|
On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice.
The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages.
|
On August 29 2010 09:56 dvide wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:50 BluzMan wrote:
Lol who will provide the guarantees behind currency? Are there guarantees behind fiat currency? The guarantee to use violence perhaps. There is no guarantee of stability. The dollar has lost over 98% of its value in the last century thanks to inflationary policies. The first thing a private currency would have to do is ensure its stability or people would naturally not use it. De-facto standards are not "guarantees" from a centralised authority, but they do emerge naturally and work well all over the place. The same is true of currency.
How do you guarantee something without force? Property, rights, etc are meaningless if you don't have force to back up your claim. I don't understand what you mean.
|
Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry.
On August 29 2010 09:46 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about Markets imply more than simply "freedom". There exist non-market societies without governments.
Okay, sorry for misusing "market" then. I like to call a "market" any human interaction. There's a market for ideas, a market for love. But sorry then.
In places they aren't formed spontaneously, that's not an issue either, since people didn't want it to be formed then. Unless they're being coerced, in which case I would claim that there is some type of statist structure, a reigning authority over either all their land or all their people.
For the very high-tech, specialized world we live today, I claim it is desirable for private property to be respected, so it would naturally arise even if there were no law or police to force people to. Because there is a self-interest in our sociable brains in cooperating rather than coercing. But that is of course, more descriptive than prescriptive on my part, and you can be free to disagree.
|
LOL, unregulated capitalism is a terrible, inherently flawed system. A simple example of this would be the environment. We all need clean water and air, but the cheapest waste disposal methods (dumping into rivers etc.) would eventually lead to the destruction of these resources. It's a basic payoff matrix.
|
The government is necessary to impose disincentives to environmentally destructive practices and incentives to the development of cleaner technology.
In a purely market driven society companies wouldn't factor the social costs of pollution into their decisions and individuals would care much more about the price and quality of goods and services offered by companies than about their environmental practices.
Even if consumers cared about the environmental impact of what they bought there would be nothing to stop companies from lying about their pollution or branding their products as green even when they do nothing substantive to help the environment. This happens today and consumers are fooled just imagine what it would be like without regulation.
Perhaps eventually the social costs of environmental destruction would motivate consumers to demand real action to protect the environment, but by that time we would already be past the tipping point. Such is the nature of positive feedbacks. Every species that goes extinct affects every other species and decreases environmental resiliency. Every degree that the earth warms triggers countless positive feedbacks that cause more warming.
Any additional economic activity spurred by anarcho-capitalism would only deplete the earth's resources faster. Government is a necessary check on this otherwise we will all die from global warming and environmental destruction.
|
On August 29 2010 10:00 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice. The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages.
I agree with this completely. Its as if the cost and time of travel is thrown out the window and someone can move instantly to somewhere with the best wages. People can easily fall victim to their surroundings much like they did in medieval Europe.
|
On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote:Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry. Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:46 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about Markets imply more than simply "freedom". There exist non-market societies without governments. Okay, sorry for misusing "market" then. I like to call a "market" any human interaction. There's a market for ideas, a market for love. But sorry then. In places they aren't formed spontaneously, that's not an issue either, since people didn't want it to be formed then. Unless they're being coerced, in which case I would claim that there is some type of statist structure, a reigning authority over either all their land or all their people. For the very high-tech, specialized world we live today, I claim it is desirable for private property to be respected, so it would naturally arise even if there were no law or police to force people to. Because there is a self-interest in our sociable brains in cooperating rather than coercing. But that is of course, more descriptive than prescriptive on my part, and you can be free to disagree.
The thing is that private property did arise already, and its ascent can be studied. Whether or not private property would arise if modern society lacked it is irrelevant, if it is even makes sense. Even if private property were abolished everywhere and later came back, it would still be in a historical context, with the knowledge that property had existed before. There is no need to wonder what kind of society would arise if we separated a large number of people from their parents at birth and threw them onto a desert island--it would have nothing to do with "human nature", because it has always been human nature to be raised by parents or guardians in a society, whether it be in a small band of fifty people or a large civilization.
My main problem with anarcho-capitalism is that property rights have historically developed hand in hand with hierarchical structures of authority, and I have never heard a description of how anarcho-capitalism would actually decouple property and authority; indeed, most advocates deny the two have anything in common, contrary to historical and modern-day evidence.
|
On August 29 2010 09:49 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:44 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:29 Milkis wrote:1- And the government stealing, claiming control over all land, and imposing his monopolistic laws on what can or cannot be done, is particularly enabling entrepreneurs to start a business?
Please, just by requiring the state is already hindering market entry for anything more than a hobby. Taxing everything sure does help people save and invest capital, oh wow.
2- Popularity does imply better commercialization. Nearly all externalities can be solved by privatization, ostracism, and other voluntary means. For those that can't, I'd like if you explained what are they, and why they can't, before pulling the gunverment.
3- Market failure is no worse than state failure, as each individual is accountable only for what he's earned, as opposed to some dunce that can be elected in a year and have considerable control over fifty percent of the GDP, a huge army, huge public services, and the law of the land. I'd say THAT is much more unstable, much more prone to error. I don't care about state based governments. You asked me to give reasons why anarcho-capitalism won't work, I gave you some reasons. Your response to them are telling me "state based governments are worse". If you wanted me to compare state based governments and "free market" based societies I could have done that myself :| I disagree with 2). "Nearly all externalities can be solved through private means"? That depends on how narrow your scope of what externality is. When you're speaking of society, externality is in the biggest sense possible and honestly, to say that all of them can be solved through markets is ludicrous. Furthermore, 1 and 3 also supplements why how you defended point #2 won't necessarily work. Uh, ok, again then. 1- "Markets don't form by themselves". You mean, freedom doesn't form without coercion? Kind of contradictory but... could you elaborate the question then? Because I can only see it that way, it seems that it's a direct contradiction. Ok maybe you mean... people can't ever be free, because they don't allow themselves to be free? IDK what you mean now that I think about 2-"Externalities". You can think of those externalities, say externality x. You can quantify the amount of X corporation Y has done. You can ostracize corporation Y for doing X, to the relative amount that it's done it. Therefore, externalities can hurt profits, therefore, externalities are "capitalizeable" 3-Market failures are a non-issue, unless you're kind enough to be more specific on how can someone screwing over his own capital can hurt someone else, and why can't that be restituted for, in a free market. Because I'm pretty sure you can, every time, when properties are well established, and not the public mess of today. 4-"You need the entire world". No, not really, you just need the state, somewhere, to fall, and that can be accomplished voluntarily too. Think about it, what if it goes bankrupt? What if people stop believing in it and stop paying taxes? It goes down the very next day, thugs will have to get real jobs, too bad for them. 1) Go read my explanation of #1 that I posted for someone. You'll realize we're talking about completely different things. 2) What does this have to do with personal values? I don't think you quite realize what kind of split what you're arguing may lead to. 3) Market Failure is a non issue? okay i don't think we're going to be able to discuss anything here unless you start being realistic 4) What? I think you missed my point lol
1- You're saying that entrepreneurs are hopeless without government to give them money... and that's a ridiculous claim, I don't have to address it.
Even if it were true, it just means the business shouldn't have started in the first place then. Either something has it's own merits to exist in the market, and it's profitable - it will remain so - or it isn't, and it shouldn't exist. The pyramids for example? they shouldn't and wouldn't exist in a free market, you can guess why. All that isn't voluntary is coercive; I'm against, so will other ancaps. And I understand the ramifications better than you accuse me of not knowing.
Did I get it right now?
2- Okay, you're saying that there are these things that corporations do, that are bad, but they aren't accountable for. How? Something bad that they do, must fall under the realm of someone's private property, right? Something bad that goes wrong in the world has to happen to someone's property or someone's body. If it isn't, say, a corporation blows a star millions of light years away, how's that an issue? An externality is for all intents and purposes, non-existent. A conflict over something in the real world can be resolved between the two parties disputing the use of the resource or capital.
And even IF it's something aesthetic like, "I don't like what corporation X is doing, it looks ugly, and I like nature and forests and blablabla even though I have no claim over that resource", then you can STILL offset profits from that corporation by boycott, ostracism, less-than-plausible-legal action or protests to show your disdain to them, and to remain popular, they have to answer, even though they didnt really have to and you're just being a communist hippie blah.
3-Market failures are a non-issue because you're not entitled to say what should happen in a market. If someone want to blow a billion dollars, get his firm bankrupt, screw all investors, thats his choice. Bad for the investors that trusted such a lousy CEO, yeah, and they probably will be able to get some from whats left, and perhaps even sue the CEO for malpractice or some shit. Who knows. The thing is, market failure is a non issue because no one is entitled to say how a market should behave, so not only is what constitutes failure subjective, but no one can say that it's right to steal or manipulate other people's resources to protect themselves from misuse. It's just an excuse for government intervention.
4- I had edited my post but perhaps you didn't read it. I didn't read all of the argument so it's my fault, sorry. What I say is, that foreign government would have about as much as an incentive to invade ancaps as monarchies today have an incentive to invade democracies. The return is very little, and they're probably outperformed anyway, by slightly freer soldiers, slightly more spontaneous army structures (still pretty shit ofc on ancaps standards). Ancaps would invest that exactly what is needed to protect themselves, will have a more decentralized and effective information net (think how terrorists today can do so much with so little), and will be unhindered by taxes and other leecherous services that bankrupt each other.
|
Out of curiosity, how would this situation be handled in your system?
Two societies along a river. One is upstream while the other is farther downstream. The society upstream either dams the river, pollutes it, or whatever else that has an adverse effect on the society that's further downstream.
How would the society that's downstream deal with the other?
|
On August 29 2010 09:49 McFoo wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:09 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:39 McFoo wrote:
If there were no governments to kick BP up the arse who would be cleaning up the gulch? The poor local fisherman who don't have the resources to do it? Who would take responsibility for protecting things like the enviornment when:
A. It's unprofitable
B. Profits are the highest priority of all institutions
This reflects the main problem with anarcho-capitalism: externalities. There are no institutions in place to clean up the inherent chaos and mess an unregulated market creates. Who owns the sea? There's your basic answer... formed as a question. lol. Hehe, what a cop out.
It's not a cop out, it's a very direct answer. The state currently owns the sea and leases to private properties, so it's primarily the state's fault for leasing to irresponsible companies or plans. Would you blame the waitress for spilling your drinks on the floor, or would you blame the manager for hiring the incompetent waitress?
Would spills happen if the wells were privately owned? I don't know, but I think there would be more concerned with what happens to their property rather than a property that's only leased to them. All losses would be theirs; as opposed to sharing losses with the government.
The state did turn back on BP and insists it's all their fault though, that is kind of funny. And most ironic is how people turn a blind eye on the manager, and blame the waitress...
Why do people care so much anyways? It's not my sea, I don't care. It's not yours, why do you care? Sure, it's a disaster, and I would be up for suing them (bp AND the state) if I had any direct losses from it, but I don't, so I shrug it off and that's it. Too bad. Better luck on the next dirty cheap lease to the next lobbyist.
|
On August 29 2010 09:50 BluzMan wrote:
Lol who will provide the guarantees behind currency? There still needs to be a regulator organ with substantial financial power which makes it far from anarchy.
No, actually there needs not to be. There are examples of privately held currencies, and banks were certainly private in history before any government even touched the business.
The millions of customers will figure out how to choose the best bank, and doing that alone should be enough of insurance. If it's not, well, they'll figure out something better than any central planner can sell you (for an overpriced cost, and forcibly so)
On August 29 2010 09:55 Milkis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:50 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:34 Milkis wrote:
I'm also gonna make one more point
If we put that much ideal to "State Based" government, we can also defend any accusations against state based government through similar means. Of course, we'll have a lot more counterexamples to state based governments, SIMPLY BECAUSE we've been living through them the entire time.
What makes you think "Free Market" based societies won't have that issue? Your points are well, "This is bad, maybe this idea will work better". Maybe your idea will work better in fixing those specific issues, but what makes you think other issues won't spring up? Remember, you're dealing only with theory, and not enough actual applications. I guarantee if the system was applied to a real society then we'll have issues just as bad as the issues you have against state based governments within 50 years. I don't have a concrete idea; I don't know how PDA (private defense agencies) will work just as much I don't know what product Apple will make next. The main theory is that the free people know what's best for themselves, and the state is a relic of the past when information was a scarce resource. Everyone today has ample access from a variety of businesses and companies, and they could easily, easily provide more efficient protection services if the old state would allow them too. And also I think we don't match on the definition of a state. A state for me is a monopoly of coercion in any given geographical area. The reason I brought the state-based government up was because you seemed to attack it to in order to defend your theoretic system. All I'm saying is that your ideal system may not be so ideal when you actually apply it, and apply it in the long run, and you may find various other problems.
Okay. Describe said problems if you think of anymore.
I think it's relevant to compare to the state, when you know, I'm advocating for no state. It's proper to compare your new product with the leading brand. (the product ain't mine ofc. .. nor do I believe in IP)
|
On August 29 2010 10:00 HunterX11 wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice. The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages.
So biological necessities justify stealing for food?
I think you should first try to work out voluntarily first. How about that for an idea?
Also hear this for the industrial revolution, which I think underpins a lot of what you think about wage exploitation:http://mises.org/media/1160
|
On August 29 2010 10:27 Yurebis wrote:
Why do people care so much anyways? It's not my sea, I don't care. It's not yours, why do you care? Sure, it's a disaster, and I would be up for suing them (bp AND the state) if I had any direct losses from it, but I don't, so I shrug it off and that's it. Too bad. Better luck on the next dirty cheap lease to the next lobbyist.
Are you seriously asking why people care about the environment? You do realize that all human beings live on Earth, right?
|
Employers cannot set wages arbitrarily low in an unregulated market. The reason is that at a low enough price, there are more jobs than people. I might not pay a 100$ an hour for someone to do my groceries, but there comes a point where I'll be willing to pay someone to get my groceries. Similarly, for a low enough prices, people will be willing to pay other people to get all kinds of things done. A big contributor in an industrialized society is replacing machines with manual labor the lower the price gets. So all men would be able to eat.
We haven't always had minimum wage laws. There being more jobs than people was already driving up wages to what we would consider reasonable. The primary effect of the institution of minimum wage laws seems to have been to put a lot of unskilled laborers out of a job. The idea that you can achieve any desired result (in this case: raising the wages of unskilled laborers) simply by making a law for it is highly flawed.
|
I agree with this, but it is also contrary to the notion of formalized private property, in which one does not need to justify one's ownership of property once ownership is acquired. My point was that having a system of private property based on fiat rather than use is incompatible with non-coercion, yet anarcho-capitalism claims to support both fiat property and non-coercion.
What do you mean by needing to justify one's ownership, and to who? But I think we agree. I do not support de-jure (statist legal) property rights. I think de-facto formalisations of peaceful property claims will arise, if only for effectively communicating the terms and concepts between law agencies, defensive agencies and experts on the matter.
But the main point is, without a state I do not accept that people would take whatever they please from others with no consequences. Property "rights" (or the protection of property) is natural and emergent from human behaviour. I would help defend somebody from a mugger. Well, that's assuming I don't chicken out, but the principle is the same. Are you saying it would be hypocritical of me in some way to help defend somebody from a mugger, all because I don't support the initiation of coercion? That makes no sense to me.
|
On August 29 2010 10:33 Yurebis wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 10:00 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:53 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 09:35 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:31 Yurebis wrote:Goddamn so many replies, I can't answer them all anymore On August 29 2010 09:24 HunterX11 wrote:On August 29 2010 09:15 Yurebis wrote:On August 29 2010 08:55 HunterX11 wrote:
How does one reconcile an aversion to coercion with the fact that "property" is an artificial construct enforced through government coercion? Consider owning a deed to land, for example: what this means is that the state will agree to coerce others using physical force not to use the land to which you have the deed, or at the very least it gives you to right to use physical force against other who encroach onto your land. If one were really committed to voluntary association and non-coercion, how would private property exist? It's not artificial, it's natural. Almost everyone feels entitled to what they make. You plant a seed, you feel entitled to the plant. You build a house, you feel entitled to the house. If people weren't entitled for what they make, then they would produce less higher graded capital; no one, or less people would build a factory that people don't respect his entitlements for it. People would spend most of their time producing only that which they're immediately consuming, or their direct relatives and friends. Large scale projects are impossible to be built if people are like "you could have made it, but now I'm using it and it's mine LOL". Division of labor is extremely dependent on the formalization of property rights. Unless you can explain to me how would there be incentives for an engineer to plan factories for people without the recognition that the factory at least partially does belong to him, and no one can take it from him by force. Isn't saying that people are entitled to what they make an argument made by communism? After all, if people were entitled to what they make, an employee for example would be entitled to all the profits from his work minus what his employer provided him with. You also talk about incentives and division of labor, but this seems to have nothing to do with anarcho-capitalism itself: you are talking about a particular social order which you feel is desirable, but anarcho-capitalism isn't supposed to impose any social order at all, but rather allow people to freely choose their own. What if people wanted a different division of labor that what exists? Should coercion be used to prevent this? Wouldn't that go against anarcho-capitalism? Communism ignores the cost of entrepreneurial activity. For them, it's like the factory came from the sky. They completely ignore the market incentives that brought about even the idea of such factory to be made, let alone the savings that enabled such investment. Of course, if you assume that the factory owner didn't have any part on making the factory, you can come to the conclusion that it is not wrong for the workers to claim it for themselves, but it's ridiculously obvious how such action is simple theft. In my post I even said that employees should only be entitled to the profit minus what their employer provided, i.e. entrepreneurial costs. I do not deny the cost of entrepreneurial activity; however, anarcho-capitalism does. Entrepreneurs should be entitled to all profits derived from entrepreneurial activity, but under anarcho-capitalism, they are entitled to all profits, period. This is completely ignoring the value of the labor of everyone who isn't an entrepreneur. This is more complex than "simple theft", but it also certainly does not reflect the principle that people should be entitled to the fruit of their labor. Uh... how do you really think someone can open a firm and get people to work for them for free? I recommend this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catallactics if you're stuck on the idea of exploitation. The entrepreneur can only exploit as much as the next entrepreneur will pay more simply put... and there can be no such thing as a voluntarily employed worker being exploited. He will quit if he has a better choice. The problem is that things such as food are biological necessities, and not market priorities: if a human being decides that none of the jobs available to him satisfy an equilibrium of income supplied and labor demanded, he will earn no money, and die if he cannot afford biological necessities and has none provided for him. The argument against this is that the need to live is a part of supply and demand, but this means that employers can take advantage of this fact to set wages arbitrarily low. How does anarcho-capitalism deal with this, the Iron Law of Wages. So biological necessities justify stealing for food? I think you should first try to work out voluntarily first. How about that for an idea?
Nowhere did I advocate stealing food, though if you must know, yes, it would be justifiable for a starving person to steal food from someone who had enough to eat. It is not voluntary for human being to eat food: they must do so, or else they die. Perhaps you are some non-human organism who does not require food? If so I would be glad to explain to you some of the biological aspects of Homo sapiens to clear up any confusion.
|
On August 29 2010 10:01 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On August 29 2010 09:56 dvide wrote:On August 29 2010 09:50 BluzMan wrote:
Lol who will provide the guarantees behind currency? Are there guarantees behind fiat currency? The guarantee to use violence perhaps. There is no guarantee of stability. The dollar has lost over 98% of its value in the last century thanks to inflationary policies. The first thing a private currency would have to do is ensure its stability or people would naturally not use it. De-facto standards are not "guarantees" from a centralised authority, but they do emerge naturally and work well all over the place. The same is true of currency. How do you guarantee something without force? Property, rights, etc are meaningless if you don't have force to back up your claim. I don't understand what you mean.
1- There are no guarantees either way
2- I think you can concede that you already pay for defense services by the government. What ancap proposes, is that if such services weren't A-mandatory and B-monopolistic, they would be paid for better, they would respond to market incentives better on how to adapt to circumstances, and they would more efficiently calculate the proper market prices. Competition would keep prices as low as the second best can get.
Property rights are efficient and useful for cooperative men, so cooperative men will seek to voluntarily establish the rules in which their desired property rights can work. The first idea was indeed, to form a state, but ancaps reject that it's necessary to give all guns to one guy and let him manage it - everyone can manage it a bit by being an active consumer and not just tipping off the taxman when he comes. It is both more efficient and just for everyone.
|
On August 29 2010 07:50 Caller wrote:
the problem with anarcho capitalism is that companies tend to conglomerate and merge naturally because of economies of scale. As a result, huge companies will be able to overwhelm small companies, resulting in the disruption of the competitive balance that would normally arise among companies of similar size and strength that provides the stability of anarcho capitalism. Thus it will inevitably lead to the rise of a few corporate organizations in this type of free fall. Also, lack of central money supply, and XYZ.
Also, lol, pseudoecon thread.
Man I was gonna respond very seriously to this thread but once I read this I could just think "Does that mean we'd have a Tekken tournament?" and I completely lost my train of thought.
|
How do you guarantee something without force? Property, rights, etc are meaningless if you don't have force to back up your claim. I don't understand what you mean.
So then use force to back up your claim? What's the problem? Not all force is the INITIATION of force. Taxation is, which is why it's so laughably contradictory to steal from people in order to protect their property.
|
On August 29 2010 10:08 Elite00fm wrote:
LOL, unregulated capitalism is a terrible, inherently flawed system. A simple example of this would be the environment. We all need clean water and air, but the cheapest waste disposal methods (dumping into rivers etc.) would eventually lead to the destruction of these resources. It's a basic payoff matrix.
Water and air can be ownable. If the state owns it today, someone can own it too in anarcho-capitalism.
I don't know how compromises would be made, I haven't been too interested in environmental issues because the environment is not a rational being, it is not a man. And if no man is being hurt, then I could care less ATM. Though I'm certain that at the moment someone is hurt by an environmental hazard, then immediately there will be suits and court proceedings just as there are today.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
