|
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living! You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms. You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however.
I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
|
On August 30 2010 19:48 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:34 vetinari wrote:On August 30 2010 19:29 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:21 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me. Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =) "Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own. You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed. Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths? The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead. Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average. Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all? The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING.
I think you just proved his point. Apparently anarcho-capitalists prefer letting people starve to death over taxing (omg stealing11!!!1ONe) money from rich-guys to feed them. And if they starve to death because no-one wants to help them it apparently isn't a problem either (in the eyes of anarcho-capitialists)
Yep that would be a sociopath.
|
Now I can't sleep. Too bad. I'll stay awake for the day.
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living! You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms. You're arguing only coercion can give you x. Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism...
If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law.
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes?
I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.
That's right, how could I forget! 
I love coercion 
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
|
On August 30 2010 20:12 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:34 vetinari wrote:On August 30 2010 19:29 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:21 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 19:12 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:01 Hasudk wrote:On August 30 2010 18:48 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote:
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour.
Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.? Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of. I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged. However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong. This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society? As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =) He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic? The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me. Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =) "Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own. You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed. Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths? The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead. Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average. Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all? The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING. I think you just proved his point. Apparently anarcho-capitalists prefer letting people starve to death over taxing (omg stealing11!!!1ONe) money from rich-guys to feed them. And if they starve to death because no-one wants to help them it apparently isn't a problem either (in the eyes of anarcho-capitialists) Yep that would be a sociopath.
I didn't particularly say that if I were to personally meet a bum dying on the street, that I wouldn't feel pity, and I wouldn't want to give him something (I'm almost as broke as a bum though tbh). It's ridiculous to point that out when we were talking generalities, and the choice was between letting him die and stealing from someone. I would choose the former every time, because I do not have a claim over other's capital, and the bum's situation isn't my fault. I have no obligation towards him, and neither does the other person.
The bum is just an "extreme" (not really) case that calls for action. But even at such an instance I don't advocate stealing to feed him. Because it would be inconsistent. Lame, lame lame positivist strategy to get the ball rolling.
|
United States42622 Posts
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
|
On August 30 2010 07:41 Phrujbaz wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote: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%
I assuming these are tax rates although the graph seems to have no explanations whatsoever and the data has no references at all
but ok I'll accept that this is correct data; what does it say? it says tax rates in the US have steadily increased since the end of the WWII war effort.
I'm assuming you want to draw the conclusion that this supports the idea that government is unfit to decide tax rates because it has no free market competition to pressure it.
but then you are ignoring the fact that after WWII there was the cold war, the US sent a man to the moon and the publics opinion of the government was at an all-time high,
there is good justification for that steady tax increase outside of just government running amock is what I'm saying
also, OP of this thread seems like a rabid libertarian who is clearly just spam F5'ing this thread, not thinking through any of his posts and I'm not going to respond to them...
|
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion
If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
|
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Now I can't sleep. Too bad. I'll stay awake for the day. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living! You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms. You're arguing only coercion can give you x. Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post? Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism... If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play. Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it? Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would do you alot of good to start reading what people actually write, and to adress their arguments rather than focusing on taking a few words out of context from every post, and using them as a launchpad to write whatever you feel like writing at the moment.
|
On August 30 2010 20:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
Okay well, apart from the obvious "what's 'meaningful choice'", I question these:
1-Who's to blame for the individual's lack of choices?
2-Why is the employer exploiting for offering one more?
3-Would I be exploiting the bum if I offer him a loaf of bread in exchange for him mowing my lawn? Why, if everyone else in town would rather let him die?
3b-Loaf of bread for mowing my lawn, making me brownies?
3c-Loaf of bread for the above, plus cleaning up my basement
3d-Loaf of bread, the above, walking my dog twice for the next weekend
3f-Loaf of bread, the above, f for fellatio.
4- Why aren't your answers for all #3 questions entirely subjective, and therefore no distinction can objectively be made ever?
5- People can call 3b-3f exploitation, and the bum thinks 3f is fine, I mean, he's about to die isn't he. Why would you feel entitled in forbidding me from offering him 3f, or otherwise taking over my property if I did, when it's entirely a subjective matter between you and me that we can both find agreeable, and no disputes ensue thereafter?
6- If I were to offer him 3f, and only 3f, or he won't get bread for me, would YOU stop ME from making a voluntary OFFER to him? Would you deny the possibility that the bum may work for his bread under conditions that HE finds acceptable, but YOU don't?
Restrictions are never a good thing, because ultimately it comes down to the personal choice of both parties involved. You can have all the opinions you want, and recommend people to do whatever they want. That's fine. But the moment you deny them a choice, externalities aside, you have done one of two things:
1-Either it's an irrelevant regulation because the option is at most second-best. The best option is still available.
2-The regulation IS relevant, because it has taken out the best option, and you have to settle for second best.
In the case of the bum, whatever options you've deemed exploitive, and would deny me the opportunity of offering it to the bum, you are at the same time eliminating what perhaps is the only option for the bum to keep living. It isn't sure even then, I'm not saying you, qua interventionist, KILLED the bum at any rate. Someone could pass by after I did, and give him food for free. I don't know, you don't know. But the hungry bum could potentially accept any offer. And you're in no position to decide for him, what options he can't chose, nor to deny me, what offers I can make. Exchanges can only be evaluated by the transacting parties.
I hope you learned something.
|
On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay...
On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it? No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
I misjudged that you were a commie. tee hee.
|
On August 30 2010 21:07 Myrkul wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Now I can't sleep. Too bad. I'll stay awake for the day. On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote:
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority
2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living! You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms. You're arguing only coercion can give you x. Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post? Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism... If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law. On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play. Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it? Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. If you wish to be taken seriously, it would do you alot of good to start reading what people actually write, and to adress their arguments rather than focusing on taking a few words out of context from every post, and using them as a launchpad to write whatever you feel like writing at the moment.
I haven't slept for almost 22 hours. I just want to end the arguments faster than people make them, LOL. Nothing wrong with a strawmen, just ignore it, jeez. I've lived through worse threads.
Also, I would argue that the lack of definitions make it harder for me to understand what they're saying. So yeah, I have to assume a lot, anyone would have to. Reading what I read...
"power" meaning anything from "exclusive control over one's property" to "control over everything"
"exploitation" that includes activities of anything from "using any property as capital in any shape of form" to "interest", and meaning to justify anything from "nothing" to "expropriation of all capital
If it was just "monopoly" which had it's meaning twisted... it would be a cake walk. But people use communist terminology then tell me they're not communists at all... what the hell... alright, whatever. Sorry. jesus.
|
On August 30 2010 21:22 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ... Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay... Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it? No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason. On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me. I misjudged that you were a commie. tee hee.
Well, you do at least make clear that you don't want to follow any authority ... not even the one of sense and coherence. Your noncomformism-for-the-sake-of-it gets old soon, but as long as it works for you, I am fine with it. ~tee hee
|
On August 30 2010 20:56 Jameser wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 07:41 Phrujbaz wrote:On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote: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 2009? 53% I assuming these are tax rates although the graph seems to have no explanations whatsoever and the data has no references at all but ok I'll accept that this is correct data; what does it say? it says tax rates in the US have steadily increased since the end of the WWII war effort. I'm assuming you want to draw the conclusion that this supports the idea that government is unfit to decide tax rates because it has no free market competition to pressure it. but then you are ignoring the fact that after WWII there was the cold war, the US sent a man to the moon and the publics opinion of the government was at an all-time high, there is good justification for that steady tax increase outside of just government running amock is what I'm saying also, OP of this thread seems like a rabid libertarian who is clearly just spam F5'ing this thread, not thinking through any of his posts and I'm not going to respond to them...
You see, it's things like this that make me wonder about the credibility and/or seriousness of acap's whole line of thought. It's just typical - no rigorous scholarship to be found anywhere.
|
It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
|
On August 30 2010 20:49 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
But it's important to note how individuals lose meaningful choices. Has the employer caused your circumstance? If yes, the employer is exploitative for sure. But they were exploitative before the "wage slavery" even occurred, you see. But of course that doesn't happen; your employer has nothing to do with your financial circumstances before he employed you. If you had a low standard of living, your boss likely has nothing to do with it. And if he did, even in some indirect way like being in bed with government to produce regulation laws designed to limit competition from small start-ups, then yes he is being exploitative. But that's due to the power that the STATE gives the rich.
But some guy just offering you a job, in and of itself, is not exploitation. Couldn't the employer be said to be actually providing an additional choice to you? After all, the employees can decide for themselves whether or not they would be better off working for the employer or not. The mere fact that they lack choices is kind of meaningless. Primitive man has to hunt for his food, but now we can decide whether we would rather hunt or farm or produce light-bulbs or write software. You understand, choices come from the market. From the luxury of technologies and wealth. Without those choices you will have to hunt for your food, but that's not exploitation on part of all employers. That's just a natural reality. Government doesn't help give you those sorts of choices; in-fact it only serves to reduce those sorts of choices by keeping you in poverty.
You say people stripped of options by circumstance. Ok, but did the employer cause the circumstance? If you look at it more closely, you'll find they lack options because of crushing effect of government programmes. All of the taxes people have to pay once they get a job have to be factored into your wage, which reduce your wage and likelihood of even getting a job in the first place. It's not just a natural circumstance; it's because THEY'RE BEING STOLEN FROM. It's just difficult to see where the theft is occurring, why you can't get a job and why you have to work so hard to earn a living when it should be fucking easy. And if it was just natural circumstance, the job is helping them in some way and we know that because they CHOOSE to work there instead of deciding to remain in their previous circumstance.
The job is actually providing some good in spite of that. It's easy to have hatred for your boss because you're having to work longer hours, and you feel like you're slaving away to make ends meet. All of the taxes is actually what contributes to this hugely, and your employer has little choice but to require longer working hours and lower wages to even keep the company afloat. If the company goes under then your job goes too.
You understand, calling "wage slavery" is putting the blame on the wrong thing. Where is the coercion? Where is the exploitation?
|
On August 30 2010 21:36 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 21:22 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me? If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food. Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good.That's right, how could I forget! I love coercion If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ... Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay... On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body. It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is. Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp. Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context. No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it? No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason. On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions. Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me. I misjudged that you were a commie. tee hee. Well, you do at least make clear that you don't want to follow any authority ... not even the one of sense and coherence. Your noncomformism-for-the-sake-of-it gets old soon, but as long as it works for you, I am fine with it. ~tee hee
Coercive authorities - correct.
Authorities that I chose to subscribe to - no, they're fine.
I'm not against hierarchies.
|
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
I'm answering every question still. Point me the logical fallacies.
Yes, I should get some sleep. But it's too late now. Too late, I say.
It does not follow that people can't defend themselves if not for the state. Defense is a service that is paid for, today, and could be paid for in ancap just as well, if not better (I argue much better, for other reasons which would fill a page again if I wanted to).
Perhaps a logical conclusion that would follow is that even if you can pay for security guards, and get guns yourself, you and your hired cops would be in conflict with other people and their cops, because there's no common authority reigning over them. But you haven't made such point (yet), so I stop here. Oh god, living and learning. LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL
|
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
From Zimbabwe. LOL. 100 trillion dollar notes aren't enough for you to realise something is seriously wrong with statism? Actually that's not even funny; it's depressing.
|
On August 30 2010 21:53 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote:
It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end. From Zimbabwe. LOL. 100 trillion dollar notes aren't enough for you to realise something is seriously wrong with statism? Actually that's not even funny; it's depressing.
He's talking about me, unless you need sleep too.
But more importantly, I don't think it's fair to call him on that, he seems to be the minarchist type...
Oh I just love labels. Except when I'm labeled. Exploitable!
|
On August 30 2010 22:04 Yurebis wrote:
He's talking about me, unless you need sleep too.
But more importantly, I don't think it's fair to call him on that, he seems to be the minarchist type...
Oh I just love labels. Except when I'm labeled. Exploitable!
Fair point, bit rude of me but I just found it amusing. But is he a minarchist? His only other post in this thread is one in which he seems to argue that the more a country spends on government the more prosperous it becomes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
