|
Sanya12364 Posts
Anarcho-capitalism can have courts. All you need is a neutral arbitrator and a set of jurisprudence. There are government courts, religious courts, arbitration courts. It doesn't preclude secular courts. Many unions have their own private system. The only thing that is necessary is that all parties have to agree on which court.
But I see anarchy as an unstable system. Mostly because I'm not all that confident in mankind's ethical foundation. The primary purpose of government is governance, providing a moral anchor for society such that right and wrong and shades of gray can be decided. If society had a stable and largely uniform and sound ethical foundation, then anarchy would be a stable phenomenon.
But mankind has not developed a good set of ethics, yet, and it shows in activities of government around the world. In claiming the distinction of being the sole arbiter of morality, it enables the controllers of government to sanction rape and pillaging through violence as such was the way of the Romans or sanction stealing and wealth transfers as is the way of social democracies. While some may justify wealth transfers of the modern social democracy as goodwill and generosity of the fortunate, it's better characterize as sloth and greed of those on the receiving end. Those on the giving end are given no choice, and those on the receiving demagogue how they deserve the pay off.
While anarch-capitalism might be possible, the people of the world have generally deserved the government given to them. But to be more precise, the people given the government and the people deserving the government are different. The parents deserve the government. Their children are given that government. Only that is unfair.
|
On September 01 2010 08:32 Tuneful wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:59 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 18:25 Draconizard wrote:On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote:
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality. Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless. The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count. I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism.
I have this same problem talking to socialists. They think that just because socialism has failed and is failing everywhere it's implemented, it doesn't matter because it just hasn't been done "the right way" yet.
Realism never gets its proper place in political discussions, it seems.
|
On September 01 2010 05:18 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:On August 31 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:On August 31 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there. No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community.In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today. On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is.
The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery. When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man! Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way 1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries. And in a pro-active way 1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors. Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront. Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers. Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is? Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did. If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then... Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for. Nope.Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing. And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun. Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources. (Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7. The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL) But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals. How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified. That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP) Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project? Yes. And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with your argument on human nature; that if there is a will there is a way. While I do agree with it, I think you are leaving out the flip side of things, which is that laziness rubs out of the same as hard work ethic and going "above and beyond" rubs of on each other.
I'm guessing you've never had a shitty job before. By shitty job I don't mean the job itself but I mean that your fellow co-workers don't pull their share or at the very least, don't work up to their full potential. People then measure to themselves, is busting my ass to advance or possibly be promoted worth it if I have to pick up for the slack or work harder than everyone around me?
Does this sound like poor work ethic? Possibly but sometimes it's the reality of human nature. People aren't going exhaust themselves both physically or mentally unless it's necessary to create well-being and happiness for themselves. Whether they have a strong passion for what they do or they enjoy the capital gained from their hard work or they just need to make a living to survive.
Now I don't deny that it's possible , individuals such as scientists and engineers could collaborate their efforts to create the technological and military advances needed to thwart outside aggression (I don't believe it would be as quick and proactive as one guided be a government controlled effort). The real problem comes from funding such an expenditure. Corporations and companies who's monies were needed to protect their country and fund technological research would be forced judge themselves on how much to spend. If some companies did not understand the urgency of the situation they may feel reluctant to put forth resources. The more companies who refused to donate to the cause, the more companies would say; why should I jeopardize sacrificing our competitive gain over other companies by seemingly putting ourselves behind them financially by giving money away?
I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote:
I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
I don't quite understand this idea. During World War II, the management of the war was run like a corporate dictatorship. The people of the US clearly did not have to vote on the Manhattan project. It was funded under the umbrella effort of war. The form of governance has no relation with the operation of war.
If you are thinking of peace time projects like the Apollo program, then all you need is a bunch of geeky scientists and someone with lots of funding. Apollo program probably wouldn't have happened though. It didn't accomplish nearly enough for its costs. The space program might still have been done in different form though. Without congressional approval for funding, you wouldn't need the boondoggle of constructing the space shuttle in over ten different states.
|
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 05:18 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:On August 31 2010 11:58 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:On August 31 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism.
Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there. No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community.In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today. On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is.
The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery. When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man! Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way 1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries. And in a pro-active way 1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors. Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront. Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers. On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is? Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did. If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then... On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for. Nope.Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing. And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun. On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources. (Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7. The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL) But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals. How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified. That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP) On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:
So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project? Yes. And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway. I'm not sure I agree with your argument on human nature; that if there is a will there is a way. While I do agree with it, I think you are leaving out the flip side of things, which is that laziness rubs out of the same as hard work ethic and going "above and beyond" rubs of on each other.
Not an argument entirely on human nature (past the man will do what man wants to do), more of an argument of exchange, and micro-economics.
Man wants to be lazy to the extent that his other wishes are fulfilled. One that prioritizes lazyness over all other courses of action, will do nothing, not even eat, chew, or drink, and will die. Hardly an accurate depiction of human nature to say "man is lazy period" - there is a reason to be lazy, even if strictly biological or unconsciously.
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote:
I'm guessing you've never had a shitty job before. By shitty job I don't mean the job itself but I mean that your fellow co-workers don't pull their share or at the very least, don't work up to their full potential. People then measure to themselves, is busting my ass to advance or possibly be promoted worth it if I have to pick up for the slack or work harder than everyone around me?
Does this sound like poor work ethic? Possibly but sometimes it's the reality of human nature. People aren't going exhaust themselves both physically or mentally unless it's necessary to create well-being and happiness for themselves. Whether they have a strong passion for what they do or they enjoy the capital gained from their hard work or they just need to make a living to survive.
A shitty job that one takes is still the best shitty job available for him.
It will be worth for him if the cost-benefit is the best there is. And it's hardly poor work ethic when everyone does it. Poor compared to what? Altruistic and intelligent rulers that have never existed?
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote:
Now I don't deny that it's possible , individuals such as scientists and engineers could collaborate their efforts to create the technological and military advances needed to thwart outside aggression (I don't believe it would be as quick and proactive as one guided be a government controlled effort). The real problem comes from funding such an expenditure. Corporations and companies who's monies were needed to protect their country and fund technological research would be forced judge themselves on how much to spend. If some companies did not understand the urgency of the situation they may feel reluctant to put forth resources. The more companies who refused to donate to the cause, the more companies would say; why should I jeopardize sacrificing our competitive gain over other companies by seemingly putting ourselves behind them financially by giving money away?
It is not a consideration of corporations - indeed they have no incentive to service or produce that which isn't paid to do. It is a consideration of the consumers, to evaluate the risks and seek to ease those worries. Just as you seek to ease your worries through the coercive state, people can seek to ease their worries through many voluntary means, which I argue are always more efficient, for it comes not at the cost of increasing someone else's dissatisfaction.
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote:
I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
|
On September 01 2010 07:28 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On August 31 2010 12:23 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 11:41 jgad wrote:
If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient. :D If there is one thing I've learned as somebody who doesn't give a fuck, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. They're too stuck-up for it. Until they realize that they're never, ever going to see their utopia, it won't happen--like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument that you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to grow up first. They're not there yet. I'm being patient. For what it's worth, there's no rational argument to quit heroin either if you don't allow "human nature".
I'm stuck up for saying central planners can't possibly plan society better than society itself?
I think those who say they can are the stuck-ups.
“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” - Hayek
|
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
[
The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state.
coercion can indeed be profitable... see raiding in the Middle Ages...
paying tribute to the raiding parties (ie being subject to coercion) is more profitable.
"millions for defense, and not one cent in tribute" is not profitable... and most people won't agree with it.
The only reason to not just pay tribute/tax is because you believe that the taxer will just charge you more and more.
So instead of focusing on eliminating coercion, people and organizations have been spending years trying to figure out how to design a society where
the minimum tribute paid to the 'coercer' (the state) will win them
the most freedom from Other forms of coercion (crime, invasion from other states)
as well as allowing themselves to benefit from the coercion (welfare, slavery, etc.)
A culture that hated coercion might last... but that culture would eventually fade and disappear and coercion would start up again. And that society would have rejected the coercive means for that state to work
|
On September 01 2010 08:25 jgad wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 08:08 cavalier3024 wrote:On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun? Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for? Further reading : http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp#_ftnref2
ok thanks, i read the link you gave but i still dont fully understand how this will work.
from what i understand, every man can subscribe to a court of his choice, based on his interests. so optimally each man will subscribe to a court that represents his moral values. so far so good.
now what i dont understand is what happens when a man from court A charges a person that is subscribed to court B. each man is certain that he is right, since he followed his moral values that are represented by the court he is subscribed to.. in your link they mention an Appeal Court. but this doesnt really solve this situation since we return to the original problem: how do we decide which Appeal Court will judge this case? like before, each man can favor a different appeal court that follows different moral values.
|
On September 01 2010 07:29 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote:
If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you. Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
Are you not the monopoly of yourself? You're the only one who can offer the exact actions and labor you provide.
You don't see this argument made much because there are arbitrary boundaries in what constitutes "the only provider of a service or product", that is, anything could be a "service or product", and if you don't differentiate what makes a series of products the same product, then every single product is unique - every single owner of a product, and provider of it, is a monopolist.
Therefore, there has to be additional definition into what constitutes an unique product or service. And that necessarily has to arbitrarily exclude out the types of products you don't have a problem with being monopolized, or more simply, exclusively controlled. It's ok to monopolize yourself. It's ok to monopolize the exact brand one sells. The inventions one is given patent by the government. The material given copyright by the government.
It's only not ok, when the government deems it's not ok. Soooo, an interventionist might as well define monopoly as "the private property which the government deems unlawful".
|
On September 01 2010 07:34 D10 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 04:49 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote:
sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that Why. There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative. If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
|
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote:
From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
|
Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
|
On September 01 2010 08:37 TanGeng wrote:
Anarcho-capitalism can have courts. All you need is a neutral arbitrator and a set of jurisprudence. There are government courts, religious courts, arbitration courts. It doesn't preclude secular courts. Many unions have their own private system. The only thing that is necessary is that all parties have to agree on which court.
But I see anarchy as an unstable system. Mostly because I'm not all that confident in mankind's ethical foundation. The primary purpose of government is governance, providing a moral anchor for society such that right and wrong and shades of gray can be decided. If society had a stable and largely uniform and sound ethical foundation, then anarchy would be a stable phenomenon.
But mankind has not developed a good set of ethics, yet, and it shows in activities of government around the world. In claiming the distinction of being the sole arbiter of morality, it enables the controllers of government to sanction rape and pillaging through violence as such was the way of the Romans or sanction stealing and wealth transfers as is the way of social democracies. While some may justify wealth transfers of the modern social democracy as goodwill and generosity of the fortunate, it's better characterize as sloth and greed of those on the receiving end. Those on the giving end are given no choice, and those on the receiving demagogue how they deserve the pay off.
While anarch-capitalism might be possible, the people of the world have generally deserved the government given to them. But to be more precise, the people given the government and the people deserving the government are different. The parents deserve the government. Their children are given that government. Only that is unfair.
Contrary to popular thought, the state does not create morality, it does not give to man laws. Morality and law can arise spontaneously, and are demanded spontaneously by those who prefer to settle disputes non-violently. The state of today responds that demand, and formalizes that which man already felt right.
The laws that the state writes do not come from nowhere; the legislator has to have thunk up those silly words that command man to do things from somewhere, even if from within himself. The legislator is no god, he is a man. And like man, he has moral sentiments, and has an idea on how to make things just. Law is a guide for conflict resolution, not something that necessarily has to be preemptively shoved down people's throats - that part, is coercive.
If man has not thought up a good set of ethics, two things follow: that the state hasn't either, and that there is a demand for something better. Then how do you propose such ethics to be reached at? By coercion, or by freedom?
|
On September 01 2010 09:27 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote:
From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop. If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
So you'd rather have violent takeovers every time someone decides they want control over a resource enough to fight for it?
Under the articles, a few of the new states almost went to war with each other over economic interests and the totally impotent federal government couldn't do a thing about it. You don't think similar scenarios would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world, but with different sides basically buying security firms and squaring them off against each other like mercenaries?
|
On September 01 2010 08:42 Biochemist wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 08:32 Tuneful wrote:On September 01 2010 06:59 Yurebis wrote:On August 31 2010 18:25 Draconizard wrote:On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote:
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality. Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless. The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count. I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism. I have this same problem talking to socialists. They think that just because socialism has failed and is failing everywhere it's implemented, it doesn't matter because it just hasn't been done "the right way" yet. Realism never gets its proper place in political discussions, it seems.
So do statists...
Try to apply the arguments you use against others unto yourself. It's something I do a lot, and I feel has helped me become a little more consistent.
|
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On September 01 2010 09:34 Yurebis wrote:
Contrary to popular thought, the state does not create morality, it does not give to man laws. Morality and law can arise spontaneously, and are demanded spontaneously by those who prefer to settle disputes non-violently. The state of today responds that demand, and formalizes that which man already felt right.
State claims to be the sole definition of morality. This is its defining characteristic. Everything else is merely coordination of resources, bureaucracy, management, and operational details.
By being able to define morality, governments are a combination of governance (morality and rule of law) and pillage (stealing, killing, corruption, and wealth transfers).
I don't think we have an argument.
|
On September 01 2010 09:16 Krikkitone wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
[
The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state. coercion can indeed be profitable... see raiding in the Middle Ages... paying tribute to the raiding parties (ie being subject to coercion) is more profitable. "millions for defense, and not one cent in tribute" is not profitable... and most people won't agree with it. The only reason to not just pay tribute/tax is because you believe that the taxer will just charge you more and more. So instead of focusing on eliminating coercion, people and organizations have been spending years trying to figure out how to design a society where the minimum tribute paid to the 'coercer' (the state) will win them the most freedom from Other forms of coercion (crime, invasion from other states) as well as allowing themselves to benefit from the coercion (welfare, slavery, etc.) A culture that hated coercion might last... but that culture would eventually fade and disappear and coercion would start up again. And that society would have rejected the coercive means for that state to work
Okay, this is something I have a problem with myself. I say coercion is not profitable, and by that I invoke the Parable of the broken window, with which I mean to say, it may be profitable for the coercer, of course, he expects it to be profitable and he sometimes is; however, it is a losing game because the victim does not, and the victim will increasingly seek to stop the coercer. And then, even if the victim isn't able to stop the coercer, what happens is that they are both driven instinct, once the coercer has leeched off the victim, and has no one else to steal from.
So what I generally mean with "coercion isn't profitable", is that it is an unsustainable, short-profit, high-risk endeavor. Coercers leech off cooperativeness, and they may not leech enough that the victim dies, and I think that's exactly what the end of politics in a historical scope is, to know how to leech as much as it doesn't ruin your own civilization, yet still lets society prosper enough so the coercer can prosper too.
With that scope explained, I feel exactly the opposite as you do - once a less-coercive society is matured, all other more-coercive societies are increasingly also more obsolete, for they won't accumulate capital as fast. Defense is somewhat of an issue, yes, but less-coercive societies can top the more-coercive ones, and the un-coercive will top them all if allowed to mature.
|
On September 01 2010 09:17 cavalier3024 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 01 2010 08:25 jgad wrote:On September 01 2010 08:08 cavalier3024 wrote:On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote:
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun? Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for? Further reading : http://mises.org/rothbard/mes/chap13.asp#_ftnref2 ok thanks, i read the link you gave but i still dont fully understand how this will work. from what i understand, every man can subscribe to a court of his choice, based on his interests. so optimally each man will subscribe to a court that represents his moral values. so far so good. now what i dont understand is what happens when a man from court A charges a person that is subscribed to court B. each man is certain that he is right, since he followed his moral values that are represented by the court he is subscribed to.. in your link they mention an Appeal Court. but this doesnt really solve this situation since we return to the original problem: how do we decide which Appeal Court will judge this case? like before, each man can favor a different appeal court that follows different moral values.
Just as the men have agreed to even go to a court in the first place and not simply fight it out, it can be assumed that the two courts, who are professionals at dispute resolution, will manage to agree on a course of action to trial the case.
|
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote:
Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
There are Diseconomies of scale, to begin with.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
