|
On September 08 2010 17:05 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +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?
Why use the word deluded? It's just a matter of information.
|
On September 08 2010 17:12 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 17:05 MiraMax wrote: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? Why use the word deluded? It's just a matter of information.
Well, then use the word information. If information is distributed so asymmetrically and/or can be controlled. And since there is direct incentive to exploit asymmetric information and/or control information flow: How can markets function efficiently, in light of this?
|
It will work as efficiently as the information is dissipated. Thousands of years ago, yeah I guess it was easier to bullshit people into believing you're a deity.
|
On September 08 2010 17:29 Yurebis wrote:
It will work as efficiently as the information is dissipated. Thousands of years ago, yeah I guess it was easier to bullshit people into believing you're a deity.
This just seems to dodge the question. Who prevents dissipation of information about "the state" now? "The state"? Well, if an organisation can do that and since it is in its clear interest to do just that, exactly what mechanism prevents this from happening in ancap? I think the answer to this question explains why ancap never formed spontaneously and also why it is not a stable socio-economic system.
|
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation.
|
Almost any political scheme can work. But that doesn't mean it will work in a specific case.
|
On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation.
Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here.
But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces?
|
On September 08 2010 18:04 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation. Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here. But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces?
I like to think there wasn't enough time.
|
On September 09 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2010 18:04 MiraMax wrote:On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation. Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here. But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces? I like to think there wasn't enough time.
While I agree that this might be a valid explanation, I would propose the following: If more and more time passes and ancap still doesn't come about, then you might want to consider that either a) markets are not as efficient as you thought or b) that states are not as deranged as you thought (or both of course) ... I am just saying ...
|
On September 09 2010 16:15 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:On September 08 2010 18:04 MiraMax wrote:On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation. Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here. But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces? I like to think there wasn't enough time. While I agree that this might be a valid explanation, I would propose the following: If more and more time passes and ancap still doesn't come about, then you might want to consider that either a) markets are not as efficient as you thought or b) that states are not as deranged as you thought (or both of course) ... I am just saying ...
Do you have a timetable for that?
|
On September 09 2010 20:59 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2010 16:15 MiraMax wrote:On September 09 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:On September 08 2010 18:04 MiraMax wrote:On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation. Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here. But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces? I like to think there wasn't enough time. While I agree that this might be a valid explanation, I would propose the following: If more and more time passes and ancap still doesn't come about, then you might want to consider that either a) markets are not as efficient as you thought or b) that states are not as deranged as you thought (or both of course) ... I am just saying ... Do you have a timetable for that?
Unfortunately not! I like to think that you'll realize it when you are ready ;-P
Until then: Cheerio!
|
On September 09 2010 21:35 MiraMax wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2010 20:59 Yurebis wrote:On September 09 2010 16:15 MiraMax wrote:On September 09 2010 06:00 Yurebis wrote:On September 08 2010 18:04 MiraMax wrote:On September 08 2010 17:44 Yurebis wrote:
I'm not dodging, I'm trying to make you answer your own question for once, since people just ignore my answers.
Information is quite dissipated today as compared to thousands of years ago. Why?
Did states everywhere work against their own incentives in keeping their subjects fatally ignorant? Did the central planners not only give away their powers but forced people into getting smarter?
I don't think so. I think the market has plenty of incentives to dissipate knowledge on its own. The state is the antithesis to knowledge dissipation. Well, I do think that states do quite a bit to dissipate information about how the state functions, what advantages and disadvantages there are about having states and how to participate in it ... then again I also don't think that a state is "the most deranged organisation" conceivable, so I really have nothing to account for here. But you do think that a state is "the most deranged organisation". You further do think that "the market has plenty incentive to dissipate knowledge on its own". So you do need to account for the fact that "the market" was so far not able to dissipate sufficient knowledge in order to abolish the state or even to inform a significant amount of people of how deranged "the state" really is. Was there simply not enough time yet? Or is the state's "disinformation" more powerful than the market forces? I like to think there wasn't enough time. While I agree that this might be a valid explanation, I would propose the following: If more and more time passes and ancap still doesn't come about, then you might want to consider that either a) markets are not as efficient as you thought or b) that states are not as deranged as you thought (or both of course) ... I am just saying ... Do you have a timetable for that? Unfortunately not! I like to think that you'll realize it when you are ready ;-P Until then: Cheerio!
Then why are you pretending to know when will that be?
|
"if ancap doesn't happen in this x window of time, it won't ever happen"
But you don't specify what time, so it's further reduced to
"if ancap doesn't happen, it won't ever happen"
Fair interpretation?
|
On September 09 2010 22:12 Yurebis wrote:
"if ancap doesn't happen in this x window of time, it won't ever happen"
But you don't specify what time, so it's further reduced to
"if ancap doesn't happen, it won't ever happen"
Fair interpretation?
No, unfair and I am surprised that you don't notice it (not ;-P). The fact that neither you nor I can specify the amount of time X, does not at all invalidate the line of argument nor the question of whether something is to be accounted for. It just means that you can reasonably say, that you think not enough time has passed (and I already granted you that). The fact remains that you are forced to conclude that ancap will either eventually come about by market forces alone anyway or that your fundamental argumention for the stability of this socio-economic system is flawed. I completely agree that empirical observation does not conclusively answer this question one side or the other thus far.
|
On September 09 2010 22:53 MiraMax wrote:
I completely agree that empirical observation does not conclusively answer this question one side or the other thus far.
ty
|
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
1. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to make decisions with long-term benefits if they don't gain from these benefits. Especially not if there are short-term downsides.
2. There is no disinterested enforcer of contracts. Not that governments are always disinterested, but codified laws mean that in principle everyone knows the rules going in. Codified laws have to be backed up by threat of force, a glorified better business bureau is not going to cut it.
|
On September 09 2010 23:04 kojinshugi wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. 1. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to make decisions with long-term benefits if they don't gain from these benefits. Especially not if there are short-term downsides. 2. There is no disinterested enforcer of contracts. Not that governments are always disinterested, but codified laws mean that in principle everyone knows the rules going in. Codified laws have to be backed up by threat of force, a glorified better business bureau is not going to cut it.
I don't see how #1 and #2 relate, perhaps #1 could use some rewording.
For #2... why wouldn't it be enough? If you concede it's 'better'... it should therefore be 'better' at the exact function it is paid to do - conflict resolution.
|
On September 09 2010 23:14 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On September 09 2010 23:04 kojinshugi wrote:On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer. 1. There is absolutely no incentive for anyone to make decisions with long-term benefits if they don't gain from these benefits. Especially not if there are short-term downsides. 2. There is no disinterested enforcer of contracts. Not that governments are always disinterested, but codified laws mean that in principle everyone knows the rules going in. Codified laws have to be backed up by threat of force, a glorified better business bureau is not going to cut it. I don't see how #1 and #2 relate, perhaps #1 could use some rewording. For #2... why wouldn't it be enough? If you concede it's 'better'... it should therefore be 'better' at the exact function it is paid to do - conflict resolution.
1 and 2 aren't related. They're different reasons why anarcho-capitalism doesn't work. There's plenty more but I don't feel like writing a treatise.
As to your rebuttal of point #2, do you know what a Better Business Bureau is? Do you, in fact, speak English?
|
I am so so sorry, I didn't even know there was such a thing.
But anyways. It wouldn't be just one or a few such institutions as today. Absent the socialized law system, many bbb's would emerge in competition to provide the best reputation, credit reports, to fill the gap. What's so hard about it that only a coercively monopolized institution can do?
#1 is directed at what market exactly?
|
On August 29 2010 08:09 Krikkitone wrote:
TLDR it won't work because there is no way of ensuring that those who violently resist violent coercion will not attempt to perform violent coercion. (resistance is not always easier than coercion). So limited states are better than anarchy because anarchy leads to unlimited states.
For anarcho capitalism to work then everyone capable of successfully defending themselves has to be willing to not oppress others.
Won't work.
This applies to all forms of government and society and has nothing to do with an-cap specifically. In all forms there is always going to be groups that can defend themselves better than other groups and as a direct result of that those same groups have the option to oppress others who are less able to defend themselves, that is the nature of violent power.
Limited states also become unlimited states (worldwide or within a small region, they become unlimited to those who are powerless under them) in the same way that anarchy leads to unlimited states. It is actually transition of anarchy to a limited state to an unlimited state that commonly occurs, as all governments are born from anarchy.
Yes violent power cannot be abolished, because of this the questions becomes do you want to hold onto that violent power yourself or do you want to hand it over to an organization that will consolidate and monopolize it, hoping they will not turn against you. What if you could hand it to several groups? Hoping to use them against each other in case one turned on you? There are pros and cons to each, and humanity's struggle throughout history has largely been in trying to find a balance between the two while frequently getting stomped on by those who hold large amounts of violent power.
As far as why hasn't an-cap happened? It actually has but in relatively rare and short lived cases, and it is historically an external state that put an end to it rather than the an-cap society itself becoming a behemoth state. One good example was Palestine pre-Israel, which was indeed a peaceful society without government. It was also without the ability to defend itself from the UN creating a government within it's region, which is why it no longer exists in that form.
As far is why it "can't" happen? The biggest set back is the simple fact that the people who benefit most from government also command all the guns and have a license to create money. They have every incentive to keep it from happening and they have every tool needed to prevent it from happening. This is why we often see anarchy only happen after a catastrophic failure of government such as Somalia.
As gloomy as it may seem, I would still ask people to either remember or learn why government created so many problems in the middle east and how ironic it is to expect them to fix them and offer peace.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
