|
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies.
The state doesn't offer resources, it charges from you then gives you back. You can't deny to pay taxes, as much as you can't deny an armed robber your wallet. You're put in distress with a thread of physical aggression, and If you deny, you're inflicted with physical aggression, when you yourself did absolutely nothing to them first. So they've initiated force, and have no justifications for it other than "it's necessary". Well, I don't find it to be so necessary anymore.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote:
You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from developing. utopia fuck yeah.
That isn't the same word "free" I am using. "Free" doesn't mean "you can do it under the threat of violence anyways", free means "you can do it WITHOUT the threat of violence". Please.
Try to open your own bank, your own police station, court, anything the state has a monopoly on. You'll get raided by the thugs immediately. Even though it's supposedly your private property, and you have hurt absolutely -nobody-, they'll shut you down. The government blatantly imprisons victimless crime offenders, for christ sake. How's that even remotely free? "You're free to do whatever you want with your private property", says the state. "OH, sorry, I forgot to mention, I own all land and I can arrest you for whatever I want. Even victimless crimes. Lololol". Feudalism? Is that you?
Such abomination doesn't arrive from a decent theory of private property, that recognizes each individual's fruits as their fruits and theirs only. It arises when people start claiming supreme ownership of all the country, including other people's property and labor, "for the common good".
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote:
If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
[EDIT]: So not only does it work, we already live the dream,
I don't know which definition of monopoly you're using, but if I were to assume it's the meaningless "provider of a service", it's wrong. Because coercion is not provided, it is inflicted. And a "monopoly" that does not have the power to stop entrepreneurs from entering the market and competing with them is not really a monopoly. They're capped on the profits they can make by the mere fact that if the margins are so huge, it is easy for any entrepreneur outside, acting on self interest, to come in. And if it's something that only the current leader can do, and no one can do better nor charge less, then no harm is done, because the leader is providing the best offer around, and if it weren't for him, people would be choosing a lesser second best.
If it's my definition of monopoly "the coercive practice of physically shutting everyone else that attempts to provide a similar service", then of course, it's right. But then it's also redundant, even though I do add either "force" or "coercion" at the end anyway, because otherwise people don't know what I'm talking about since they mostly only know the former, meaningless misnomer.
|
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
|
On August 30 2010 23:40 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 23:16 dvide wrote:On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies.
You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so.
If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^. The state has presupposed authority to initiate force (in order to supposedly solve certain problems). If people recognise it as just a bunch of violent sociopathic thugs like the Mafia, then it's no longer a state. And it will be much less effective for it. So yes, but it's the presupposed authority which makes up all the difference. The false meme is what most maintains the state's overwhelming power as it drastically reduces resistance against it. It's not merely their use of violence by itself that does it. People on the whole feel like whatever the state does it somehow has the authority to do it. And what's more, people think that they actually gave the sate the authority themselves, which is just brutal. I was so blind, but now I see: Hail to anarcho-capitalism! The great thing if you dislike the companies called states is, that most of them are so stupid as to reelect their whole board of executives every 4-5 years and everybody over the age of 18 can participate. So you can easily destroy them from the inside out by simply winning an election. No problem for you guys to outwit the state's marketing, is it? Didn't think so ...
State doesn't do marketing. And private property doesn't appeal do democracy. Like I said, democracy puts populism over private property. The only way to switch the two around is not through democracy, it is through cultural ideology.
Democracy can't ever respect private property because that's just the way the system is. People everywhere are instantly given the power to overstep other's private property, so according to the tragedy of the commons, everyone's private property becomes hunting ground. Everyone becomes a wild beast, trying to extract from others and defend for itself the most wealth.
The only way to stop this game is to stop playing the game, not try to hijack it and break it from within. It's not going to work, too many interest groups, lobbies, government employees that won't let go until they themselves are ready to let go. As much as I like Ron Paul, for example, he will never get elected for those reasons alone. It's best to let the government fall on its own bankruptcy, and teach people that cooperation pays. That you don't have to hunt eachother's taxpayer money. That it's better if each of us keeps that money and spends exactly on that which each wants.
edit: goddamn bracket
|
You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies.
The state doesn't offer resources, it charges from you then gives you back. You can't deny to pay taxes, as much as you can't deny an armed robber your wallet.[/QUOTE]
You could always just be a bum and avoid paying taxes. Remember, death is a choice, usually it's your last choice, but its a choice. Or you could leave the country and start your own island somewhere else and create your own society of anarcho-capitalists. See how your own arguments can be turned around to point out hypocrisy?
|
On August 31 2010 05:11 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote:
So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^.
Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting. It has nothing to do with the 'amount of authority'. Do they have authority to initiate force or not? I think you're conflating my use of the term authority with the mere means to coerce. I use it as meaning a legitimacy to coerce. For example, when somebody says that the government has the authority to perform action X, they don't just mean that the government is merely able to perform action X. They mean that the government has the legitimacy and moral right to perform action X. So substitute legitimacy for authority if you must. A company does not have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people. I think we can all recognise this. They can set rules on their own property, for sure. The question is, does a government have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people? And does a government legitimately own the land that it rules over? The land that we call countries?
I will get ahead of myself here and assume that you don't think the state has not the moral right to do these things. If the state does not have this legitimacy it does not have any authority (power+legitimacy) and can be seen as a normal company, phew lucky us.
If it has the legitimacy, well lucky us the state is controlling our lifes legitimately.
What the people think the state can or cannot do is of no concern if it's just a company (if you think it's bad remember that the free market will selfregulate to the optimum).
@Yurebis:
So where again is the difference between state and company? Their business model looks fraudulent to you? Well sue 'em 
|
On August 31 2010 04:19 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote:
I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that. Let me ask you some questions: Does the government legitimately own the land that it controls? define government, legitimately, own, and control but probably If yes, what gives it that legitimacy? define legitimacy and gives but recognition from others How did the government acquire ownership of the land it controls? it was there first / it bought the land / it hustles other people for it Does a company legitimately own the property or land that it controls / makes productive use of? depends on your definition of control and own. companies can own land. they can also rent it... Is collecting rent from people living in a property that you legitimately own and with whom you voluntarily made agreements with beforehand considered the initiation of force?
no
i dont see how you're making a point here....
|
you guys can always gtfo of the country. the government only makes you pay taxes if you want to live within its borders or enjoy the privileges of being a member of its club. "my house, my rules."
|
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote:
Okay Yurebis, instead of immediately adressing all the points, let's look at the first one. Systematically adressing poverty and it's roots does not restrict "what anyone can voluntarily do".
Name me one regulation that does not restrict.
Name me one regulation that 'creates' something.
No such thing. Bureaucrats don't create. They misappropriate capital, redirect action, by denying certain behaviors. Every law is restrictive in nature, and every agency and department is funded on stolen capital which would otherwise be used more efficiently to meet the exact goals of those it got stolen from.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Generous people can engage in charity while they're being "robbed" a little by the state. Many people already do. You might think that affluent people will be less likely to show kindness to refugees, the sick, the disabled, the uneducated poor,.. in such a scenario, but that's hardly relevant if the poverty reducing measures ("free" education for all, for instance), for which the majority of the people voted, suffice.
It is NOT a "poverty reducing measure" to steal from some and give to others. It's a poverty increasing measure. The state isn't buying capital, transforming it or using it, and creating products valued more in the market than the sum of its parts. They steal, keep some for themselves as bureaucratic cost, and then give it to some contractor or legal monopoly. It is a net deficit for society, for if there's really demand for the service being subsidized, people can pay for it directly, without wasting on the state overhead. That's one reason alone.
Second reason is, the state can't know what the demand for anything is. Whatever guess it makes is second best to people voluntarily acting. A thief who stole your money, could give it back to you in products and services as well as the government. They'll blow on stupid gifts, or mow your lawn, or mow your neighbor's lawn, buy you a dog when you didn't want one. It can do a number of things that are at best, second-best choices that you wouldn't make. Because if you would make, you'd go to the store and get it.
Hardly is it "poverty reducing" for there to be a street where you go to, thugs can rob you and give back to you the kind of gifts they think you want. If there were such a street, people would just avoid it. But sadly, those thugs are everywhere, in the case of a state.
Charity is not a categorically different service than anything else you can think of. You pay them, they take care of orphans, homeless, kids in china. There is absolutely no justification to either morally or pragmatically say that it's best for everyone if they're all robbed a little so a poor child doesn't die. How can the central planner best know how much to tax for that? How can the central planner best know how many children there is to feed? How can it develop a financially stable model that won't create externalities (any more than stealing obviously)? They cannot beat the market on the market's ability to supply demand... they will either tax too much or too little; waste too much or too little. They're intrinsically less adaptive, and have less incentives to do so. Bureaucrats just work enough to save face and get reelected.
Poverty can't ever reduced by such blatant misallocations and inefficiencies.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: It does however limit the extent to which unscrupulous people can (ab)use the position the unfortunate/dumb find themselves in to increase their profits. What you're basically advocating is a world full of absurd inequality and abject poverty for the vast majority.
"Absurd" inequality? You keeping 100% of the fruits of the labor that you 100% worked for is absurd? And since when is stealing an attempt at promoting equality? The state just handicaps some and tips others a fraction of what they steal. Hardly equalization, hardly charity.
The vast majority, believe me, will be much better off when 50% of the GDP isn't stolen from. Poor, medium class, and upper class included. It is capital accumulation that raises the standards of living, not some extortion scheme. Not coercive monopolies. Not regulations. Pure, unadulterated free exchange. It is you doing what you want that makes you richer. Not the state robbing from others to give to you; not the state robbing from you to give to others. That, is absurd.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote:
You seem to assume that there's always a steady supply of work. You seem to assume that in an unregulated environment there will always be a supply of work that pays a living wage.
No. But you seem to assume that regulating businesses increases the opportunities for work. Wrong, either it does nothing, or it denies both employer and employee a chance at making the best choice for both of them - merely because some feel good bureaucrat used his own subjective evaluations of what is a fair deal into someone's else deal. If a deal is good for two, it only has to be good for those two. Any intervention, is again, denying them the opportunity of making that best choice for them. Denying transactions, in turn capital accumulation, in turn, wealth. Making everyone poorer. By obligation.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: It should be clear from looking at reality that this simply isn't the case.
Meaningless comparison. In at least two terms.
That no one can get exactly what they wish is no proof that they can't choose the better option. I wish I could shoot laser beams, but I don't blame the market for not giving me the opportunity me to shoot laser beams. The market doesn't have to give you all you want, because no one is obliged to give you what you want. The market however will best give you what you want to the fullest extent and efficiency that you can afford. The state can only make this mechanism less efficient, every time a restriction on your choice or the other party's is made... as they're not allowing you both to voluntarily reach the closest maximization of satisfaction.
Also the current market is hardly free, in any sector, so it can hardly be used as an example of "how the market can't give people what they want".
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Moreover, manufacturers will collude to keep wages as low as possible
False, like I exposed before, you can't both assume that
-Companies will collude to raise prices
-Companies will remain honest and not undercut
If they're guided by profit motive to collude, they're also guided for profit motive to cheat. The collusion is either meaningless, or will have to be government mandated - which is usually the case.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: and in such a lawless, highly hierarchical world any entrepreneur that breaks formation will be murdered, or otherwise put out of buisiness by competitors.
False, market law exists, courts exist, PDAs exist, insurance companies of any type exist. There is a vast vast amount of things that can be done, -better-, when 50% of the PIB is liberated for companies' own use.
Survival instinct is an appeal to human nature anyways, so the same could be applied to the state. Survival instinct would dictate that states would consider other states a menace all the time and will wage war all the time. Not the case, and if you were to compare the motives of state v. company, the company is much much more responsive to what customers want, and much more limited by how much they pay. Every bullet is accounted for at the company's expense, and is a waste of capital against it's profits if not used for what the customer hired it for. PDAs aren't hired to aggress, and those that do, are going to be not only retaliated against, but more expensive to hire, and therefore more unpopular on at least those two counts. Eventually, they go broke.
The state, not so much. You can have all the tanks as much as you get away with taxing the sheep. You can invade all foreign nations for lobbyist interest as long as you don't get revolted against by your own people. Elections are subpar checks and balances compared to constant market competition and consumer demand.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Employers will use the survival instinct of the poor to make them do dirty, unhealthy, life-threatening, demeaning work for a pittance.
Employers compete amongst themselves to hire labor. If there's a factory hiring at minimum wage, and another hiring at minimum wage+1, guess who gets the better employees.
The idea of exploitation is meaningless anyway. The poor, the rich, the middle class, no one is entitled to a job at any exact rate. You work for it. Market is a competition on all sides, and it's impossible for millions of entrepreneurs around the world to collude at giving workers nothing. Cheap labor is a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs. If someplace is full of poor people willing to work for one cent an hour, that says BIG MONEY who whatever entrepreneur can come in and offer them two. Then some other one comes and offers them three; four; five. It's an auction to the market price - to the point where there's a second best offer somewhere else. The market doesn't work by pushing people down, it pushes people up, if not on nominal wages, on real wages, by elevating the power each cent has, with increasingly more numerous and higher quality products, produced with increasingly higher order capital.
The government can't facilitate such capital accumulation process, because whatever restrictions it imposes, it only makes it harder for entrepreneurs to hire. It makes it riskier if it's illegal, therefore they have to pay less to account for the risk of being jailed; it makes it more expensive in taxes, therefore they have to pay less if they're to keep product prices up; it makes it even easier to collude, when other entrepreneurs have to fill a dozen forms and pay thousands of dollars just to hire illegally - so those thousands of dollars are passed on either on the product or deducted from wages. Nothing, nothing the government does helps anybody but feel-good statists. They either make things worse, or such senseless regulations that don't deny anyones' top choice anyway.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: The only way to possibly convince me of the opposite is to use relevant real world examples. All the history I'm aware of seems to point out that near-total freedom for wealthy employers perpetuates near-total misery for all others.
The minimum wage, is probably one law you think saves so many lives and feeds so many people? Welp, it ain't. Again, the minimum wage law is a restriction on entrepreneurs. They can't hire for any lower than, but it doesn't mean they have to hire higher. They will only hire people that can give him a net profit later higher than the wage they're being paid. What this does is, yes, maybe it pushes people who were a dollar below upto a dollar higher. But it doesn't push people two dollars, three dollars, four dollars higher. Those people who can only work at lower rates, will be pushed down if hired at all, because the employer has to make up for the risk of getting caught by the taxman, if he even wishes to risk such confrontation. So the poor people you speak of, when they would be working at the market rate, agreeable rate before the RESTRICTION was put in place, now are either not working at all, or working for even LESS.
It is a sad joke that government is praised as the champion of the poor, when they're the ones perpetuating their poverty. Not just by stealing from everyone, not just by subsidizing the unemployed, not just by "creating jobs" that are either retarded or would be better provided in the market if they weren't monopolized. No, it has to go further and deny people the choice of working at a rate that could be the best option they had.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote:
"You haven't stopped anything bad, because nothing bad even happened."
Are you saying that extreme poverty can be solved merely by allowing people to work for almost nothing? I fear that you simply don't care about the issue.
|
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote:
I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
Did the government buy all the land? Did the government even buy anything that isn't stolen money to begin with? Did each and every individual signed a contract with the government saying they can do whatever they want with them?
No to all counts. It's plain fraud. Comparing a coercive institution to a business... I don't know what to say. I've said too much on it. But if you want to believe that a thief robbing you $50 dollars and giving $10 back is a business, be my guest...
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote:
There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
States are mostly everywhere, if you ever stopped to check a political world map.
And also, it is hardly "free". As free as the thug saying "you can leave town then I won't be able to rob you LOL". The thug has no claim over the town, and even if the thug did intermediate taxpayer money and gave it to contractors to build the sidewalk I'm on, it is not any more his than a stolen stereo would be mine if I were to buy it. Any coercion in a chain of exchange breaks the entitlement of the capital to anyone who's higher up, and requires restitution to the one who got stolen from.
In sum, the world is not the state's.
(the world is not a stage... huur, felt like saying that)
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote:
Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that.
That is perfectly fine as you have bought and homesteaded the land. However, it is not fine for any single entity to draw wiggly lines on a piece of paper, and claim they have supreme authority over it for as long as they are not destroyed. As the founding fathers did, I could write a piece of paper right now saying that you own me fellatio. Preposterous. I don't ditch the founding fathers, but the social contract is ultimately a fraud, and requires vast amounts of wishful thinking couple with coercion to make it work.
|
On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote:
You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing. Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
|
Anarcho-capitalism breed our modern system, in the beginning there was anarcho-capitalism, now we have our system, at some point some kind of collusion might have been involved, but there was no stucture to it and now as a direct transition we don't have anarcho-capitalism.
|
Goddamn, I refreshed the reply page and lost a bunch of text.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote:
So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^.
Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
They have full authority over their legally obtained property, just as you have over yours
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote:
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
It is so.
But people are not obliged to trade with you. So, some of them may require you to buy insurance first to mitigate risks. The defense insurances in total would be no more expensive than what is paid to government today at any rate, so it would be nothing too bad. And if you don't want them, that's fine. It's legal to deal under the table, completely, and less risky than having to account for a taxman busting your ass open, but because some risk exist, people may do it less than insured. Depends on how the markets develops, but again, I assure it can't be worse than it is, and can't be worse than the most ideal government either. We're currently assured defense and law by broken courts, corrupt cops... and even if they weren't corrupt, they're still coercive monopolies, so they can charge a higher price merely on stick, as opposed to having to compete, reverse-auction style, with other entrepreneurs.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote:
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
Well I think if you know anything about druglords everywhere is that they're protected by the law. The illegality pushes non-violent businesses away. It requires every drug dealer to be armed, because conventional defense won't touch it, can't touch it, or the government will shut it down. You can't have a supermarket selling drugs, for example. So security is more expensive, violent is more occurring, etc. If drugs were legalized, druglords would pure and simply be outperformed by pharmacies, retailers...
|
On August 31 2010 05:31 Tuneful wrote:
There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other.
http://mises.org/daily/4147'
Market law can and has existed in the past.
|
I really like how to believe that garbage, you have to make so many big assumptions about human nature and other things... And yet you're convinced that you're right about every hypothetical "outcome" that you bring up.
|
But OP what are the net benefits of Anarcho capitalism
|
On August 30 2010 17:42 Yurebis wrote:
You forgot to determine who owns the river, and this is very relevant. I'm going to assume the fisherman were there first, and have therefore the highest claim of property over it. The fishers can therefore sue you, and so could the tourism agency even thought they'd have a lesser claim to make. At that point on, it would be resolved in court, much like it would be resolved in court today, with the caveat that the court ruling is not exactly a mandate, but not following it would constitute your company be seen by the rest of the population as a non-compliant entity. As a non-compliant entity, you have a 0 credit score, investors don't trust you, stock market is going to avoid you, and you pretty much have to rely on the capital you have right now and foreign markets to keep doing what you doing. Also, the court could have been nice the first time as it was a muddy situation, but that point on, the river would probably be rules either yours, the fishermen's, or a third party's property from then on to avoid further issues. So any further dumping would be considered a clear invasion of property and the fishermen's PDA are free to stop you by force.
Well, it did come down on who owns the river! Wow, it's like I didn't even know that was going to happen! Fantastic.
Why wouldn't investors trust a non-compliant entity? Just because such an entity doesn't respect the rights of fishermen downstream doesn't mean it won't maximize profits for shareholders. In fact, by ignoring the rights of fishermen downstream, that entity is, in fact, maximizing profits by keeping costs down. Investors love companies that keep costs down, regardless of how they do it (unless it means stiffing the investors themselves).
Wait, and the fishermen can stop the polluters by force? What's stopping the polluters from turning around and doing the same thing to the fishermen? Seems like this would give new meaning to the term "trade war."
The light house problem... you know it's been solved right? The docks own it, and they charge the ships that dock in for it.
So your solution requires that the docks in the town all be owned by one company. If there are more than one competing dock owners, each is going to refuse to fund construction of a lighthouse, etc., etc. For larger bays (San Francisco is a good example), such a scheme is not feasible because of the sheer amount of dock space and shipping traffic, and because all boats can use a lighthouse at the mouth of the bay, regardless of whose docks they go to.
Then you should be thankful there's at least that one to choose from, IMO.
Because if it wasn't for it, then it would be a ZEROPOLY.
Wrong. Monopolies rarely innovate substantively. They rent-seek. Take a basic economics class.
It doesn't matter what it is, or why you need it. If it's not sold to you, or given to you, it's theft, period.
You may think it's justified. Well, do try to steal then go to court then. Justify it in front of a judge, the plaintiff, and be ready to be in the news. That's doable in ancap. You just better have a god damn good reason, like 10 orphans were going to die if you didn't steal. Stealing because you're hungry? Get the fuck out and pay for your food - is what the judge would say.
You're missing the point. We're talking about achieving efficient outcomes for society. In some markets, consumers don't have a choice not to buy - they have to buy to continue to live. That means that a monopoly in such a market has the consumer at the point of a gun - buy or die. And that lets them charge any price they want, which is clearly an inefficient outcome.
If they got driven out of business, does that mean Standard Oil provided a more cost-efficient product, and the competitor couldn't keep up? How's that 1-bad, 2-coercion 3- stopping them from coming back if they hike prices up.
Standard Oil did no such thing. They prevented regional startups in the oil business by taking a loss on oil in that region for long enough to drive the startup out of business, while maintaining a high overall profit margin by raising prices in other regions where there were no competitors. The result is that they were able to charge a higher price for oil than if there had been a competitive market.
It's not. Standard Oil is deeply entrenched with government. May not been so in the beginning, at which point grats to them, but then, lobbylobbylobby to keep competition out.
Wrong. Standard Oil was broken up by the government you say it was in bed with, in order to create a competitive market for oil.
Analogy time. You're telling me there's this one build that destroys everything TvP, but when it comes down to it, the market is a progressing game, entrepreneurs learn how to profit, and there's no escaping that purpose. If you learn a way to outdo your competitors and be more efficient, you earned it. You're the best there is, best prices, best profits. There is no one magic build that "if you do this this and this, you can become FLASH", it's bullshit, there is no such thing. There is no free lunch, everything you know how to do, there can be someone else who can do better. Because market efficiency IS the goal, companies will always be outdoing one another to get the highest spot. And if someone becomes a BONJWA, it's an even greater thing. Means that he is fantastically efficient. Cheaper products, better quality than everyone else. Raises the standards of living of everyone by allowing them to buy more for less, expanding people's wealth.
What you call a monopoly, I'll call a BONJWA from now on LOL.
Monopolies maintain themselves by erecting barriers to entry into the marketplace, including non-governmental barriers like regional price discrimination. If such barriers to entry are sufficiently powerful, there will be no competition, and there will be no increasing efficiency.
No they don't, and if theyre' inefficient, then prove it. Compete with them, should be easy to outdo.
You're calling the BONJWA a noob. You're saying he's a cheesy bastard that has no game, and makes everyone watch boring 6 min matches. LOL. Then why don't people play safe and beat him? There's no excuse. You want to call kespa and take away Flash's license, so you and mediocre players like... fantasy, can have an easier time. THATS RIGHT. I CALLED FANTASY MEDIOCRE.
Ok enough of that.
Your analogy fails immediately because every game of Starcraft starts from scratch, while the whole point of monopoly is that it uses existing advantages (advantages that already exist at the start of the "game", of which there are, ideally, none in Starcraft) to prevent potential competition.
A closer analogy would be if Flash was able to start every game with his resource total from the end of the previous game.
You have no obligation to feed any child, not even your own.
This is the real ethics of anarcho-capitalism. Self-enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
|
On August 31 2010 07:37 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 05:31 Tuneful wrote:
There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other. http://mises.org/daily/4147' Market law can and has existed in the past.
Hahahahahaha. Let's compare what that article has to say about the common law to reality.
The article:
Historically, in the common law of England, Roman law, and the Law Merchant, law was formed in large part in thousands of judicial decisions. In these so-called "decentralized law-finding systems," the law evolved as judges, arbitrators, or other jurists discovered legal principles applicable to specific factual situations, building upon legal principles previously discovered, and statutes, or centralized law, played a relatively minor role.
Reality:
Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became ossified, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law."
The common law was created by the King's court. Literally, it was created by the tyrannical state, in the person of the King.
The common law is a state-driven, state-created system, and has nothing to do with "market law."
|
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote:+ Show Spoiler +On August 30 2010 15:52 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment. Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital? 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. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid? 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. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already. 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) Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back? 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. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote:
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
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? Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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_problemShow nested quote +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... Show nested quote +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 Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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... Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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? Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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) Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote:I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently. 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? Show nested quote +On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: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. Show nested quote +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. Show nested quote +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. I don't really have time to type a rebuttal for all your points right now, but it really just seems like you expect ever single person to be some hybrid doctor-lawyer-mechanic-construction worker-dentist-farmer and if he needs any of the above services it was because he was unable to do so himself and that's his choice.
Not at all, and if anyone makes such assumption, it is the statist, for legislators are indeed expected to know a lot about everything...
The market forms its hierarchies in the manner that is most profitable, to the extent that anyone can know and profit off it - in the manner that best meets consumer demand.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote:
"Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice."
Your ethical beliefs are a sick joke dude.
It's true though. It's the most undesirable choice, but there are people who sometimes value death more than the expected suffering for the remainder of their lives.
I'm not saying people should choose to die, as much as they should choose to live. Praxeology is a value-free science... but I better not call it science here... uh.. theory.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote:
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.
The difference is between the government's potential power, and the corporate states exercised power. Are you seriously afraid that the government is going to knock down your house to build a highway? How often does that actually happen? I'll bet out of all the people on the team liquid forum this MAY have happened to potentially one person. You cannon count potential power, only exercised power, and only exercised power I'd say within our life times.
Corporate states.. like corporatism? You do notice the state component there, right?
Not an argument against ancap; you don't know whether I'm afraid of the government and the question is completely irrelevant, ignored.
Oh I see what you mean by potential power. I'm not counting on it. It's a fact that states around the world leech at least about 50% of their GDP every year. I mean... is that not happening?
I don't care that much about the political and social restrictions as much as they impact economical progress. The true economical progress, by voluntary means, not a twisted version of a planned economy, where the state robs you and gives back to you something you may or may not have bought spontaneously.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote: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.I don't believe this response for one second. I want everyone on the team liquid forum to read that this guy would not care if Charles Manson was his doctor because it's the most cost effective way possible. Your ethics are a complete joke dude, the only reason you're arguing this point is because you know the exact same arguments can be applied to corporate CEOs and company executives, who hold MUCH more power than your auto mechanic would ever dream of having.
Actually, your economical understanding is a joke. If mr. Manson were to open a clinic, no one would go to it no matter how cheap it is. Even for free. Because the risks are accountable, you can evaluate how much you'd expect to lose by going there. If you evaluate that there is 100% chance that you will lose your life by entering that clinic, you will not go in there not even if he pays you.
I mean, that's not even an externality. And hardly something that wouldn't be stopped in ancap anyway, as I believe PDAs would be justified in preemptively raiding a serial killer's house to arrest him and take him to court.
When you take corporations, and comparing them to governments... you're doing so without comparing the incentives that would take either one to screw with you. Be fair at all, and you'd admit that the 'ones that sell you stuff' are less likely to screw you than the ones that rob you stuff. Yes, it's true that the 'ones that sell you stuff' use the 'ones that rob you stuff' to ... rob you stuff. And they should be legally accountable for conspiracy, but what isn't right is to denounce everyone that 'sell you stuff' in the same class as those who 'rob you stuff'. Each and every individual, group, should be denounced only on what coercive actions itself has done or paid others intentionally to coerce for them.
Getting rid of the state is getting rid of the cheapest hitman in town. A legitimized one at that.
On August 31 2010 05:32 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.
Once again I want everyone to read this last statement made by OP. You do not believe in the word exploitation do you? I just cannot simply grasp your sense of morals. If you really do strongly feel your beliefs are that correct that you would let yourself or a loved one die because a pharmaceutical company has the right to charge you 50 times the actual cost of a medicine or vaccine, you are a sick person. I'm going to use your own statement and just say "I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out". As a matter of fact, if I was your father and I was the one with that disease and you sided with the pharmaceutical company instead of my life I would disown you as a disgrace. [/QUOTE]
Because I reject positive rights I'm a monster? Absolutely not, it's the positivists that don't realize how outrageous their ideas are. It's right for me to steal the cure -> it's right for me to rob. It's right for anyone to rob, whenever they feel they need the stuff their rob. What is the criteria then, that stops the inventor of the cure of stealing the cure back? And for the original owner of any stolen capital to steal it back? There's nothing but subjective wishes.. positivist theory is completely broken, because it would create infinite cycles of obligations, especially since the determination of them are completely arbitrary. It would come down to might-makes-right, or whoever has the most votes is right, etc. etc.
Also, there is no such thing as actual cost. It's at the creators' criteria how much he charges you for it, and while it would be good for both parties if he charged an agreeable price, he does not have to. He can charge a billion dollars for it, as I can charge you a billion dollars to perform sexual favors for you. But such retarded charges come at a cost - the buyer may simply not choose to buy from you, and you get nothing. You can only get rich, or you can only sell by definition and the theory of catallactics (And the power of Grayskulllllll), if the price is agreeable.
The seller would be most interested in selling at a price the ill can pay for, or he gets nothing. And also, that he is the sole seller also means that you can't possibly know how much such medicine will cost in the future. And if is such cheap, easy to make medicine, then surely there would have been people making them already, why wouldn't there. Oh wait, I have an idea, maybe the government would make patents, and crush the competition. Perhaps that way, the drug can be overpriced no problem, since he is indeed the sole seller, and he will charge as much as it maximizes the demand curve.
I would tell you, my dying father, that 1- if it weren't for the inventor, your chances of surviving would be 0% anyway, is that not correct? That he accepts even exchanging with you for an exorbitant amount at least gives you the chance of raising all the capital you can, through charity, selling everything you have, to give you a new chance of life. Yes, it is correct that you do not have a claim over that which you didn't create, and that goes for everything in life. And you may find him greedy, evil, exploitative. But he allowed you to live, and you took that offer, choosing life at the expense you found life be worth living.
Besides that scenario is like, almost impossible to happen in real life anyway. "Oh my god, what if we're on a boat, which is flying in the air, and there's two people in the engine room, one with a bomb, the other one with a switch that will trigger a bomb in africa which will kill ten thousand orphans..."
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote:
"Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice."
.... Your opinions on ethics baffle me.
Can one not choose to die? Yes or no.
|
On August 31 2010 05:40 Tuneful wrote:
Thank you, kidcrash. Market fundamentalists love to call themselves "amoral" but it's more like "immoral" when asked important, substantive ethical questions.
You've hit on something broader, also, which is the capitalist's refusal to guarantee the reproduction of labor, as well as the refusal to acknowledge that wages can fall below subsistence, but of course, how dare you think yourself "entitlted" to your own life.
Oh I think I get what reproduction of labor means. It means "using capital in the manner that you find appropriate", right?
Would you blame yourself for "refusing to guarantee the reproduction of labor" in saving for the winter? In saving to buy something without financing? In hoarding food in your fridge? In hoarding so many domestic utensils that you can't possibly even use them all? In having any money in a savings account? In your checking account even? Arbitrary. Any distinction you make of what is "refusing to guarantee the reproduction of labor" is necessarily subjective to the expectations of what each thinks the capital can be used for.
Savings is a matter of personal choice. It could be preparing for hard times. It could be not wanting to buy anything at the moment. It could be evaluating the capital to be worth more by just keeping it safe rather than spending in uncertain times. Savings serve as a function of investment also, as projects that require large amounts of capital require just as large amounts of savings elsewhere- oh wait, I forgot we live in fiat times, where the government can just create bubbles everywhere it wants and perverse the capital structure structure to both invest too much and consume too much at the same time. Disregard that, business cycles solve that problem, yeah. Love them booms and busts.
Morally, it is as silly as saying "refusal to guarantee the making of chocolate ice cream", or "refusal to guarantee the making of TSL3". That you have a preference for other's capitals to be used a certain way in no way warrants you to control their capital, because if it did, then it also has to logically apply the other way around. The corporations could just as easily say "refusal to guarantee slave work" or "refusal to guarantee buying my extra-large products". It's completely anti-property, and ignorant of the externalities that it would involve.
No one would be able to save to the extent that the state (or you) deem them to be "refusing to guarantee blowing off their money however I like". Everyone would have to follow your plan, and we would never figure out what the market optimum was, because you haven't allowed it to be approximated. You just forced people into your plan that you said was best, but will never be able to prove it was.
|
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'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
This is the most loaded post I have ever read for several reasons:
1) You're establishing and defending a moving target:
There's several different takes on anarcho-capitalism and you never define what your stance is. There's no way to accept or refute any sort of anarcho-capitalism without a clear and concise definition of what you are saying.
2) You swear off empirical proof.
4 1/2 years of LD debate has taught me you can make anything seem plausible using pseudo-logic as long as you don't have to provide empirical proof.
3) Advocating a style of government that has never been tested.
Boiling down your post, it essentially says, "Hey, this seems like a good idea! I'll defend it!" There's absolutely no background or historical context for anarcho-capitalism, so you cannot say it is foolproof when there is absolutely no basis for making such a claim.
4) Attempting to pre-empt a very specific and complex argument with a blanket statement and no backup.
I could go on, but there's no real reason to reply to the actual political system when all that will happen is a fallacious response that will quickly disintegrate into the typical forum bickering and no quality discourse whatsoever. If you actually want to discuss a political philosophy, write up at least an abstract for discussion instead of this tripe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
