|
1- How do you objectively measure social welfare?
Hint: you cannot.
2- How can you formally claim the right to control an object without a theory of private property?
Even anarcho-communists have their own theory of property, even if they don't formalize it. Else, there would be no way to assert such a thing as "personal possessions". Claiming something to be a personal possession is to claim exclusive control, no different than private property in capitalism (they just use a different term to try and mask it), and personal possession thieves are just as wrong and punishable then. Everyone that claims anything have to have a theory of property to explain why they ought to have control over something, or why is it wrong to take over something that was in use by someone else.
This may be a relevant text:
http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro.asp
|
On September 06 2010 08:03 Yurebis wrote:
1- How do you objectively measure social welfare?
Hint: you cannot.
I don't understand why everything must be measured in absolutes. Your fallacy stems from trying to measure everything in absolutes while ignoring the context of specific situations and circumstances.
Example
1. Moral: Murdering is wrong.
2. Situation: You're kidnapped and given the choice to either let 10 people die at the kidnappers hands or kill 1 of them yourself and the other 9 are freed.
3. Suddenly the concept that "murder is wrong" doesn't feel so absolute. The context is instead analyzed to determine whether the action was right or wrong.
So you make a statement like "stealing is wrong" and turn it into an absolute so that all other moral and ethic arguments can just be directed back to this one "absolute". Utilitarianism, although vague, is also much more flexible when in comes to context. It doesn't get caught up in "buts" and "what ifs" because rule of thumb is always more reliable than trying to force-fit some rule or law into a situation regardless of the context.
2- How can you formally claim the right to control an object without a theory of private property?
Even anarcho-communists have their own theory of property, even if they don't formalize it. Else, there would be no way to assert such a thing as "personal possessions". Claiming something to be a personal possession is to claim exclusive control, no different than private property in capitalism (they just use a different term to try and mask it), and personal possession thieves are just as wrong and punishable then. Everyone that claims anything have to have a theory of property to explain why they ought to have control over something, or why is it wrong to take over something that was in use by someone else.
And this is an example where you ignore the context by attempting to force absolutes. Let me elaborate. To you, eliminating the initiation of force is a method of maximizing well-being and happiness. Without the initiation of force, any unhappiness or misfortune can only be pin pointed on your own choices. However the initiation of force theory fails to take into context indirect unhappiness or "cause and effect" situations.
Example: A company decides to lay-off workers to make business cuts. Many of these workers live in my neighborhood and cannot afford to pay their bills anymore. Although my job is secure, my happiness and well-being is being threatened and due to the increase of poverty, people are turning to crime and stealing in my neighborhood. Although the company never initiated any sort of direct force against me, the indirect side effects still affected my well-being because society as a whole was affected, and I am forced to share that society and interact with others.
This would not happen in our present day society because of things like unemployment benefits. They are the government's way of saying, "you contributed to society by pay taxes, in return if you are even in a tough spot, we got your back". This improves the happiness and well-being of society as a whole, which in turn, has a indirect side effect on me. Less unhappy people = Less assholes = less crime. Stop ignoring the context and think for a second that your own happiness can often be dependent on the happiness of the people around you who you are forced to share a society with.
Stealing is wrong, but if I had a choice between being stolen from the government and being robbed at gunpoint in my own house, there is an obvious better choice. I'm guessing you never grew up in a bad neighborhood before. Sure it may be their own fault that they turned out miserable human beings, but should the government reasonably try to accommodate their well-being to prevent them from turning to a life of crime and channeling their misfortunes onto myself and other innocent people?
You complete ignore how the happiness of a society as a whole affects an individual.
|
On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 08:03 Yurebis wrote:
1- How do you objectively measure social welfare?
Hint: you cannot.
I don't understand why everything must be measured in absolutes. Your fallacy stems from trying to measure everything in absolutes while ignoring the context of specific situations and circumstances. Example 1. Moral: Murdering is wrong. 2. Situation: You're kidnapped and given the choice to either let 10 people die at the kidnappers hands or kill 1 of them yourself and the other 9 are freed. 3. Suddenly the concept that "murder is wrong" doesn't feel so absolute. The context is instead analyzed to determine whether the action was right or wrong. So you make a statement like "stealing is wrong" and turn it into an absolute so that all other moral and ethic arguments can just be directed back to this one "absolute". Utilitarianism, although vague, is also much more flexible when in comes to context. It doesn't get caught up in "buts" and "what ifs" because rule of thumb is always more reliable than trying to force-fit some rule or law into a situation regardless of the context.
Quote me where I say private property is absolute. And please don't come at me with such ridiculous examples. The kidnapped one put at distress and forced to choose between two evils would not be charged, the kidnappers would, for that, and any deaths that ensued.
On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
Example: A company decides to lay-off workers to make business cuts. Many of these workers live in my neighborhood and cannot afford to pay their bills anymore. Although my job is secure, my happiness and well-being is being threatened and due to the increase of poverty, people are turning to crime and stealing in my neighborhood. Although the company never initiated any sort of direct force against me, the indirect side effects still affected my well-being because society as a whole was affected, and I am forced to share that society and interact with others.
This would not happen in our present day society because of things like unemployment benefits.
Where did that money come from in the first place?
How could you know, before the men were unemployed, that it was justifiable for the state to steal from them for such an occasion? How can you know, even assuming the prediction was correct, that it made them overall happier? Perhaps they were trying to save money to move out, but could not, since those savings were stolen from then, and now they're in fact trapped due to the state's making such choices for them, 'for their own good'.
On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
You complete ignore how the happiness of a society as a whole affects an individual.
Is there happiness outside of the individual? And if there isn't, why isn't the individual the best one equipped to maximize it? Do you really feel a central authority is most efficient at maximizing people's individual, subjective demands?
To be, it just sounds like ex-post rationalizations, that can't discern a right from a wrong a-priori, and are therefore useless for discussing courses of action (they are very much used by statists justifying their thefts however)
|
On September 06 2010 08:03 Yurebis wrote:1- How do you objectively measure social welfare? Hint: you cannot. 2- How can you formally claim the right to control an object without a theory of private property? Even anarcho-communists have their own theory of property, even if they don't formalize it. Else, there would be no way to assert such a thing as "personal possessions". Claiming something to be a personal possession is to claim exclusive control, no different than private property in capitalism (they just use a different term to try and mask it), and personal possession thieves are just as wrong and punishable then. Everyone that claims anything have to have a theory of property to explain why they ought to have control over something, or why is it wrong to take over something that was in use by someone else. This may be a relevant text: http://mises.org/rothbard/ethics/hoppeintro.asp
1. The Human Development Index attempts to measure welfare objectively. In any case that is irrelevant. The inability to objectively measure an idea does not imply uselessness. Happiness cannot be measured objectively, yet people still try to improve their happiness. If social welfare cannot be measured objectively, then any "improvement" of social welfare is subjective. It does not mean that any "improvement" is non-existent.
2. I never said to ignore theories about private property. I merely pointed out the absurdity of its absoluteness. Quit going around in circles setting up straw men while conveniently attempting to ignore the points.
Quote me where I say private property is absolute.
This doesn't need to be quoted. Even if you did not explicitly state that private property is absolute, it is clear that all your arguments point to that conclusion. I guess that is a good trollish thing to do though, since you can attempt to avoid embarrassment by denying that you explicitly stated something which you have stated implicitly. Sadly for you, anyone who has any reasonable reading comprehension skills can see the absurdity of your arguments. There are straw men, misinterpretations, evasions, literalizations, and blatant circularity everywhere in your responses. Not to mention a laughable overuse of big words in order to make yourself sound superior/more intelligent.
I’ve said everything worth saying. People reading this thread can read and judge for themselves. Kidcrash gets it. Props to him. I'm out.
|
|
|
Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
Example: A company decides to lay-off workers to make business cuts. Many of these workers live in my neighborhood and cannot afford to pay their bills anymore. Although my job is secure, my happiness and well-being is being threatened and due to the increase of poverty, people are turning to crime and stealing in my neighborhood. Although the company never initiated any sort of direct force against me, the indirect side effects still affected my well-being because society as a whole was affected, and I am forced to share that society and interact with others.
This would not happen in our present day society because of things like unemployment benefits. Where did that money come from in the first place? How could you know, before the men were unemployed, that it was justifiable for the state to steal from them for such an occasion? How can you know, even assuming the prediction was correct, that it made them overall happier? Perhaps they were trying to save money to move out, but could not, since those savings were stolen from then, and now they're in fact trapped due to the state's making such choices for them, 'for their own good'.
Because things like lay offs and home invasions happen. Your a-prior argument might have some relevance if, let's say, things like robberies and lay-offs never happened or happened in a negligible rate of occurrence. Then you rationalize in that, if the state didn't steal from them, they could have just moved out. Why should I have to move out when I can live where I want to, safely? We should just move away from danger instead of trying to fix the danger at it's core?
Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
You complete ignore how the happiness of a society as a whole affects an individual. Is there happiness outside of the individual? And if there isn't, why isn't the individual the best one equipped to maximize it? Do you really feel a central authority is most efficient at maximizing people's individual, subjective demands? To be, it just sounds like ex-post rationalizations, that can't discern a right from a wrong a-priori, and are therefore useless for discussing courses of action (they are very much used by statists justifying their thefts however)
The happiness outside of the individual must be evaluated because we are social human beings that live a society where we interact with others. Unless you live as a hermit in the mountains of tibit, the well-being and happiness of others in our society will have an affect on the individual. I don't understand how bringing up things that, inevitability, any number of certain individuals may potentially have to deal with and we should effectively try to minimize in frequency, like crime and lay-offs, is a-prior?
|
On September 06 2010 12:27 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
Example: A company decides to lay-off workers to make business cuts. Many of these workers live in my neighborhood and cannot afford to pay their bills anymore. Although my job is secure, my happiness and well-being is being threatened and due to the increase of poverty, people are turning to crime and stealing in my neighborhood. Although the company never initiated any sort of direct force against me, the indirect side effects still affected my well-being because society as a whole was affected, and I am forced to share that society and interact with others.
This would not happen in our present day society because of things like unemployment benefits. Where did that money come from in the first place? How could you know, before the men were unemployed, that it was justifiable for the state to steal from them for such an occasion? How can you know, even assuming the prediction was correct, that it made them overall happier? Perhaps they were trying to save money to move out, but could not, since those savings were stolen from then, and now they're in fact trapped due to the state's making such choices for them, 'for their own good'. Because things like lay offs and home invasions happen. Your a-prior argument might have some relevance if, let's say, things like robberies and lay-offs never happened or happened in a negligible rate of occurrence.
Can the state know any better than the market on the ideal when and how to get ready for it?
On September 06 2010 12:27 kidcrash wrote: Then you rationalize in that, if the state didn't steal from them, they could have just moved out. Why should I have to move out when I can live where I want to, safely? We should just move away from danger instead of trying to fix the danger at it's core?
Missing the point. Had the government not stole their money, and forced them to "save for misadventure x", they could otherwise choose for themselves how much to save for it, if any at all, and maybe even prevented having to have saved at all, by e.g. moving. They could have gotten enough to open their own business, they could have saved more because of less government overhead, they could have used that money to buy more products and saving the employer the need to cut employees - many things could happen, none of which were given a chance to be chosen by the taxpayers.
On September 06 2010 12:27 kidcrash wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 08:56 kidcrash wrote:
You complete ignore how the happiness of a society as a whole affects an individual. Is there happiness outside of the individual? And if there isn't, why isn't the individual the best one equipped to maximize it? Do you really feel a central authority is most efficient at maximizing people's individual, subjective demands? To be, it just sounds like ex-post rationalizations, that can't discern a right from a wrong a-priori, and are therefore useless for discussing courses of action (they are very much used by statists justifying their thefts however) The happiness outside of the individual must be evaluated because we are social human beings that live a society where we interact with others. Unless you live as a hermit in the mountains of tibit, the well-being and happiness of others in our society will have an affect on the individual. I don't understand how bringing up things that, inevitability, any number of certain individuals may potentially have to deal with and we should effectively try to minimize in frequency, like crime and lay-offs, is a-prior?
Missing the point again, and you don't know what a-priori means, so I will stop using that word with you. You may know certain some "things" are inevitable, that there may always be a constant demand to fulfill - like, people will always need food to live. Even then, does it mean the state can provide it best?
I would rant on entrepreneurship and the calculation problem but I think it would do little to help you solve such a question, so I'd rather wait and see what you have to say about it.
Using your own argument, is it not conceivable that the state should steal from everyone and administer the things that "we should try to minimize in frequency" like: criminality(police), unemployment(insurance, government jobs?), hunger (food), thirst (water), homelessness(housing), poverty(welfare), loneliness(forced assembly), underpopulation (forced reproduction), unhappiness (everything that it deems provides happiness)?
What makes you discern that some "things" should be taken-then-given by the state, and others should be left entirely to the individuals maximizing their own happiness? And could you elaborate on that arbitrariness in a way that it leaves no open-ended questions?
|
The argument against anarcho capitalism is simple, and obvious. By removing the state you implement a system where individuals will use their private gains to enforce their power. Once you give billionaires the right to hire private organizations to enforce their will, they will use this power, and feudalism results. How do you think noble lords, with their claims to power first came into existence?
Anarcho capitalism is similar to Utopian Communism, in that it only exists as theory, yet in practice what you end up with a dominant caste who will assert total athority and power over the majority of the population. Communism this occurs because of the unlimited authority given to the state (witness North Korea), Anarchy because of the unlimited authority granted to the well to do (witness Somalia).
|
On September 03 2010 08:00 Yurebis wrote:
The reigning theory in anarcho-capitalism is capitalism - private property, you own what you make and trade, and no one is right for taking that away from you - and for those that do, they're acting outside the realm of capitalism, and that's that.
You see this is the flaw I pointed out. Basically you argue that a system where everyone acts a certain way is called AnCap and if not everyone acts that way (in this case the entity we call normally state) it isn't. This makes the defining feature of what AnCap is the behaviour of all people which is a silly starting point to make arguments.
So let me propose HappySociety where everyone acts only to bestow happiness on their fellow neighbours because everyone learned that making others happy will make oneself happy. They need neither state nor capitalism. Why can't it work?
And no matter the objection I can answer: No that won't happen because they only want to make others happy.
What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play?
No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy.
What if another country invades HappySociety?
No problem, they will make the invaders happy and teach them how to aquire happiness through bringing happiness to other people.
etc.
|
On September 06 2010 21:27 phungus420 wrote:
The argument against anarcho capitalism is simple, and obvious. By removing the state you implement a system where individuals will use their private gains to enforce their power. Once you give billionaires the right to hire private organizations to enforce their will, they will use this power, and feudalism results. How do you think noble lords, with their claims to power first came into existence?
Anarcho capitalism is similar to Utopian Communism, in that it only exists as theory, yet in practice what you end up with a dominant caste who will assert total athority and power over the majority of the population. Communism this occurs because of the unlimited authority given to the state (witness North Korea), Anarchy because of the unlimited authority granted to the well to do (witness Somalia).
http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880
http://mises.org/daily/2066
Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back.
I think noble lords were accepted in their claims to power over all land because the Rome that came before them was no less repugnant, heavily taxing, enslaving, and setting up the serfdom precedents themselves. The next rulers have no obligation to be any less tyrannical. Freedom is most usually a function of the people, not of the ruler. And I say that with some distaste.
Regardless, such claims would not be respected in ancap by anybody, as much as claims to the moon or the oceans - some homesteading standards have to be adopted - and so the whole point is moot, as it is a misinterpretation of what market law will be, and an empty assertion that violence would be viable.
I've explained why it would be not profitable for billionaires to waste billions on an army. It is inefficient, they would have to raise whole new hierarchies and personnel, weapons and ammunition; and then, they would have to be worried of retaliation of any type - lawsuits, resistance, other armies being raised against them back (their aggression creates a demand for defense greater than their offense). It is an incredibly risky investment that not even PDA (private defense agencies) would be willing to make just because of the way the market is setup to fight against them if they did.
The way corporations do it today, is by using the subsidized, bloated, and legitimized army that is paid by the slaves themselves - the state - through lobbyism. If you're scared of corporations gaining military powers, then you certainly should be scared of giving them the means to coerce a whole population for cents on the dollar through the state. And I'm not talking just about the military either, but the army of monopolized judicial, legislature, and executive bureaucrats, and any other state monopoly.
|
On September 07 2010 05:54 silynxer wrote:Show nested quote +On September 03 2010 08:00 Yurebis wrote:
The reigning theory in anarcho-capitalism is capitalism - private property, you own what you make and trade, and no one is right for taking that away from you - and for those that do, they're acting outside the realm of capitalism, and that's that. You see this is the flaw I pointed out. Basically you argue that a system where everyone acts a certain way is called AnCap and if not everyone acts that way (in this case the entity we call normally state) it isn't. This makes the defining feature of what AnCap is the behaviour of all people which is a silly starting point to make arguments. So let me propose HappySociety where everyone acts only to bestow happiness on their fellow neighbours because everyone learned that making others happy will make oneself happy. They need neither state nor capitalism. Why can't it work? And no matter the objection I can answer: No that won't happen because they only want to make others happy. What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play? No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy. What if another country invades HappySociety? No problem, they will make the invaders happy and teach them how to aquire happiness through bringing happiness to other people. etc.
Would I be equally right in saying that what we have today in the US is a liberal constitutional republic, if it means that's what the power structure was intended to be? No, I call it corporatism, in the defense of the minarchist, even if I don't agree with him that minarchism will ever work.
I think you're underestimating me when you say that I don't take into account violent behavior by the part of others, in ancap. I do. When I say they're acting outside of market agreements, it means anyone is free to stop them, and would most likely be encouraged to with bounties raised by the victims and defense institutions. Or some other model that fits the demand better, that no single person in a state system would figure out. Do you understand the argument of economical calculation, that markets best allocate scarce resources, and that because defense is a scarce resource, it is best handled privately as well?
|
On September 07 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2010 21:27 phungus420 wrote:
The argument against anarcho capitalism is simple, and obvious. By removing the state you implement a system where individuals will use their private gains to enforce their power. Once you give billionaires the right to hire private organizations to enforce their will, they will use this power, and feudalism results. How do you think noble lords, with their claims to power first came into existence?
Anarcho capitalism is similar to Utopian Communism, in that it only exists as theory, yet in practice what you end up with a dominant caste who will assert total athority and power over the majority of the population. Communism this occurs because of the unlimited authority given to the state (witness North Korea), Anarchy because of the unlimited authority granted to the well to do (witness Somalia). http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880http://mises.org/daily/2066Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back. I think noble lords were accepted in their claims to power over all land because the Rome that came before them was no less repugnant, heavily taxing, enslaving, and setting up the serfdom precedents themselves. The next rulers have no obligation to be any less tyrannical. Freedom is most usually a function of the people, not of the ruler. And I say that with some distaste. Regardless, such claims would not be respected in ancap by anybody, as much as claims to the moon or the oceans - some homesteading standards have to be adopted - and so the whole point is moot, as it is a misinterpretation of what market law will be, and an empty assertion that violence would be viable. I've explained why it would be not profitable for billionaires to waste billions on an army. It is inefficient, they would have to raise whole new hierarchies and personnel, weapons and ammunition; and then, they would have to be worried of retaliation of any type - lawsuits, resistance, other armies being raised against them back (their aggression creates a demand for defense greater than their offense). It is an incredibly risky investment that not even PDA (private defense agencies) would be willing to make just because of the way the market is setup to fight against them if they did. The way corporations do it today, is by using the subsidized, bloated, and legitimized army that is paid by the slaves themselves - the state - through lobbyism. If you're scared of corporations gaining military powers, then you certainly should be scared of giving them the means to coerce a whole population for cents on the dollar through the state. And I'm not talking just about the military either, but the army of monopolized judicial, legislature, and executive bureaucrats, and any other state monopoly.
Once you have a billion dollars I would expect that your main concern stops being how to get more dollars, and instead becomes one of, how to maximize your power, or something along those lines. This is all meaningless theorycrafting though, but private armies would indeed be a way to maximize your power and billionaires would invest in them even if they didn't pay off economically, because economics stopped being their main concern. Now you may say that then they would loose market-shares to other people who still only focused on maximizing their profit, and even if that is true (which I dont think it is) the world would still have to deal with powerhungry billionaires with private armies in the meantime.
|
On September 07 2010 06:13 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 05:54 silynxer wrote:On September 03 2010 08:00 Yurebis wrote:
The reigning theory in anarcho-capitalism is capitalism - private property, you own what you make and trade, and no one is right for taking that away from you - and for those that do, they're acting outside the realm of capitalism, and that's that. You see this is the flaw I pointed out. Basically you argue that a system where everyone acts a certain way is called AnCap and if not everyone acts that way (in this case the entity we call normally state) it isn't. This makes the defining feature of what AnCap is the behaviour of all people which is a silly starting point to make arguments. So let me propose HappySociety where everyone acts only to bestow happiness on their fellow neighbours because everyone learned that making others happy will make oneself happy. They need neither state nor capitalism. Why can't it work? And no matter the objection I can answer: No that won't happen because they only want to make others happy. What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play? No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy. What if another country invades HappySociety? No problem, they will make the invaders happy and teach them how to aquire happiness through bringing happiness to other people. etc. Would I be equally right in saying that what we have today in the US is a liberal constitutional republic, if it means that's what the power structure was intended to be? No, I call it corporatism, in the defense of the minarchist, even if I don't agree with him that minarchism will ever work. I think you're underestimating me when you say that I don't take into account violent behavior by the part of others, in ancap. I do. When I say they're acting outside of market agreements, it means anyone is free to stop them, and would most likely be encouraged to with bounties raised by the victims and defense institutions. Or some other model that fits the demand better, that no single person in a state system would figure out. Do you understand the argument of economical calculation, that markets best allocate scarce resources, and that because defense is a scarce resource, it is best handled privately as well?
LuL that was awesome.
Spot the difference:
Yurebis:
When I say they're acting outside of market agreements, it means anyone is free to stop them, and would most likely be encouraged to with bounties raised by the victims and defense institutions.
"Winner of Thread". AKA. "MR. AWESOME":
What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play?
No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy.
/thread over
|
On September 07 2010 21:24 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 06:13 Yurebis wrote:On September 07 2010 05:54 silynxer wrote:On September 03 2010 08:00 Yurebis wrote:
The reigning theory in anarcho-capitalism is capitalism - private property, you own what you make and trade, and no one is right for taking that away from you - and for those that do, they're acting outside the realm of capitalism, and that's that. You see this is the flaw I pointed out. Basically you argue that a system where everyone acts a certain way is called AnCap and if not everyone acts that way (in this case the entity we call normally state) it isn't. This makes the defining feature of what AnCap is the behaviour of all people which is a silly starting point to make arguments. So let me propose HappySociety where everyone acts only to bestow happiness on their fellow neighbours because everyone learned that making others happy will make oneself happy. They need neither state nor capitalism. Why can't it work? And no matter the objection I can answer: No that won't happen because they only want to make others happy. What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play? No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy. What if another country invades HappySociety? No problem, they will make the invaders happy and teach them how to aquire happiness through bringing happiness to other people. etc. Would I be equally right in saying that what we have today in the US is a liberal constitutional republic, if it means that's what the power structure was intended to be? No, I call it corporatism, in the defense of the minarchist, even if I don't agree with him that minarchism will ever work. I think you're underestimating me when you say that I don't take into account violent behavior by the part of others, in ancap. I do. When I say they're acting outside of market agreements, it means anyone is free to stop them, and would most likely be encouraged to with bounties raised by the victims and defense institutions. Or some other model that fits the demand better, that no single person in a state system would figure out. Do you understand the argument of economical calculation, that markets best allocate scarce resources, and that because defense is a scarce resource, it is best handled privately as well? LuL that was awesome. Spot the difference: Yurebis: When I say they're acting outside of market agreements, it means anyone is free to stop them, and would most likely be encouraged to with bounties raised by the victims and defense institutions. "Winner of Thread". AKA. "MR. AWESOME": What if a deranged person that doesn't act that way comes into play? No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy. /thread over
I'm telling you exactly what happens when a violent individual comes into play. Demand to stop him increases - demand for defense increases, meaning, people will pay to stop him, and he will be stopped for as long as there's enough cooperative human beings able to organize and supply that demand.
What you project upon me however is the central planning model - the one that the state answers every question by being the most deranged organization itself, and shifting these organizational tasks all to itself. "No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy" is exactly the statist type of answer, that does not address market incentives, value subjectivity, or the calculation problem. The statist is the one who claims his answer is the only answer to a demand, and coercively monopolizes such. My case is twofold - it is neither the most efficient, nor the most moral answer for anything. Including defense.
|
On September 07 2010 21:19 Hasudk wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:On September 06 2010 21:27 phungus420 wrote:
The argument against anarcho capitalism is simple, and obvious. By removing the state you implement a system where individuals will use their private gains to enforce their power. Once you give billionaires the right to hire private organizations to enforce their will, they will use this power, and feudalism results. How do you think noble lords, with their claims to power first came into existence?
Anarcho capitalism is similar to Utopian Communism, in that it only exists as theory, yet in practice what you end up with a dominant caste who will assert total athority and power over the majority of the population. Communism this occurs because of the unlimited authority given to the state (witness North Korea), Anarchy because of the unlimited authority granted to the well to do (witness Somalia). http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1880http://mises.org/daily/2066Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back. I think noble lords were accepted in their claims to power over all land because the Rome that came before them was no less repugnant, heavily taxing, enslaving, and setting up the serfdom precedents themselves. The next rulers have no obligation to be any less tyrannical. Freedom is most usually a function of the people, not of the ruler. And I say that with some distaste. Regardless, such claims would not be respected in ancap by anybody, as much as claims to the moon or the oceans - some homesteading standards have to be adopted - and so the whole point is moot, as it is a misinterpretation of what market law will be, and an empty assertion that violence would be viable. I've explained why it would be not profitable for billionaires to waste billions on an army. It is inefficient, they would have to raise whole new hierarchies and personnel, weapons and ammunition; and then, they would have to be worried of retaliation of any type - lawsuits, resistance, other armies being raised against them back (their aggression creates a demand for defense greater than their offense). It is an incredibly risky investment that not even PDA (private defense agencies) would be willing to make just because of the way the market is setup to fight against them if they did. The way corporations do it today, is by using the subsidized, bloated, and legitimized army that is paid by the slaves themselves - the state - through lobbyism. If you're scared of corporations gaining military powers, then you certainly should be scared of giving them the means to coerce a whole population for cents on the dollar through the state. And I'm not talking just about the military either, but the army of monopolized judicial, legislature, and executive bureaucrats, and any other state monopoly. Once you have a billion dollars I would expect that your main concern stops being how to get more dollars, and instead becomes one of, how to maximize your power, or something along those lines. This is all meaningless theorycrafting though, but private armies would indeed be a way to maximize your power and billionaires would invest in them even if they didn't pay off economically, because economics stopped being their main concern. Now you may say that then they would loose market-shares to other people who still only focused on maximizing their profit, and even if that is true (which I dont think it is) the world would still have to deal with powerhungry billionaires with private armies in the meantime.
You mean the billionaires would go on a long-term loss, lose all their stocks, risk their own lives and their employees, just to break some people's legs? That is far fetched.
I don't deny that some crazy billionaire may want to do that - and he may be able to break quite some legs on his way down. However, as far as hypotheticals go, it is easy to see why and how his downfall into self-destruction would be much facilitated by the state, due to some of the reasons already mentioned. Which is why the correct question to ask is not "will evil be able to do this", but the fairer question of "how can such evil be best deterred", to any system or organization.
|
Finally, a man after my own heart who can laugh with me deep into the night at the fallacy of the Mafia and the stupid African warlords who squander their hard-earned cash on silly ego-boosting thugs and guns.
But I must confess I found a slight flaw, almost unworthy of mention really, in your proposed system based on bounties. If, for example, I placed a $1,000,000 bounty on a deranged drug dealer living in a well-defended hideout, the bounty hunter would know I had a million dollars and might reasonably, according to the market logic of risk and reward, figure me the easier target and cap me for the dough. This could happen a lot of the time, since bounty hunters, as is often the case with people dealing in violence, tend to be evil bastards. So the obvious solution would be to get *good* bounty hunters. To this effect, I propose the following:
We find a cop, who's good as his job. So good in fact, that he'd be prepared to commit the ultimate sin and testify against other cops gone bad. We try to kill him, but get the woman he loves. Now, we have it made; he'll prowl the badlands - an outlaw hunting outlaws, a bounty hunter, a renegade.
|
Fuck, what a nonsensical post I've made. There's no way this would work without framing him for murder.
|
On September 08 2010 16:44 infecteddna wrote:
Finally, a man after my own heart who can laugh with me deep into the night at the fallacy of the Mafia and the stupid African warlords who squander their hard-earned cash on silly ego-boosting thugs and guns.
But I must confess I found a slight flaw, almost unworthy of mention really, in your proposed system based on bounties. If, for example, I placed a $1,000,000 bounty on a deranged drug dealer living in a well-defended hideout, the bounty hunter would know I had a million dollars and might reasonably, according to the market logic of risk and reward, figure me the easier target and cap me for the dough. This could happen a lot of the time, since bounty hunters, as is often the case with people dealing in violence, tend to be evil bastards. So the obvious solution would be to get *good* bounty hunters. To this effect, I propose the following:
We find a cop, who's good as his job. So good in fact, that he'd be prepared to commit the ultimate sin and testify against other cops gone bad. We try to kill him, but get the woman he loves. Now, we have it made; he'll prowl the badlands - an outlaw hunting outlaws, a bounty hunter, a renegade.
LOL
I don't know what the reference is but sounds like an awesome movie.
|
On September 04 2010 12:03 dvide wrote:Oh my god. I'm sorry. I think maybe I should stop debating with you now. EDIT: Now that I've calmed down I want to strongly apologise for getting angry and using abusive language  I don't feel good about it, my bad.
No worries. I appreciate that you try to passionately defend your position and can understand your frustration - after all I feel the same about you. It has become quite obvious to me that you don't understand my point - or that I don't understand yours - so we turn in circles. Peace out!
|
On September 07 2010 21:56 Yurebis wrote:
I'm telling you exactly what happens when a violent individual comes into play. Demand to stop him increases - demand for defense increases, meaning, people will pay to stop him, and he will be stopped for as long as there's enough cooperative human beings able to organize and supply that demand.
What you project upon me however is the central planning model - the one that the state answers every question by being the most deranged organization itself, and shifting these organizational tasks all to itself. "No problem, there will be someone restraining him to make other people happy" is exactly the statist type of answer, that does not address market incentives, value subjectivity, or the calculation problem. The statist is the one who claims his answer is the only answer to a demand, and coercively monopolizes such. My case is twofold - it is neither the most efficient, nor the most moral answer for anything. Including defense.
If that was the case and the demand for defense would simply increase, thereby providing incentives for people to form defense agencies, how do you explain that ancap does not (and never did historically) spontaneously form over time in a society. Since, according to your description, "the state" or "the government" is the ultimate thug and uses extorsion to achieve its goals (i.e. the most deranged organisation) there should be an incredible demand for defense from the state. Since guns can be bought legally, why is there no organisation forming, who offers protection from the state and the state police/ military?
An obvious answer would be that people are so "deluded" that they just don't realize that "the state" is exploiting them, so they don't know about their real demand for protection from "the state". Then again this argument would serve you rather poorly it seems. If people were so easily and fully deluded about their "real demands", how can markets function efficiently?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
