|
On August 31 2010 05:55 kidcrash wrote:
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 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? [/QUOTE]
A bum in his own house isn't free of the taxman and it's thugs.
Death is a choice in the sense that I can choose it, but it's not a choice when it's inflicted upon me by resisting arrest. Nor is being taken to jail a choice when I was forced to.
Say the free man has a near infinite amount of choices, but reduced to how many letters there are in the alphabet for convenience, A to Z. The state comes along and threatens me of inflicting upon me course of action X, in the condition that I do not do Y. The choice, then, for me, is not between A-Z anymore. It is either X, Y, or the implied D for Death, if I chose to resist their X. Or P for Prison if X wasn't already prison.
I hope that makes sense to you.
|
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 05:11 dvide wrote: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.
By the same argument, the thug on the backalley is always a normal company as well.
Please test your arguments instead of having me point obvious flaws. The thug isn't a normal company, and by normal I hope you mean voluntary, because it does not act under the NAP (non aggression principle). So a company that is not voluntary cannot be said to be voluntary.
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote:
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).
It is of concern of the company, because non-aggression is popular, and all the courts would support retaliation against an initiator of violence. If a PDA (protection agency) or not even a defense agency at all, fucks somebody up, does not appear in court when called, it is automatically deemed a violent company, and won't be protected by reputable courts nor any PDA. The employees all lose their insurance, are required restitution for any breach of contracts, and can be aggressed against easily by any lawful organization or person, because he would have the backing of no one. The employee would rather steal capital from it's own aggressing company and leave, before his reputation goes down with, so the profit motive can even destroy the company from within.
The only way that an aggressing company could kill and steal, and get away with it without going to reputable courts, that I can imagine, would be for being the largest of all, and becoming a state indeed. But I doubt that would happen for several reasons that I won't elaborate until we're even past lowly criminals and 6-pool builds. Which is a shame, that after 20 pages I still haven't got past that point. Though I have only myself to blame, I guess.
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote:@Yurebis: So where again is the difference between state and company? Their business model looks fraudulent to you? Well sue 'em 
Of course it's fraudulent, by any theory of private property. There is absolutely no justification for the state to be a-priori entitled to a fraction of you labor; your house; any capital that itself has not contributed anything into producing. Absolutely no private property theory, even those that claim everyone has an equal share to every resource in the world; the government goes way beyond that and the taxation schemes are plain exploitation.
|
On August 31 2010 06:47 geometryb wrote:
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."
But I thought people could own houses?
And that government stole from people to build infrastructure makes it no more the proper owner of it than the buyer of a stolen stereo...
|
On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote: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?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well.
But I was wrong I suppose.
|
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote: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
Seriously what is it with your hang up on this? I know you think you're being really clever here, but you're just being really annoying.
So because I am one person amongst one million say, who thinks that the state does not have any legitimacy, you say phew lucky US because then I personally (and only I personally) see the state as being merely the same thing as a company. A company with no authority to initiate force, and so therefore somehow states are equivalent to companies to EVERYBODY ELSE TOO and so they have no power over us (hence the phew I suppose). You talk about ME PERSONALLY FIRST, and then say lucky US because my belief renders the state powerless. Do you see that it doesn't even make sense?
If I personally don't accept that the government is legitimate, it doesn't mean everybody else thinks the same way. It doesn't mean the state does not have authority anymore, even with your equation of power + presupposed legitimacy. They still have presupposed legitimacy; just not MY presupposed legitimacy. So it's 1 million minus 1, and you call it equal to zero. No, it's one step closer to zero, but it's not equal to zero. Obviously.
By the by, even if we follow this train of thought I don't see how it makes the government a company. The Mafia is not a company; it's a criminal gang. I prefer to differentiate between voluntary, peaceful, productive organisations like businesses and violent, destructive organisations like criminal gangs. I mean, this whole thing just strikes me as being an abuse of language, propagandising for the use of violence. It's just conflating the words together so that governments sound like voluntary service providers, just like businesses are.
Will you concede, at very least, that around 99.9% of people think that the government somehow has the moral right to initiate force, and that only 0.001% (or less) would think that private voluntary organisations and companies have the moral right to initiate force? CAN'T YOU AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A MAJOR HUMONGOUS FUCKING DIFFERENCE THERE? I mean what does it matter practically if only 0.1% of people think that the government is illegitimate? You're seriously going to tell me that it's the exact same thing as an enlightened anarchy, where 99.9% of people would think it instead? Sorry, but no. We don't live in anarchy, companies are not mini-states and states are not mega-companies.
|
On August 31 2010 07:31 MoreFasho wrote:
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.
Yes, that is correct, but conditions have changed, informantion flows much faster and wider, standards of living have raised by a lot, so perhaps the sequence of factors that led people into servitude aren't present anymore, and the state can be rid of no problem. I am interested in coming to know what those factors could be, although I'm no empiricist and don't particularly rely on them to make the argument that "stealing is wrong", "killing is wrong", etc.
|
On August 31 2010 07:38 Djzapz wrote:
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.
Well first of all, I haven't particularly made assumptions of human nature, the main assumptions are on catallactics. If you read the OP, you could see that appeals to human nature are equally appliable to any system, so are hardly any use,
Second, tell me how could I be wrong, instead of just saying I'm wrong.
Empiricism isn't without flaws either, especially in the realm of social science. One can make all the experiments one wants, but because there are millions of confounding variable, it can always be argued that his conclusion is flawed, that his historical interpretation is wrong, etc.
Please be more humble about your epistemological considerations, because like human nature, we're all bound to it.
|
On August 31 2010 07:46 Sight wrote:
But OP what are the net benefits of Anarcho capitalism
Not being stolen from by the state (tax), and buy only exactly what you want
Not being legislated by the state, to build legal codes from the bottom up, for the purposes of dispute resolution, and not some central planner's mandated goal.
Not having to rely only on the coercive monopolistic services that you can't compete against, and better answer those demands through market competition.
As opposed to
Being stolen from, to pay for things that are subpar to what one would like
Being restricted on, and having to put up with retarded laws and victmless crimes
Establishing monopolies of a random collection of services that are necessarily overpriced, inefficient, and can't possibly work as best as the market could make them to be, due to the economcal calculation problem (no response to market incentives apart from subpar ellections, no way to determine exchange prices)
Basically that's it.
|
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
In sum, strawman.
If I straw manned you, it was by accident. But I didn't really. I'm saying if you don't deny people will have a tendency assemble/cooperate for common interests, then you cannot deny government or governing systems are inevitable.
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
"Coercion" as you call it is just the result of a few hundred years of continual cooperation and progress, and the institution of the state is so powerful it is able to coerce its people and people who do not wish to cooperate have few viable options (like for instance, moving to an uninhabited island). Perhaps its time to tear that down, but your only kidding yourself if you believe it won't build itself back up again.
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on?
I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government.
See where I bolded? I suppose if you have that view of America, I can see how you can think that Ancap is anything more then a transitional stage. It just shows your misconceptions on how people behave.
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
lolwut? Marginalizing human beings cuts profits? Have you ever heard of slavery? You devalue the life of a human being to a subhuman, and you've devalued the cost of his labor as well. Very simple.
You deny someone work and service long enough on the basis of something he cannot change, and hes going to settle for less when you do take him.
Also...The desire of southerners to make profit is not what stopped Slavery. The Desire of Northerners to make money off the southerners expense is what stopped Slavery (not saying thats intrinsically bad or anything lol).
|
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Took this from wikipedia as no definition of this theory was given in the OP.
Why it can't work based on this definition. It says that the state has to be eliminated. This is just retarded academic jerk off thinking.
The obvious questions that need answering:
1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors?
2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
Their answer? "Voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies." What does this even mean? I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. This is just inviting the return of 7th century warlords to take over and do whatever the fuck they want. In essence, this whole idea is going to be ruined simply because the guy with the bigger gun is going to call the shots.
You can't run a society by eliminating the state. It just makes no sense. You need legislators to write statutes and define the crimes and rules. You need the executive to carry out these rules. And you need a fair and impartial judiciary to interpret the law. I mean c'mon, you can't even create a corporation in any country if the legislator does not allow it.
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
|
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
Its the product of being born privileged in a first world nation somewhere in suburbia :/.
Seriously, I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the heart of the issue, its one of logical contradictions. It isn't even "this cannot work". Its "this idea, as a concept, is basically a paradox".
Transitional Anarchy without people dieing on the Streets? Sure. Can happen, has happened, and will happen again.
Long term Anarchy? The very idea, applied to human beings, is illogical. Humans beings thrive on growth and change, and long term Anarchy assumes neither exist.
|
On August 31 2010 08:40 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 07:23 Badjas wrote:On August 31 2010 05:46 Yurebis wrote: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? No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
|
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +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).
It would cost them a LOT if the courts judged against them.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:
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 polluters have deemed to be in the wrong as the fishermen came first, or whatever the property law judges say. For them to pollute the river freely they'd either have to go back in time and homestead the river first, or pay the fishers to move.
I'm not a judge, but to expect that from a court of law, people are going to kill each other is ridiculous. The court is there to settle disputes, and it does so in the best manner the market can afford. They won't kill each other as much as states don't kill each other right now. You got to demonstrate how could it be more profitable for them to enter into a slugfest of guns instead of settling it like civilized man. Hint: it's cheaper to settle civilly. And if one of them disagrees and wants to be a dick, then he's gonna get blown over by the vast collection of decentralized PDAs and courts that agree, justifiably so.
You break the NAP, you get AP'd yourself lol.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
What the fuck I didn't say that. You're coming with the most retarded example, because lighthouses have historically proven to be a perfect example of how private entities can share shit with some free riders yet still be able to afford it. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous that you think something can be so desirable, so demanded, yet can't be monetized when IT HAS BEEN already.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
If they don't innovate, how do they keep up? Rent seeking is a joke, the government is the greatest rent seeker of all. Own all land much? Tax everyone much? Steal 50% of the GDP much? Be consistent for once.
And If someone's adding nothing to a business, then it should be easy peasy for other entrepreneurs to come and rent-seek too. Undercut the EXPLOITERS.
Plus I don't think putting up a fence around some land would be allowable nor defendable in ancap law. You don't know what the law is going to say, and I don't either. But I feel it would be heavily based on homesteading, and putting up a fence hardly consists into homesteading something. Building a house and leaving it unoccupied for 50 years too. Yes there will be arbitrary determinations of how private property can be earned and maintained from natural resources, of course. Else people could just claim to own from the moon to yo mamma.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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. Show nested quote +
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.
Who did they buy the wells from, and why the fuck would the competitor not just deactivate the well and activate it again when standard oil increases its prices, if it was knowable that they were running at a loss? It's their own fault for being retarded, and the government would know no better. Props to standard oil IMO. Do they own every well in the world already because everyone was dumb enough to sell it to them, while only the clever clever guys at the state could have foreseen such huge profit margins going to waste?
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
Do I really have to go that empiricist road and study the case just to prove to you that it couldn't be?
Government breaks up monopolies to put up oligopolies, it's standard practice, sometimes to the benefit of the monopoly, because they're colluding with everyone else to raise prices above what was the market price. Such an obvious strategy. The state is paid off by the corporations, and they only enter a market if its to either help one at the expense of the other, or help all of them at the expense of the consumer. The taxpayer is hardly hardly a factor, because taxpayer qua voter is so cheap to obtain.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
"Oh no, that guy is running at a loss! He will make us bankrupt!"
Then just freeze the assets until he stops, god how hard is that? Do we really have to be afraid of people giving stuff out for free?
"Oh no, that guy is 6 pooling us!"
He can't raise prices back up so much that the next second best product - and it doesn't even have to be the same kind of product, just any other product that satisfies the same end - becomes more cost efficient.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +
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.
NICE ONE. But then EVERYONE would be able to do the same. A chobo like Shine could cheese some protoss, expand to the whole map, and do the same thing next game. What then? Thats what entrepreneurship is, you take profits and interest from previous investments and turn them into new investments. And people do that all over the world.
But that's not to say that whoever gets the first say one trillion dollars will necessarily beat them either. Sure he can give people money for free, but where is that capital coming from? It's coming from a previously successful exchange, so he's completely legitimized in doing that.
The problems with oil though are just so so government entrenched, not just directly entrenched, but indirectly too, through car companies, socialized roads, how other means of transportations were killed by the state... It's not an easy issue that you can take a piece off and say "this is the worst part of it".
Consitently, you have to, have to admit, that if you're against a monopoly, you have to be against the state, there is no ifs and buts. It's completely arbitary how you think oil titans are awful, but law titans, police titans, military titans, road titans, are fine. It makes 0 sense, and it just tell how biased you are. To pick on voluntary monopolies before involuntary ones. I'm sad.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote:This is the real ethics of anarcho-capitalism. Self-enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
Oh, yeah, because I totally said "I wouldn't feed my own child", or "You shouldn't feed your own child"
No, I rejected moral, positive obligations, and there's a plethora of reason why to. I've went through them a lot in this very thread, and you must be the third person to appeal to emotion and say "you don't care about children, you don't care about kids, hurrr". YOU DONT KNOW WHAT I CARE ABOUT AND THATS NOT THE POINT. The point is that as soon as you decide that goal X is enough of a reason to coerce a non-aggressing human being, you should fully understand what you did, and why is that a bad thing in private law. Because there is no stopping someone stealing from you on the same grounds, because there is no stopping the very person you aggressed from aggressing you back. Nothing. So quit using those retarded examples, to make pointless, ambiguous and contradictory moral theories.
|
On August 31 2010 08:02 Matrijs wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 07:37 Yurebis wrote: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: Show nested quote +
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: Show nested quote +
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."
Uh I think you missed the point where the lawmakers could only know what laws to write once they started from the bottom up, to decide which laws would most people consider fair. That ultimately it was a statist that enforced the law is irrelevant to the case that law can be brought about by moral sentiment plus dispute resolution alone.
|
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:Show nested quote +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.
Uh, perhaps you're just not used to the idea that a society can exist without a central plan? There is no central plan, live with it.
I've defined the basic tennets, and I've proposed how things could work, but of course, I can't predict what things will be in ancap just as much as I can't predict what the next Apple product will me, or what will be the next fashion of the season.
And so, because you don't know what Apple's next product will be, you can't defend Apple? I mean... that's a non argument. The same could be said about the state, even more so I believe, because the state is much more unstable in its foreign policies and capital management. Healthcare could be heavily socialized next year. North Korea and Iran could be nuked or attacked anytime. Illegal immigrants could have amnesty next year. Taxes can rise and fall easily by a margin of 10%, the fed can create a new bubble. There's so many things that the state can do to impact society much much faster (and for much much worse) than the decentralized decisions of millions of capitalists acting on their own property restraints.
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:
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.
I don't swear it off, I do what I can, but I dislike copy-paste, googling slugfests. I feel much less is learned by that.
And well, you can prove anything empirically as well bro, so, cheers. The sun got up, it must have been the state's doing. Tee hee.
Also, empirical tenets are a-priori, so... yep. Try explaining why you think the scientific method should be used, empirically. "The scientific method should be used because the scientific method proves the scientific method is a valid theory".
:O
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities
Also there is nothing ever foolproof, because human knowledge isn't ever going to be foolproof.
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:
4) Attempting to pre-empt a very specific and complex argument with a blanket statement and no backup.
Then don't accept it and ignore me, but don't come and say it's wrong without refuting it...
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:
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.
Okay, I'll review the OP in a few days.
|
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive.
|
On August 31 2010 09:52 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive.
Hrm? I'm not talking about a dominion by a private citizen, I'm talking about in relationship to the companies providing these services.
|
I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
|
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
Merely opposing something doesn't mean you're actively in favour of banning it. I oppose your point of view but I recognise your freedom to hold it. I might oppose porn on some sort of ethical disagreement with it, but still recognise that people are free to voluntarily agree to appear naked for money if they so wish. I might try to convince people not to create or consume porn, but still recognise that ultimately it's their decision and that they're responsible for it.
But let's say that 63% of Americans are actually in favour of banning it. People really don't understand the machinery of the state and how it works. They honestly don't understand or see the aspect of violence that they're proposing. That's partly why the state is so effective, because the violence is hidden. Euphemisms are continually used in our culture to obscure the use of violence, not unlike your use of the word cooperation to describe the beating of slaves being forced to build pyramids. The violence and coercion and threats and bullying may as well not even be occurring at all for the amount of empathy it brings out in people.
I doubt many of those people would be personally willing to carry out the act of destroying the mosque, or arresting the mullah or extracting a fine from him or whatever it is that they want the government to do about it. Who would be willing to carry that act out themselves in principle? Wouldn't they quickly come to realise that they're being coercive? The mullah himself would not presuppose their authority and so would probably resist, which means you have to get physically coercive which drives the point home even further. And they would have to pay out of their own pocket to do it, and for what benefit? They would make that cost benefit analysis. When the job is offloaded to the state they don't see any of that and they don't make a rational analysis of their decision, whether it was worth it, how destructive and pointless it all was.
|
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
In sum, strawman.
If I straw manned you, it was by accident. But I didn't really. I'm saying if you don't deny people will have a tendency assemble/cooperate for common interests, then you cannot deny government or governing systems are inevitable.
Voluntarily assemble... governing systems are not about voluntarism, it's about forcing everyone in
But it's ok I mean, I've made way more strawmen throughout this thread than you could ever fit in a post. It would hit the character limit LOL.
...Is there even a character limit?
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If people have moved in, they accepted rent conditions
If you just claimed to own everything, then it's a fraud, and it's a state.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:
"Coercion" as you call it is just the result of a few hundred years of continual cooperation and progress, and the institution of the state is so powerful it is able to coerce its people and people who do not wish to cooperate have few viable options (like for instance, moving to an uninhabited island). Perhaps its time to tear that down, but your only kidding yourself if you believe it won't build itself back up again.
Welp, if teared down for the right reasons, aka understanding of private property, I doubt it would come back up, just like an understanding of "civil liberties" and partial individual rights won't allow for slavery to come back up.
It wouldn't be impossible of course, but it would take quite the deterioration, multiple times worse that the deterioration of the constitutional republic of the USA.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:Show nested quote +So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on?
I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol. Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Oh ok, a dispute over capital, property.
Well I believe any dispute can be settled in court, before the need of a gun. And most generally people are able to deter eachother from aggression by having some retaliatory force on their own.
The state of course, only diminishes both the ability of all disputes from being taken to court (by having shitty laws that imprison even victimless crime offenders), and reduces the ability for each person to best defend themselves through taxation and a socialized police force.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
They vote 63% because it's free to vote, and the court+law system that is in place allows for such a measure to be made. So... the whole legal system has become a tragedy of the common, where people try to get from it as much as they can, because they all equally are paying for the trash system, robbed both in capital and from the opportunity of having a better one. "Let the state determine the law" immediately results in the state perverting the law, even if just a little bit, and creates these types of moral hazards, where it costs nothing to agress
If those 63% were to close someone's property in ancap, they'd have to put their money where their mouth is worth, and pay for it to be removed. That includes the costs that would incur from fighting a more healthy law system that isn't built top-bottom, but bottom-top, one that puts private property over populism. And if you think it all throughout, the repercussions would probably be too great of a cost. But for you to understand that it would require to learn more about private law and enforcement...
They could only feasibly take it down if they could prove that the mosque is a direct threat for all the people around it... then... maybe. But because of religion or superstition? It wouldn't come cheap.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:Show nested quote +Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government. See where I bolded? I suppose if you have that view of America, I can see how you can think that Ancap is anything more then a transitional stage. It just shows your misconceptions on how people behave.
Latent racism, yeah. But not deal-breaking. People aren't like that anymore. "Sorry, I don't sell cars to blacks". heh :/ . Most establishments in the US have no problem getting any customer of any race, as long as they pay, IMO.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote:Show nested quote +
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
lolwut? Marginalizing human beings cuts profits? Have you ever heard of slavery? You devalue the life of a human being to a subhuman, and you've devalued the cost of his labor as well. Very simple. You deny someone work and service long enough on the basis of something he cannot change, and hes going to settle for less when you do take him. Also...The desire of southerners to make profit is not what stopped Slavery. The Desire of Northerners to make money off the southerners expense is what stopped Slavery (not saying thats intrinsically bad or anything lol).
Uh... okay... so you can just swear at someone until he becomes a willing or relatively willing slave?
I don't think it works like that... if I've learned anything about exploitation, it's because the low-self-esteem fellow doesn't see a better choice - and I'm not saying there is, there may very well not be. In the case of a slave, even if he escapes, the state had laws requiring people to return them to the slave. And I'm not blaming the state completely of course, since most probably would have done so anyway. But anyway. It's not particularly the relation between slave and slaveowners, blacks and racist whites, but the realization that you have no where to go where it isn't so.
We will have to agree to disagree on what the main factor of ending slavery is. I don't agree with an mainstream interpretations of the civil war, but I recognize one may have every reason to accept it. It's empiricism anyway.
edit: woops, quote fail.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
