it to you to, duh. How's that good? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The extent that one will go, to justify the state... it's scary. Scarier than Christians saying that God watches me masturbate and will send me to hell. Okay no one actually told me that. I'm getting sleepy already.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.

What the fuck.
Libertarian Socialist?
They're polar opposites. You both respect private property but doesn't respect private property?
Arbitrary and inconsistent much?

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:

Show nested quote +

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.

Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.

They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.

You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.

The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.

You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.

Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.

I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.

The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.

Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.

Are you implying that because I have the demand to eat, the bakery across the street only exists because OF ME? WHAT? AND THEREFORE, THEYRE EXPLOITING ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?

I have the desire to fly, therefore planes were made, therefore I am entitled to those planes?
I have the desire to x, x is made, therefore x is mine?
Stop. Please. Seriously. Stop and think what you're saying, and what are the implications of your moral theory. Making shit up is fine and all, but this is garbage. If I come up with a theory that comes to the conclusion it's fine to rape-murder-genocide, I know there's got to be something wrong with it.

You don't own, nor are entitled, in any shape way or form, to stuff that other people made themselves. It doesn't matter if you asked them to. It doesn't even matter if you gave them the idea (keyword, gave). They're not obligated to give you shit, if you didn't help make it, or if they're not contractually bound to.

To say that you can claim that you deserve to use shit just because you have, had, or will have a demand for it, is completely inane. Anyone could claim entitlement for anything. What will that do? It doesn't settle any disputes, it doesn't stop conflicts over resources, nor capital. What the fuck? I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out. Sorry. But I am.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.

Oh, so I don't have power over myself, because I don't have power over a jacuzzi, a BMW, and the playboy mansion with all the chicks included? OH, these aren't necessary for life you say? SAYS WHO? I NEED THOSE THINGS TO LIVE. If you go past food, it's already arbitrary bro. It's your own value judgments on what you think people should be entitled to rob others for.

I Am a slave to HUNGER, as I am a slave to physics, nature, biology... again, meaningless distinctions and definitions. Perverting the word power? Check. Perverting the word slavery? check. Perverting the world exploitation? check. What's next, property? "Property is whatever the fuck you can grab" LOL. I'm sorry, I need to laugh a bit.

On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:
You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.

Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not. And once you feel it's justified to steal one single thing from someone else - you're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You're a hypocrite because you, yourself, feels that you're entitled to what you produce and buy, yet others, are only entitled to theirs as long as you let them. That's bullshit.

If you stole that cure and used it, you'd be required to restitute the doctor or face consequences. I really wouldn't give a shit to defend you. If it wasn't for the doctor, you'd be dead anyways. You own him your life. I personally would be very glad to pay him whatever he wanted, to the extent I could pay it. Finance it, ask help from charities, open a fund yourself, make loans, there are SO MANY DAMN THINGS you can do before you say "I deserve to live and I will step over anyone to do so". Be a man, quit playing the victim game. Thanks.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 06:52 GMT

#384

On August 30 2010 13:41 geometryb wrote:
i still dont see any real difference between a business and a government in anarcho-capitalism, which makes this entire discussion pointless.

Can a business tax you?

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 06:59 GMT

#385

On August 30 2010 13:49 Drowsy wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.

Sorry, my definition of rationality is not the conventional one (did I even use it in this thread? idk).
If you want to go over what I think of human rationality go read my old thread. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=133085

But for the scope of this thread, human nature isn't that relevant, and I said no such assumption is needed. The structure itself should only has to be better than statism, to be deemed workable. That human is not always rational, is a debatable question, but even if it were the case that humans are retarded and choose to go to the right when they wanted to go left (wat), there's nothing stopping these types of men in getting elected or being cabinet members. You have to argue vis-a-vis...

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 07:07 GMT

#386

On August 30 2010 13:57 geometryb wrote:

Show nested quote +

for the first thing,
government - direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants. That sure sounds like what a business does.

Except that government does it coercively and doesn't follow market demand. Voter demand if anything, but it's sub-par to the market. Socialized Law. Lol never thought about it that way. Socialized Law : As bad as socialized education, healthcare...

On August 30 2010 13:57 geometryb wrote:
for the second thing you said,
you dont have to pay taxes, but you're obligated to follow the direction if you want to belong in the business/tribe/community. maybe when the community starts creating currency, then you would have to pay taxes.

businesses can financially/economically plan. they can issue their own currency if they wanted to. make their own bonds. you even mention private banks coming up with their own currencies.

The key is that there are no positive obligation. Sure, if you didn't interact much with the society, in turn no one would give you anything. But that's not bad at all. You pay only for the services you want, and you gain exactly that which you were paid, instead of, you pay for a multitude of services that you may not even know of, and you gain only that which I allow you to keep.

The state, owner of all land, requires of its citizens positive obligations towards it. There wouldn't be any positive obligation in ancap, besides not being a direct menace to your neighbors perhaps. Serial killers, yeah, poor guys, they'd be oppressed against (after they've oppressed other of course...poor poor fellas). But it's still better than serial killers+tax avoiders+drug dealers+drug users+whores and pimps+people who bang hoe's+victimless crime offenders+the list goes on.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 07:12 GMT

#387

On August 30 2010 13:59 keynest wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.

This is another good point. Despite the biggest financial crisis, people seem to forget that humans are still far from Homo Economicus.

Therefore, we need Homo Retardus to guide us?
The free market isn't perfect to the extent that it doesn't provide people with everything they could ever wish for (like superpowers, infinite food, flying cars, lightsabers - not yet anyway).
But it is the lowest common denominator, because it best uses everyone's intelligences, and doesn't rely on any central authority to magically both: determine demand, and meet supply. They can't do it, they will never ever be able to do it, it's as much as a physical impossibility as Idra being in the GSL and the MLG Raleigh at the same time and win both tournaments. Heck, every single tournament, at the same time. No one can do it. It's too much for a single human mind, for even a thousand minds. Ten thousand minds. One hundred thousand minds... well maybe if they're all geniuses. Okay, no, not even then tbh.

Matrijs

United States147 Posts

August 30 2010 07:16 GMT

#388

On August 30 2010 14:03 Yurebis wrote:

Show nested quote +

-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.

Let's say I'm a manufacturer of various industrial chemicals. I dump my untreated runoff directly into the river, because that's the cheapest way to get rid of it. The river gets severely polluted, which causes all kinds of issues downstream, including problems for the fishing and tourism sectors. Without a state to prevent me from doing this (or to force me to pay for the cleanup), I can make a profit for myself and push my costs onto others, and no one can stop me.

Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL

You don't understand the problem. Suppose we live in a community on the coast. It would be to all of our benefit to have a lighthouse to help direct shipping traffic into our harbor at night. But you can't target the benefits of a lighthouse the way you can other products - once it's built, any ships can use it and any merchants in town receive the benefits. So who's going to pay for it? Not me - I'll wait for someone else to pay and reap the benefits. Hence, the free rider problem - nobody does the project at all. Everybody sits around waiting for somebody else to do it. The state solves this problem by taxing everyone and doing the project, forcing buy-in and spreading the cost equitably.

I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street..

There is no one down the street, it's a monopoly.

You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street.

There is no one down the street, it's a monopoly. Is this really so hard to grasp?

You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice.

Or, like food, water, shelter, medical treatment, etc., etc., you need it to live and don't have a choice.

If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist.

Not true. Often monopolies exist in fields with very little innovation. A classic example is Standard Oil in the United States. Do you think they invented oil, or the methods of acquiring, refining, and distributing it? No. They acquired a sufficient market share to be able to wage regional price wars against prospective competitors and thus drive them out of business. And then, of course, once you're the only player, you can charge whatever you want.

Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.

Certainly not, but it's not really an issue of property rights, is it? It's an issue of efficiency. Monopolies lead to inefficient markets - they're bad for everyone except the monopolist. And even then, the more monopolies in different markets there are, the worse off each individual monopolist is.

It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.

Can't work, it's a 2-year-old. The whole point is that the child is helpless - that's what makes this a difficult problem. I'm not talking about child labor, I'm talking about the willingness to deny people the means of survival when they lack it through no fault of their own. So, again - if a child, no, an infant, has no means of support, is it ethical to let it starve when the required resources are readily available and plentiful?

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 07:16 GMT

#389

On August 30 2010 14:20 keynest wrote:
+ Show Spoiler +

On August 30 2010 14:03 Yurebis wrote:

Show nested quote +

-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.

Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL

I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.

If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.

It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.

Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.

See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.

Hmmm, I don't know about you but I really want that big stupid externality badly. One of them is called national security. Do you have any bright idea on how to prevent free-rider problem that will be more cost efficient than the current system for national security?

I really hope you don't suggest me to arm myself with F-22.
.
.
.
That shit is expensive.

No, of course you yourself can't, but that's what funds, investment firms, and stock markets are for. CAPITALISTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!

If the market demand for a national army doesn't allow anyone to afford F-22's, then no F-22's should be made.
But market demand can change. I'm sure that if ancapland were to be threatened by a foreign state, such demand would rise, then militias and weaponry can be made on-demand.
Or just make a nuke. Much cheaper.

The free rider problem is mainly a problem of public utility. It's the governments incapability of entrepreneurial activity and screwing up supply. Classic.

Tuneful

United States327 Posts

August 30 2010 07:17 GMT

#390

...

Tuneful

United States327 Posts

August 30 2010 07:19 GMT

#391

On August 30 2010 14:03 Yurebis wrote:

Show nested quote +

There are no other choices in monopsony, and sometimes in monopoly as well, (e.g, monopoly is so large and has an effective monopsony within your ability to travel to a job). With a monopoly, the choices of one firm vastly affect your ability to make transactions. As regards "voluntary" work, it's as "voluntary" as choosing not to feed yourself, especially when the monopsonist is the only supplier of jobs. Denying that there are "hostage customers" defies logic. Speaking of emotional appeals, haven't you just stated, and quite loudly, that "bureaucrats are dumb, private interests always know better," without a shred of evidence? Private enterprise can certainly restrict one's quality of life and choices quite effectively with no interference from your boogie-man style "ivory tower bureaucrat." I'd also like to note that in the real world, many of the same business leaders who posit themselves as "market fundamentalists" are generally the same ones who can buy themselves economic protection through lobbying in ways that are far more vast and sweeping than any union could hope to acquire.

Without going into it too much further, it seems that "Acap" is a rather utopian idea, where all participants are rational agents who act perfectly in the interests of their clients and the world obeys the market's "natural" laws.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 07:46 GMT

#392

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:

Show nested quote +

Have you seen them proclaiming "ownership"? They hit the other kid and take whatever they decide is "mine."

Okay, well maybe it's not all there, but still there is a little bit of it, and boundaries can be established as people figure out what's the best compromise they find. (hint hint capitalism)
I do believe that law is an art. Forgive me for implying there are natural rights, if you even know what I mean.
..but the most trivial things are empirically "proven" to be genetic, repulsion to killing your own species at least.

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote: When a government breaks down, one of the first things that break out is theft. Have you seen Louisiana after the hurricane? Enforcement is essential for an ownership system to exist.

Well, there wasn't enough time for people to establish their own private defenses in less than a month, was there?
So obviously, if the state is supplying everyone with bread, then they shut down, a lot of people are going to die. Does that mean they wouldn't be able to feed themselves otherwise? Absolutely not.

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:

Show nested quote +

If there is an efficient way to privatize air, I am all ears.

I don't know. Can you think how that would become a problem? And if it becomes a problem between two parties (for there to be a problem, there has to be at least one plaintiff and a defendant... no such thing as victimless crimes in ancap), can you think why they wouldn't be able to talk it over? (and not jump for the gun?.... and kill all humanity?)

"A-ha! Now we can't have ancap because the government has to own the air.... so we can... breathe... yeah!"

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:
Really? you are gonna sue the people who pollute the river? who is going to maintain the neutral court system and set up the law that the court will be based on. What entity will pay the judge, security personnels, and clerks?

Uh, I've explained it a bunch of times already...
http://mises.org/daily/4147

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:

Show nested quote +

Not everything can be worked out by the market. It sometimes fails. I don't know how put so much blind faith into the market.

Give me a scenario, and I'll try to answer.

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:

Show nested quote +

Wow, you are now just proving you are debating for the sake of debating. London was not owned by the government. Most of its land was private property, but shit happened. Private businesses did not regulate themselves because cost was too great for a single business to have a cleaner facility but the benefit would be dispersed to the entire city--An externality problem. and the air pollution killed thousands of people.

You mean, businesses soiled themselves and couldn't clean up? And government bravely came to the rescue with diapers? What the fuck?

Businesses deteriorated their own property, meaning, lowered the value of their own establishment, so hard that, that they needed the government to:
1- steal from them
2- pay themselves (the state) the bureaucracy overhead
3- pay cleaning companies
4- everyone's happy?
Why didn't business simply pay the company directly if it was so bad?

What this smells like, is that either 1- you're misinformed and the streets were not privately owned, or 2- the streets were dirty, not to the extent that anyone cared, but the government forced them to pay for cleanup because *they* thought it was too dirty.

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:
The pollution was problem and had to be dealt with one way or the other. Regulation, though not most efficient, was one way to go about it, and it worked. Air pollution killed 4000 people even in 1952 London, for nearly 2 centuries, the market failed, and finally the government had to step in with a regulation.

Out of those 4000 people, none of them could sue? Perhaps it's the government courts to blame then?
BLAME GAME BLAME GAME
BLAME GAME BLAME GAME
You can blame the market, I can blame the state
Neither of us can prove shit, but we can play all day! YAY

On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote:
All I gotta say is that Capitalism and the market cannot solve everything. When they do fail, you cannot turn blind eyes. Even if the solution might not be efficient, sometimes you gotta step in.

When someone fails, you got to explain who failed. Market is an agglomerate of human interaction. So whenever someone fails in it, by your own arbitrary standards, you're entitled to say we should coerce everyone to do x? Why? If people died, obviously there's a case of invasion of property there. I don't vouch for that, and I don't think people in England did either. A man or group killed 4000 people, okay. He or they went uncharged for a hundred years. How? And why was the state the only one who noticed, and could do anything about it?

If it's demonstrable in court that some firm killed 4000 people, sure sure sure as hell, they would not get away with it, not even for a week. Courts would be up to the job because they'd be listening so many people and getting so much attention and publicity if they were to solve the case. Only because you live in a world where most problems are solved by the barrel of a gun, doesn't mean things like this will go on in a world organized a different way.

Basically, prove to me the state wasn't a hindrance itself in the solution of the problem, before you call it the savior. That's the right way to do it. Not. "Oh snap, the communists gave me bread, when the free market had failed to give me a job. Thank you Stalin!" Well duh.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 07:46 GMT

#393

On August 30 2010 15:30 figq wrote:

Show nested quote +

I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good?

I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail.
BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE
BANG

On August 30 2010 15:35 keynest wrote:
It seems most of views are based on scholars who are from Ludwig von Mises Institute. Therefore, I suggest you tryhttp://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm this essay.

Anarcho-capitalism recommanded by Austrian School is an interesting idea, but is built on researches and essays with shaky scientific vigor or fragile evidence to back up.

Well, some empiricist just finally realized what a-priorism is. Grats!
Quick question: Is the scientific method a-priori?
OH SNAP.
I really have to sleep lol

Phrujbaz

Netherlands512 Posts

August 30 2010 07:49 GMT

#394

On August 30 2010 16:46 Yurebis wrote:

Show nested quote +

I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail.
BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE
BANG

What kind of argument is that?

If you don't have a good reason to expect ancap to create a more attractive society then we shouldn't be arguing in favor of it.

Most people don't care that much about paying taxes. In one way or another, you're going to be paying anyway.

Tell me how governing bodies being unable to confiscate anything by force is going to create a more attractive society.

SkytoM

Austria1137 Posts

August 30 2010 07:53 GMT

#395

I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.

Phrujbaz

Netherlands512 Posts

August 30 2010 07:56 GMT

#396

On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote:
I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.

Valid point, but democracy doesn't solve this problem. If the majority of the people are really dumb, then they'll vote in really dumb politicians that make disastrous decisions.

Also, I think people tend to make smarter decisions if the decision has a real and tangible effect on their lives, which is not so in democracy.

MiraMax

Germany532 Posts

August 30 2010 08:15 GMT

#397

The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.

Tuneful

United States327 Posts

August 30 2010 08:20 GMT

#398

I really don't know why I keep F5'ing this thread when the op is one of the most dedicated trolls I've seen. (Speaking of humans as rational actors)

Phrujbaz

Netherlands512 Posts

August 30 2010 08:30 GMT

#399

On August 30 2010 17:15 MiraMax wrote:
The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.

I think there's a big factor of luck. If you think about it, it's as ridiculous to think that a democracy could be stable as it is to think ancap would be. What is to stop the army from taking over the government? Theoretically, nothing prevents the army from taking over the government. In practice, that doesn't happen.

In ancap, theoretically nothing stops a group of people getting together and trying to create a state, but there are a few things that make that unlikely to happen.

As a protection agency, you have to deal with A) your customers, B) customers of other protection agencies, and C) other protection agencies. Treating A) badly will lose you customers. Losing customers means you lose money. So you can expect protection agencies to at least take good care of their customers.

Treating B) or C) badly will set bad blood with other protection agencies. Disputes with other protection agencies are costly, especially violent ones, so harassing people other protection agencies have a contractual obligation to protect can't be good for business. You will have to raise your rates an inordinate amount if you want to keep fighting, and doing so will lose you your customers and your money.

Peaceful resolution of conflict is the most sustainable business model for protection agencies. So if we can assume people under ancap will have freedom to choose among multiple protection agencies, the equilibrium would be multiple protection agencies (police forces) doing peaceful resolution of conflict through third party arbitrators (courts). Rogue protection agencies will have a hard time to survive.

Yurebis

United States1452 Posts

August 30 2010 08:42 GMT

#400