Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
Edit: People have asked me to edit the OP to add more stuff, but I would end up plagiarizing Man Economy and the State lol. It may be too late to edit now, too, since thread appears to be dying (thank god tbh.), but anyways. Relevant links:
Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
This is correct, but it's also the argument as to WHY a government works over the individual. The government is the rule of the many, while the anarchic rule is the rule of the individual - with the rule of the many, the "human nature" of the individual is repressed for the good of the collective, working as a failsafe against "human nature" screwing tings over. This is why "human nature", as you stated, does apply, and is also why the arachno-capitalistic model would not work.
Edit: Yes, arachno - I'm obviously talking about the capitalism run by spiders, not the anarcho-capitalistic model. :p
On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is.
You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways.
In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his.
Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state.
That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes.
The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense.
Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start.
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.
Do you see Eve online as a anarcho-capitalistic functioning environment? (if yes, do you take inspiration from it?)
As a citizen of a country, I have rights granted to me by the democracy that I take part in which is enforced through law interpreted by yada yada yada. With anarchy, I have no guaranteed rights. Are companies supposed to provide shelter for individuals? Would this not resemble feudalism? Do you expect people to be okay with not having a safety net or do you think most everyone would join their local army supported safety club? (I hope I got my terminology right)
On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity.
Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick.
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.
1- Why is this a bad thing, if it means greater efficiency and lower cost per-product 2- Why don't diseconomies of scale apply as well? 3- At worst, you mean, defense organizations turn into a state back again, so ain't that bad IMO. Then people get rid of it again? But then, knowing that people would not want a state, perhaps they wouldn't pay people to make one again, and would take smarter providences to make sure that doesn't happen.
On August 29 2010 07:51 Badjas wrote: Do you see Eve online as a anarcho-capitalistic functioning environment? (if yes, do you take inspiration from it?)
As a citizen of a country, I have rights granted to me by the democracy that I take part in which is enforced through law interpreted by yada yada yada. With anarchy, I have no guaranteed rights. Are companies supposed to provide shelter for individuals? Would this not resemble feudalism? Do you expect people to be okay with not having a safety net or do you think most everyone would join their local army supported safety club? (I hope I got my terminology right)
I have not played eve online. Feudal lords haven't acquired their land in any way shape or form that legitimizes their use. Winning a war and claiming vasts amounts of land to be yours wouldn't be considered a more valid claim as claiming the moon would. Positive rights wouldn't exist either of course. Negative rights do, if there is demand for them, and I do believe there would be. So, non-aggression-principle withholds, private property necessarily withholds (or it wouldn't be anarcho-capitalism, there's anarcho-communism and other kinds though.)
On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity.
Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick.
Making an analogy does not automatically make the analogy correct, and neither does it serve as an argument for your point.
The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact.
On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is.
You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways.
In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his.
Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state.
That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes.
The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense.
Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start.
I sincerely wish I had the political jargon at my disposal to formalize a response, but layman's will have to do. You're saying that unpopular laws wouldn't come into effect because people who wouldn't approve simply wouldn't enforce/pay for them. What would realistically happen is that the key division of high/low class would come into effect from capitalism. Some individuals would be richer and more powerful than others through the nature of the system, and what you end up with is competing groups banding together to enforce their laws. This is pretty much identical to the current state of the world.
The structure would be synonymous with a state, or a dictatorship, or however the group decides to run it's system. Laws, as it were, would come about in the same fashion that they currently do.
On August 29 2010 07:43 Nevuk wrote: Anarcho-capitalism merely replaces the state with private entities (ie corporations). If anarcho-capitalism is truly a variant of anarchism (I would say it isn't) then it should agree with the statement that the state is an inherently bad system.
The arguments made in the OP are referring to classical anarchism being a product of humanism, the classic argument claiming that humans are inherently good and that the state is the source of the majority of the corruption of humanity.
Not all of it, the state is a product of man after all. But it is a big chunk of it, and the sooner it's gotten rid of, the better, for increased capital accumulation and a wealthier future. Like getting rid of a tick.
Making an analogy does not automatically make the analogy correct, and neither does it serve as an argument for your point.
I know it doesn't, I'm just trying to be agreeable, and an analogy sometimes best conveys a thought.
On August 29 2010 07:58 Sadistx wrote: The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact.
It may be a fact that they are. But does it mean that it's due to?
I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
There are things about anarcho-capitalism that are flawed in comparison to a democracy. Without any taxation or regulation, there is nobody to stop people like police officers or fire fighters from charging for their services, especially not at any constant rate. You think we have corrupt cops now? Imagine if your local police department was run by the KKK - there isn't any government to enforce any affirmative action. What then? My knowledge of anarcho-capitalism is limited, and I'm moments away from drifting off, but from what I know about it its intentions are good but its model is flawed in many respects. I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
Anarcho-capitalism certainly can "work." It can work, just like Communism, Feudalism, and Fascism worked. As long as the people are willing to abide by the rules (or the lack thereof in this case), then anything can theoretically "work."
But personally, I'd rather stay under our current system.
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.
If an anarcho-capitalist society arose, then voluntary groups would arise within it providing defense. Because defense is Very difficult with noncontinuous territory, the most successful groups would become those that had some ownership rights of the territory they protected.
Essentially they would become mini-states... you could leave, but you would actually have to move.
The next stages would be (in no particular order)
the mini-states requring certain agreements from those living there (voluntary, they own the land... you can still move)
Mini-states exercising coercion to prevent individuals from violating those agreements (you can still just leave, but not if you owe us $10,000... in that case we will get it from you... you might even have signed an agreement giving us the right to come and chase you down... because that was the only good security contract)
Mini-states attempting the same strategies with other mini-states.
The above lead to the 'mini-states' acting almost exactly like states.
The disadvantage of any form of anarchism is that violent coercion is not possible to abolish. There will always be those that use violence and attempting to abolish states will merely lead to their reestablishment (as states are replaced by corporations and criminal organizations that start acting like states).
While violence can't be eliminated, however, a well established state can limit it. If the state is designed in such a way that the institution tends to use violence for preventing violent coercion as opposed to violently coercing, then it is superior to anarchism, where states will arise through 'natural evolution' meaning states that are successful at war (violently coercing the members of other states) will be the most prominent.
On August 29 2010 07:49 Yurebis wrote: Concerns over law.
On August 29 2010 07:26 OhJesusWOW wrote:
On August 29 2010 06:58 Yurebis wrote:
On August 29 2010 06:50 OhJesusWOW wrote:
On August 29 2010 06:48 Yurebis wrote: 1-Son is not entitled to food and housing, he can run away, voluntary
Unless he is older than 18, then yes, he is.
You may believe he is, and the state may enforce such policy. But I believe he isn't, and in anarcho-capitalism, it would be coercion to force someone to feed someone else no matter the age or connection, and a very unpopular policy to enforce. It is however not a problem for the state to enforce any form of coercion since it's coercively funded anyways.
In anarcho-capitalism, the food and shelter would already be his.
Law doesn't exist simply because the state says it is so. Law is naturally demanded by the market, to formalize relations, contracts, and terms of use. Everywhere in anarcho-capitalism is private property, and people would only make their land publicly available for everyone to come and step on if they agree to certain rules. No different than today, except that such responsibility of conciliating rules falls greatly on the monopolistic state.
That isn't good. It's actually not good at all. The laws that the state impose on all land actually limit the types of relations people want to have. Law can be seen as a good, a commodity, scarce and limited to a finite amount of resources - lawyers, judges, law makers, paper for the law codes, courts, websites that can host those codes.
The preferred codes would be decided by those who are the most popular, laws that don't make sense and people won't follow or wouldn't enforce themselves simply won't be written. A law like "you shall jump on one foot three times every morning" isn't going to be written because no one would pay for it to be written. At the same time, an unjust law like "everyone living in province x must pay John the Statist one thousand dollars a year" won't be popular by about as much, because it makes no sense.
Enforcement is a whole nother matter, but if you can at least concede that law isn't dependent on a state, it's a start.
You're saying that unpopular laws wouldn't come into effect because people who wouldn't approve simply wouldn't enforce/pay for them. What would realistically happen is that the key division of high/low class would come into effect from capitalism. Some individuals would be richer and more powerful than others through the nature of the system, and what you end up with is competing groups banding together to enforce their laws. This is pretty much identical to the current state of the world.
The structure would be synonymous with a state, or a dictatorship, or however the group decides to run it's system. Laws, as it were, would come about in the same fashion that they currently do.
1- Money can only buy so much when a judge's ruling is worth much less. Court rulings in anarcho-cap are just opinions. Judges are paid to give their very educated law opinions on who should restitute who, for how much, and if some or any retribution would be proper. If a judge constantly makes unjust rulings, obviously people are going to go for him less, and any rich guy that tries to convince people that his judge is right is obviously in the wrong. Paying off the cops to enforce or not enforce a popular ruling (opinion) would make them just as inviable in the long run as the judge. What matters most is basically public opinion 2- Public opinion, yes, that's what it comes down to. And which public opinion is most easily manipulated, that decentralized and independent one, of a thousand courts and judges, or that dependend and monoppolized one? It's far easier to pay off judges in the state, because people have to accept their rulings as the law of the land indeed. It is far more efficient for the rich guy to pay off a few supreme judges than hundreds of judges all over the place.
There is nothing wrong with anarchic capitalism if you allow psuedo government entities aren't precluded from existing. I suppose some form of government would form at the appropriate scale.
My only problem with a motion towards anarchy is that it steps away from the accumulated wisdom held in the legal and political system. On the other hand, it also steps away from the accumulated folly held in the legal and political system. For some political entities, I'm sure this would be a positive exchange, but for others it's not so clear. Any anarchic system would have to rediscover all of the accumulated wisdom and acquire some of its own folly in the process.
Unlike Caller I don't see the benefit of a central manager of money supply, but not having a common monetary unit would be a huge hit on trade, but that's something that can be developed over time. (it's part of the accumulated wisdom that will get lost.)
In danger of over-generalization, the highest levels of government are largely more stupidity than wisdom, so stripping down the government level-by-level pausing every few years or so to digest the changes would be the best way to grasp the best parts of government while getting rid of the worst. Still I don't know if it will ever be smart to get rid of everything.
On August 29 2010 08:04 Romantic wrote: Work? No, not unless you force everyone to agree to your set of rules, like only negative liberties exist and coercion is worse than any other evil.
True, I have to convince everyone that they're supporting coercion and being coerced at the same time, so perhaps they agree to stop supporting it.
On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote: I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
[yoda pic]
Much more succint than a statist at least.
On August 29 2010 08:05 OhJesusWOW wrote: There are things about anarcho-capitalism that are flawed in comparison to a democracy. Without any taxation or regulation, there is nobody to stop people like police officers or fire fighters from charging for their services, especially not at any constant rate. You think we have corrupt cops now? Imagine if your local police department was run by the KKK - there isn't any government to enforce any affirmative action. What then? My knowledge of anarcho-capitalism is limited, and I'm moments away from drifting off, but from what I know about it its intentions are good but its model is flawed in many respects. I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
Why would anyone pay a cent for the KKK to do anything? It's extremely unpopular, a fringe organization. Someone who hires the KKK to kill and steal around becomes just as unpopular. And it's much easier to corrupt a cop who has full authority and power of the law, than multiple competing cops trying to be the best type of cop that people are willing to pay for. Not to say corruption wouldn't happen in ancap, but that it's surely much much less prevalent.
On August 29 2010 07:58 Sadistx wrote: The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact.
It may be a fact that they are. But does it mean that it's due to?
That's a very good correlation/causation question.
I would argue that a large established government is necessary to provide the most basic infrastructure like roads/energy/communication and to regulate individual companies and environmental conditions
Individual companies may be able to better distribute their services, but only when the infrastructure is already in place.
When individual companies make their decisions they neglect the effect of positive or negative externalities on the people of the nation as a whole.
For example a company may decide to create a waste dump near a community of people because it will be cheaper for the company. If they are not regulated, the cost of relocating for the community will exceed the cost saved by the company. Under a government that regulates pollution, this would not occur and the net benefit would be positive.
Under anarcho-capitalism the problem degenerates into the tragedy of the commons on a national scale.
On August 29 2010 08:08 vindKtiv wrote: Anarcho-capitalism certainly can "work." It can work, just like Communism, Feudalism, and Fascism worked. As long as the people are willing to abide by the rules (or the lack thereof in this case), then anything can theoretically "work."
But personally, I'd rather stay under our current system.
I left out a big question... what does it mean to "work", indeed. Work for what purpose, and for whom? I'm not going to answer that right now, but if you care to see my previous threads you'd see the answer. Basically, everyone has a different goal and different means, and the best way to work out those differences are through voluntary action. The moment you pull out a gun and force people to do it your way, it's not about what can work best for everyone, it's about everyone working for you. The central planner. Then in comes calculation problems, lack of market incentives, and other things that makes it impossible for the central planner to give back to everyone what they each want, even if the planner wanted to, he is hindered intellectually. He can't know what even another human being exactly wants, much less a whole nation.
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.
If an anarcho-capitalist society arose, then voluntary groups would arise within it providing defense. Because defense is Very difficult with noncontinuous territory, the most successful groups would become those that had some ownership rights of the territory they protected.
Essentially they would become mini-states... you could leave, but you would actually have to move.
The next stages would be (in no particular order)
the mini-states requring certain agreements from those living there (voluntary, they own the land... you can still move)
Mini-states exercising coercion to prevent individuals from violating those agreements (you can still just leave, but not if you owe us $10,000... in that case we will get it from you... you might even have signed an agreement giving us the right to come and chase you down... because that was the only good security contract)
Mini-states attempting the same strategies with other mini-states.
The above lead to the 'mini-states' acting almost exactly like states.
The disadvantage of any form of anarchism is that violent coercion is not possible to abolish. There will always be those that use violence and attempting to abolish states will merely lead to their reestablishment (as states are replaced by corporations and criminal organizations that start acting like states).
While violence can't be eliminated, however, a well established state can limit it. If the state is designed in such a way that the institution tends to use violence for preventing violent coercion as opposed to violently coercing, then it is superior to anarchism, where states will arise through 'natural evolution' meaning states that are successful at war (violently coercing the members of other states) will be the most prominent.
People already pay for the police today, they can pay for defense even better when the overhead and miscalculations of the state are done away with. The idea of mini-states are not new, but it would be like trying to fish with a spoon. Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery.
You actually forgot to define what it means when it 'works'. (edit: credit to vindKtiv (; ) the modern democracy gives me: - A (somewhat limited) influence on how my country and home is governed - Public services - Social security - Political stability - Personal freedoms - Public safety
I would argue that democracy works with the proof of the above list (you might argue the validity of the points, but they all have a solid basis). I wouldn't want to give up on those, and for some points, anarcho-capitalism doesn't. But I am not convinced that it works on things like public service which currently operate with the help of economy of scale. Public safety is not guaranteed unless you buy it but what's gonna be the price and would the market economy for that work? I postulate that it is hardimpossible to prevent monopolies or cartels from forming in this area.
It's just changing the rules of the game. I think it's one of the better ideas on paper, but in the end, those who want power will pursue power but whatever means the game gives them. Changing the rules won't change them pursuing and getting power over others. And many people will willingly give other power in exchange for security. Changing the rules won't change the fact that people can manipulate the system, it just changes HOW they manipulate the system. Even a supposed "lack" of system is still a system.
That being said, I'd love to see it tried. Our system is getting pretty bad.
On August 29 2010 08:12 Saturnize wrote: Because too many people in this generation see the state is legitimate. Maybe in another 200 years or so people will get the picture.
On August 29 2010 08:14 TanGeng wrote: There is nothing wrong with anarchic capitalism if you allow psuedo government entities aren't precluded from existing. I suppose some form of government would form at the appropriate scale.
My only problem with a motion towards anarchy is that it steps away from the accumulated wisdom held in the legal and political system. On the other hand, it also steps away from the accumulated folly held in the legal and political system. For some political entities, I'm sure this would be a positive exchange, but for others it's not so clear. Any anarchic system would have to rediscover all of the accumulated wisdom and acquire some of its own folly in the process.
Unlike Caller I don't see the benefit of a central manager of money supply, but not having a common monetary unit would be a huge hit on trade, but that's something that can be developed over time. (it's part of the accumulated wisdom that will get lost.)
In danger of over-generalization, the highest levels of government are largely more stupidity than wisdom, so stripping down the government level-by-level pausing every few years or so to digest the changes would be the best way to grasp the best parts of government while getting rid of the worst. Still I don't know if it will ever be smart to get rid of everything.
Voluntary governments (a contradiction in term but I know what you mean) are most commonly called PDAs, conceptualized by Rothbard, and they're completely allowed. What they're not legitimized at doing is killing the competition, coercing, stuff that the state does.
Money, like any other scarce resource, can be provided voluntarily no problem. Gold can or cannot be used as people see fit, and banks can trade notes just as international banks trade notes under no common authority.
Your concerns about which services are worth getting rid off is secondary to whether you think it's right in the first place, to steal for a cause. Past that, yes, it still would be more efficient for the stealing to stop; those services that are voluntarily paid for are more efficiently organized, rather than the subsidized and overused mess that is every public service.
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.
I'm an Anarcho-Communist, which is basically impossible on a large scale in practice, but there are things to learn from it. Now let's look at your position.
I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture of what this system leads to. Anarcho Capitalism doesn't work for shit for the following reasons:
- No state means noone looks after the working/lower classes. They are exploited even worse than in the current system. Class divides quickly become so severe that you can't even afford basic living costs as a worker. Noone runs schools/hospitals/social services, so a couple of generations down the line everyone at the bottom will be uneducated, unhealthy and dieing of diseases the west got past a hundred years ago.
- Everything, including basic services must be paid for, which creates inefficiencies. A nationalised system does, in many cases, result in better planned public services and, although this usually leads to large amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy and, obviously, works as a counterpoint to my own beliefs, but is still a valid criticism imo.
- Competition becomes everything. With Capital deciding absolutely every aspect of life, it doesn't breed a pleasant atmosphere. There are no safety nets with anything, it's all completely up in the air all the time, and if you fuck up, you lose everything instantly, even if it's something as simple as losing a street cleaning job, creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, further fueled by the need to find safer ways of living which don't exist. Banks cannot be trusted due to the problems arising within the legal system and we have already begun to experience the problems that can arise when banks become more powerful than countries.
- Businesses cannot be regulated, therefore exploitation of the working classes intensifies. Investments cease to be safe due to the lack of control over the global market.
- Laws will be passed based on money and nothing else. This is an indisputable point. It will quite quickly develop into a situation in which it is effectively illegal to be poor. And if the masses protest? They'll starve and be arrested, because what controls the food, water and social services? We enter a more intense version of Victorian Lassez Faire Capitalism.
Meh, I can probably think of more, but it's late here. Combined with the already crippling problems Capitalism brings up by itself, it would just be awful for 99% of the population.
On August 29 2010 07:58 Sadistx wrote: The wealthiest countries are those with a large portion expenditures on maintaining the government, state and bureaucracy. This is a fact.
It may be a fact that they are. But does it mean that it's due to?
That's a very good correlation/causation question.
I would argue that a large established government is necessary to provide the most basic infrastructure like roads/energy/communication and to regulate individual companies and environmental conditions
Individual companies may be able to better distribute their services, but only when the infrastructure is already in place.
When individual companies make their decisions they neglect the effect of positive or negative externalities on the people of the nation as a whole.
For example a company may decide to create a waste dump near a community of people because it will be cheaper for the company. If they are not regulated, the cost of relocating for the community will exceed the cost saved by the company. Under a government that regulates pollution, this would not occur and the net benefit would be positive.
Under anarcho-capitalism the problem degenerates into the tragedy of the commons on a national scale.
Roads can be voluntarily built, see anything by Walter Block. Basically, Roads can be traded more efficiently treated as real estate just like a house or an office space. If entrepreneurs see an opportunity to make streets out of a space, they can buy it, build it, and charge for it's use in many different forms. Rather than taxing everyone a huge amount of money through gas, to pay for roads that people may not use and others overuse, is a rather inefficient way to make a sustainable model.
Infrastructure is as much profitable, so to say that it isn't, yet the government does anyway, it would seem to me that you're saying if it weren't for the government, people wouldn't have figured out how to invest in a new business and get it started? That's a bad joke imo, sorry. What usually happens is the government takes over a business over a silly problem or even non-problem that they make up to be an issue. Like, MONOPOLIES. See this for a decent yet kind of empirical explanation https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf
On August 29 2010 08:08 vindKtiv wrote: Anarcho-capitalism certainly can "work." It can work, just like Communism, Feudalism, and Fascism worked. As long as the people are willing to abide by the rules (or the lack thereof in this case), then anything can theoretically "work."
But personally, I'd rather stay under our current system.
I left out a big question... what does it mean to "work", indeed. Work for what purpose, and for whom? I'm not going to answer that right now, but if you care to see my previous threads you'd see the answer. Basically, everyone has a different goal and different means, and the best way to work out those differences are through voluntary action. The moment you pull out a gun and force people to do it your way, it's not about what can work best for everyone, it's about everyone working for you. The central planner. Then in comes calculation problems, lack of market incentives, and other things that makes it impossible for the central planner to give back to everyone what they each want, even if the planner wanted to, he is hindered intellectually. He can't know what even another human being exactly wants, much less a whole nation.
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.
If an anarcho-capitalist society arose, then voluntary groups would arise within it providing defense. Because defense is Very difficult with noncontinuous territory, the most successful groups would become those that had some ownership rights of the territory they protected.
Essentially they would become mini-states... you could leave, but you would actually have to move.
The next stages would be (in no particular order)
the mini-states requring certain agreements from those living there (voluntary, they own the land... you can still move)
Mini-states exercising coercion to prevent individuals from violating those agreements (you can still just leave, but not if you owe us $10,000... in that case we will get it from you... you might even have signed an agreement giving us the right to come and chase you down... because that was the only good security contract)
Mini-states attempting the same strategies with other mini-states.
The above lead to the 'mini-states' acting almost exactly like states.
The disadvantage of any form of anarchism is that violent coercion is not possible to abolish. There will always be those that use violence and attempting to abolish states will merely lead to their reestablishment (as states are replaced by corporations and criminal organizations that start acting like states).
While violence can't be eliminated, however, a well established state can limit it. If the state is designed in such a way that the institution tends to use violence for preventing violent coercion as opposed to violently coercing, then it is superior to anarchism, where states will arise through 'natural evolution' meaning states that are successful at war (violently coercing the members of other states) will be the most prominent.
People already pay for the police today, they can pay for defense even better when the overhead and miscalculations of the state are done away with. The idea of mini-states are not new, but it would be like trying to fish with a spoon. Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery.
Overhead and miscalculations are not going away...all large companies have them.
Defense and security are 'territorial monopolies'
And violence is Not massively unpopular... certain Types of violence are massively unpopular, but other types are popular.
If an anarcho-cap society started obviously there would be cultures and traditions against "the state"... but those would change with time. Organizations that are more and more statelike would appear.
As for America not having slavery... we (and most of the rest of the developed world) only got rid of it ~100-200 years ago. I see no certainty that there won't be slavery in the year 3000 or even 2500. I hope their isn't, and there probably won't be. But if there are enough incentives for society to bring it back, they will.
The state has its uses, far more than slavery, and its evil is FAR more mitigated.
On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote: I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
Shall everybody live in poverty, so that no-one will have "power"? Yay for communism!
Just how does money bring power exactly? The power to trade? Wealth only brings the power of oppression when there is a vehicle of oppressive power to buy at a low cost, which is kind of the whole point. Would companies fund the enforcement of arbitrary, oppressive dictats out of pocket? Consider how huge the cost would be to them, and for what benefit?
All this talk about private companies becoming the next state is kind of missing the point. The state has presupposed authority. States face little resistance because of the false meme that the state has legitimacy. Private companies do not have presupposed legitimacy. They could not offload the cost of oppression to the taxpayer, AND the cost would be much greater overall because people would actually defend themselves against the oppression where there is no presupposed legitimacy.
How could Coca Cola possibly become the next state? Makes little sense. And where would their money come from if not from voluntary trade in the first place?
how bout u socialists and anarchists stop making strawmen and consider republican captialism?
capitalism =/= anarchy. Socialism is simply concentration of power in the hands of the government and is prone to the same autoimmune exploits as capitalism. but it's actually worse than capitalism b/c socialism stifles natural positive economic forces while exacerbating the problem by ignoring economics principles. Socialism likes to project exactly what they're doing bad on capitalism, via ignorance of economics.
Socialism and all that concentration of power leads to systematic loopholes by politicians and businessmen abusing their power to weave economic advantages for themselves and skewing the playing field for the common man. THAT's the source of the economic disparity.
u want to solve the effects of socialism with socialism. You want call upon redistribution of wealth (aka stealing), which doesn't exactly solve the problem b/c the ones who manipulated the system to their advantage are still in power, and only use the distribution of wealth to wipe out the middle class while keeping themselves immune to it. And there are lots of poor, so it gains a lot of support. And it's always accomplished by bait and switch. they SAY it will tax the wealthiest, but hit the middle class harder in effect, while providing themselves loopholes.
It's the universal truth of humanity that applies to every realm: no one wants to let go of power once they have it So good luck trying to keep the leader(s) benevolent after handing over all the power to him/them.
The other universal truth is game theory: ppl do things to benefit themselves.
Capitalism takes all that into account and it turns out that economics more or less creates harmony with the aid of a touch of rule of law. selfishness is not a problem in capitalism.
For socialism to work, you'd have to change the human heart itself.
"u have to have govenrment to control capitalist tendencies to go haywire." yeah, that's where the republic part comes in. capitalism and free market on the whole has a stabilizing, and flexible role, and only needs a touch of regulation. Socialism on the other hand is like taking a patient to surgery for a simple vitamin deficiency.
so i swear, until you socialists can stop with your strawmen and stop ignoring economics in the pursuit of some magical idealism that is somehow immune to the laws of economics, it's really quite pointless to talk any further.
Wowzers, isn't the premise of this thread a little feeble? Either you're asking people to discuss a very limited (and imo weak line of argumentation), or you want to discuss some ideology with people who're already familiar with it, or you're expecting people to do a ton of research in order for them to meaningfully participate..
"I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry." If science teaches us anything, it's that most of the "agreeable" assumptions are utterly wrong.
On August 29 2010 08:26 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Thread is too theoretical for my taste. Has anarcho-capitalism, whatever this political system is, ever worked before? If not, has anyone tried it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities None of them were really capitalistic though imo. I like the american wild west example best, it's a complete myth that it was a lawless land. Less homicides than the eastern part at least. I'm no empiricist so I'll stop there though.
On August 29 2010 08:28 Badjas wrote: You actually forgot to define what it means when it 'works'. (edit: credit to vindKtiv (; ) the modern democracy gives me: - A (somewhat limited) influence on how my country and home is governed - Public services - Social security - Political stability - Personal freedoms - Public safety
I would argue that democracy works with the proof of the above list (you might argue the validity of the points, but they all have a solid basis). I wouldn't want to give up on those, and for some points, anarcho-capitalism doesn't. But I am not convinced that it works on things like public service which currently operate with the help of economy of scale. Public safety is not guaranteed unless you buy it but what's gonna be the price and would the market economy for that work? I postulate that it is hardimpossible to prevent monopolies or cartels from forming in this area.
You already pay for those services, and they're overpriced, shitty, and mandatory even for those who don't want it. The market could provide you those just as well as it does mp3 players or plasma tvs, the distinction of what should be a public service or not is an imaginary line that anyone can cross if you think for a while. Some people in communist russia also couldn't figure how would bread be distributed if not for the government, but that didn't mean it couldn't.
It's not about services. Services has always been the easiest thing to get right in governments. I'm not worried about schools, roads, and the other stuff.
It's about figuring out the right rules, and some of the rules held in political bodies today hold a profound wisdom that would be hard for the average person to grasp. By getting rid of government wholesale you lose all of that. Of course, you lose all of the stupidity and all of the corruption, as well.
The question is then whether or not it's worth it to rediscover all of the wisdom that is held in the laws for reduced corruption and the accumulated stupidity, knowing that the learning process will probably be very very painful.
On August 29 2010 08:29 LaughingTulkas wrote: It's just changing the rules of the game. I think it's one of the better ideas on paper, but in the end, those who want power will pursue power but whatever means the game gives them. Changing the rules won't change them pursuing and getting power over others. And many people will willingly give other power in exchange for security. Changing the rules won't change the fact that people can manipulate the system, it just changes HOW they manipulate the system. Even a supposed "lack" of system is still a system.
That being said, I'd love to see it tried. Our system is getting pretty bad.
I was going to say "anarchy means no rules" but actually yeah, the rules would still be somewhat determined by the overarching, voluntary majority. But the difference is that there's no rulers, meaning, there's nothing that one group of people says that you have to do. Anytime someone pulls that one out it's going to be called on and made unpopular->unprofitable
On August 29 2010 08:37 Jibba wrote: Who prevents collusion?
No barriers of entry in any market limit how much an oligopoly can make; The most efficient colluding members themselves have the greatest incentive of all to break it, make under the table deals and get the most sales than anyone else. So, to say that individual companies have an incentive to collude, yet don't have an incentive to overperform everyone else is a bit of a contradiction. And a "natural collusion" in which no one can outperform the other... well I would just call that competition? lol.
Monopolies and oligopolies have been non-issues anyway. Oligopolies are extremely hard to form without a state to fix prices, contrary to popular thought. The breaking of monopolies by the part of the state is actually the formation of an oligopoly of the less efficient companies, which lobbied the government together to kill the market leader, most of the time. What do I know though.
On August 29 2010 08:05 OhJesusWOW wrote:I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
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?
The state having a monopoly over the use of force is a good thing. Without it, you'd get warlords vying for control and power with one another, assuring an armed conflict- which is definitely bad. If you have control over the use of force centralized, then no one will seriously attempt to topple the regime, and that regime can do as it pleases and establish rules.
Maybe you won't like the regime. Maybe you won't like the rules. But at least there's order and rules- the alternative is chaos and civil war, which is much, much worse.
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions) 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable. 3) Markets fail, and fail often, despite what you may read on mises.org. Not saying that this means we "need" the state, but that this hinders such system of society, and may cause it to fail. 4) You need the entire world to follow this paradigm. Game Theory wise, any nation that decides to do this will be simply manipulated by foreign powers.
On August 29 2010 08:05 OhJesusWOW wrote:I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
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 really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions)
So you need a government in order to have a market?..
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions)
So you need a government in order to have a market?..
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
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: I'm an Anarcho-Communist, which is basically impossible on a large scale in practice, but there are things to learn from it. Now let's look at your position.
I don't think you're looking at the bigger picture of what this system leads to. Anarcho Capitalism doesn't work for shit for the following reasons:
- No state means noone looks after the working/lower classes. They are exploited even worse than in the current system. Class divides quickly become so severe that you can't even afford basic living costs as a worker. Noone runs schools/hospitals/social services, so a couple of generations down the line everyone at the bottom will be uneducated, unhealthy and dieing of diseases the west got past a hundred years ago.
Who pays for schools hospitals and social services today? It seems a non-issue when you compare it vis-a-vis. Public schools are a complete hellhole of taxpayer money, paying like 10k for children when private schools can do it for under 2k. Hostpitals are shit today no thanks to the great program that medicare was (and the next one won't be) social services... not gonna go there.
The "exploited" aren't entitled to a life of surplus. They have to work to earn what they want. If no one is providing them with what they want, 1- tough deal. 2- it is no excuse to steal. Government is the GREATEST generator of externalities when it steals from everyone to do anything. It detracts from everyone's fruits of labor, it creates a number of moral hazards. So don't talk about externalities when it comes to entrepreneurship when the state's the biggest thief of all. Get rid of that first.
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Everything, including basic services must be paid for, which creates inefficiencies. A nationalised system does, in many cases, result in better planned public services and, although this usually leads to large amounts of unnecessary bureaucracy and, obviously, works as a counterpoint to my own beliefs, but is still a valid criticism imo.
No, it doesn't. You said it yourself, you're going to be paying for bureaucratic overhead, at the very least. Second, the goverrnent can't even properly calculate how much it should steal people to provide a certain service. Everytime it does so, it is stealing price figures from real entrepreneurs in the market, but it can't adapt for any changes. It can't respond to market incentives. The problem with a public service being overused for example - what the fuck does the state do? it goes crazy. It doesn't know how to charge more, or how much charge it for, how much should it tax more, it doesn't know shit. Because it's an inefficient business, grounded on politics, coercion. It doesn't give a crap for sustainability. PROFIT is not an evil thing, it means you're doing something better than anyone else. It is a guide for entrepreneurship, for demand, for what people want to be done. Much much better and responsive than half the population voting every four years and crossing their fingers, even morality aside.
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Competition becomes everything. With Capital deciding absolutely every aspect of life, it doesn't breed a pleasant atmosphere. There are no safety nets with anything, it's all completely up in the air all the time, and if you fuck up, you lose everything instantly, even if it's something as simple as losing a street cleaning job, creating an atmosphere of fear and paranoia, further fueled by the need to find safer ways of living which don't exist. Banks cannot be trusted due to the problems arising within the legal system and we have already begun to experience the problems that can arise when banks become more powerful than countries.
That's a good thing. You fuck up, you should lose, duh. Banks can't be trusted today because they are indeed a legal monopoly, and you can't not accept a dollar as payment due to legal tender laws. You have to take that inflation tax up your ass, and of course it's going to suck. But that's not to say honest banks can't be voluntarily created if the market were allowed to. Honest banking is a service that has demand for - and those banks that are the most honest will be the most popular, and will have the most profits. Again, showing how profit is a GOOD thing, as opposed to deficit spending, taxing, stealing, etc.
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: - Businesses cannot be regulated, therefore exploitation of the working classes intensifies. Investments cease to be safe due to the lack of control over the global market.
They are regulated by the customers. IT and software engineering wasn't regulated all that much, yet microsoft wasn't ripping off everyone even when they could pay off the courts to judge in their favor. Because "exploitation" is relative to what you think it's fair or unfair. Most people don't think it's unfair to work for the wage they work at, and as much as they may think their job sucks, it's the best job they are able to find; the best job that an entrepreneur was able to entice him with; the best job that any business model around him was fit for his specialization. EXPLOITATION is such an empty word that I just ignore it. You think your job is exploitation? DONT GO TO IT. You think you have a claim over the capitalist's factory? YOURE WRONG, YOU DONT, and it would be stealing if you think you do. You didn't make the business, you're not entitled to a good job, you're not entitled for free services, if it means people have to serve you for FREE. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A FREE LUNCH, thanks.
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote:
- Laws will be passed based on money and nothing else. This is an indisputable point. It will quite quickly develop into a situation in which it is effectively illegal to be poor. And if the masses protest? They'll starve and be arrested, because what controls the food, water and social services? We enter a more intense version of Victorian Lassez Faire Capitalism.
See what I said about law. What is profitable is what is popular. A court issuing stupidly unfair rulings would profit as much as a cellphone company that only works inside your building. Or a railroad company that can't get off the trainhouse. Credit cards that only work on one machine. Pretty dumb. Courts and justice will only be profitable to the extent they can settle issues most efficiently, with everyone agreeing with their rulings (opinions)
On August 29 2010 08:40 Piy wrote: Meh, I can probably think of more, but it's late here. Combined with the already crippling problems Capitalism brings up by itself, it would just be awful for 99% of the population.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions)
So you need a government in order to have a market?..
Pretty much, in practice at least. Some sort of general governing body is required to manage a global market.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves ...
What does "Markets don't form by themselves" mean? How do you explain the appearance of so called "black markets"?
ACaps often make the point that markets are everywhere where people are just making business. You dont need a state to force them. It's a strong argument imo.
it stopped being anarchy and started being a a government. u believe in freedom, not anarchy.
what you're merely pointing out is that governments naturally arise. that's the exact political parallel of the economic idea of free markets. ppl rise to meet the demands via self-interest. associations occur b/c ppl don't want violence all the time and having to live in a warzone just to claim their land. in otherwords, self interest, game theory.
The point is that on the frontiers of the American 'Wild West', the state, although existing, did not yet have the infrastructure and means in place to have much practical effect. Since people could not rely on them to 'bring order', people found other means to do so through voluntary peaceful mechanisms. It's not a perfect example because the state would still interfere where they could, and they still had presupposed authority.
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 really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force.
But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home. Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.)
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.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Zato-1 wrote: The state having a monopoly over the use of force is a good thing. Without it, you'd get warlords vying for control and power with one another, assuring an armed conflict- which is definitely bad. If you have control over the use of force centralized, then no one will seriously attempt to topple the regime, and that regime can do as it pleases and establish rules.
Maybe you won't like the regime. Maybe you won't like the rules. But at least there's order and rules- the alternative is chaos and civil war, which is much, much worse.
Negative, anarchism doesn't mean no rules, it means no rulers. People can agree on rules even contractually so; and higher order systems can arise without coercion, being paid for voluntarily and more efficiently than robbing a bit from everyone.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 1) Markets don't form by themselves ...
What does "Markets don't form by themselves" mean? How do you explain the appearance of so called "black markets"?
ACaps often make the point that markets are everywhere where people are just making business. You dont need a state to force them. It's a strong argument imo.
I'm not really referring to black markets. Market creation is normally a tenet of Anarcho-Capitalism, that is, arguing that market failures can be dealt with (specifically, Externalities can be dealt with) by formation of new markets. There are many things that is needed for this, one of the biggest things being support -- normally government grants, and governments picking it up and using the system to set the trend for the new market, leading to standardization.
It does not, refer to Black Markets, since many of the things sold in Black markets are easily quantifiable, standardized, etc. But when it comes to more complex things that needs to be dealt with to deal with Market Failures, Anarcho Capitalism is rather slow in making the system work, and in fact, it can even kill the system since it may not be in every firm's current best interests since it'll cost them to deal with the new standards set.
Basically, for the simple things, it works out, but for externalities, any well established corporation can stop it from happening since it's not in their best interest. Some things do need wider support before the markets actually become sustainable in the long run.
if u want a huge class gap have government get deeply involved in market regulation
i've yet to hear a sound case for socialism. every time they overlook economic principles, turn a blind eye and hold a double standard when it comes to a system being prone to corruption. and they're in total deniable of history.
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 really an artificial construct. Property rights in the context of a "state granted power" could be said to be artificial, yes. But property itself not so much. Would you say that a person defending his home from an invader is being coercive, or that the invader is? If if come into your home and attempt to take your stuff, I'm guessing you would use force to try to stop me. That would not be coercion on your part, but a legitimate use of force for defensive purposes only. That is still true if there is no state granted license on your use of that force.
The example you use is a home, but there are more implications to a home than simple private property rights. People require a place to live, people feel an emotional association with their homes, people desire a particular sense of security in their homes, etc. Consider for example that Castle Laws exist that specifically refer to people's rights to be secure in their homes. Whether you agree or disagree with such laws, it is hard to dispute that one's home has a special significance. But we are talking simply about property rights, regardless of any special significance.
A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing?
I like how the vast majority of examples of 'big government' messing things up are the result of attempts to reduce the size of the government after the social program/whatever has been put in place. It makes it such a convenient point when both sides of the argument can claim the same point and deride the other side for being too dense to understand their reasoning, thus stifling any reasonable progress because each side thinks the other side is refusing to accept any (including completely unrelated ones) point that the other side suggests. It's probably also a reason why no system of governance, anarchistic or not (as silly as that sounds), will ever satisfy people. That's why i'm pro super robot intelligent AI driven government that ultimately turns us into slaves!
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?
Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
1) Markets don't form by themselves, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote the creation of new markets (if you're saying "but you'll make money if you make a new market", but there's still a lot of conditions needed for market creation, and anarcho-capitalism doesn't exactly promote such conditions) 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable. 3) Markets fail, and fail often, despite what you may read on mises.org. Not saying that this means we "need" the state, but that this hinders such system of society, and may cause it to fail. 4) You need the entire world to follow this paradigm. Game Theory wise, any nation that decides to do this will be simply manipulated by foreign powers.
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.
On August 29 2010 08:05 OhJesusWOW wrote:I believe the Old American West was a close representation of what you can expect in an anarcho-capitalism; I believe it also retains the moniker, 'The Wild West', and for good reason, I would assume.
The 'Wild' west is actually a good example of why anarcho-capitalism can (and does) work.
first video at :50 - 1:10
it stopped being anarchy and started being a a government. that's no longer anarchy.
4:35 - 4:45
2nd amendment. "Anarchy" (misnomer for freedom) resolves its own problems.
what you're merely pointing out is that governments naturally arise. that governments spontaneously form from a state of anarchy.
then the real problem is powerful, unstoppable abusive government, not the "evils of capitalism or anarchy"
hence constitution, hence separation of powers
the video is explaining the exact political parallel of the economic idea of free markets. ppl rise to meet the demands via self-interest.
associations arise b/c ppl don't want violence all the time and having to live in a warzone just to claim their land. in otherwords,
summed up in 2 terms: self interest, and game theory.
Game theory would tell you that for every publically known attack pattern or strategy, there can be made a defense counter against. If you know that warlords are coming, you can gather your neighbors and pay for a voluntary police force to defend you at the best price the market can offer, as much defense as you need. The idea that a socialized, one-size-fits-all system, managed coercively and exempt from market incentives can best give you anything, let alone defense against another such system, is not only preposterous but contradictory (you want a coercive body to defend you against another coercive body? lol)
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?
This was one of my points when I said everyone has to agree to their negative-liberty capitalistic rules. The second someone doesn't agree and acts on the disagreement, a wide variety of private armies will probably kill you.
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.
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.
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.
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?
This was one of my points when I said everyone has to agree to their negative-liberty capitalistic rules. The second someone doesn't agree and acts on the disagreement, a wide variety of private armies will probably kill you.
The thief is estopped from claiming property over the stolen resource, because if he argues the owner has no claim over it, then neither does he, who did nothing more to create or appropriate it.
So yes, people will try to stop you physically if you steal or insist on invading their property, to the degree that is seen as reasonable by everyone else. Someone who bazooka'd a passerby would obviously be ruled to be in the wrong, you can respond to aggression only to the degree that the aggressor is estopped to disagree, any more and you're risking yourself a bad reputation and "credit score".
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.
But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home.
Sure. Why not? See the homesteading principle. See John Locke's definition of property. Anything that is unowned can be made use of without any coercion (since it is unowned and unclaimed). That is what makes it yours.
What do you mean by an 'inherent concept'? Your claim on property is a warning to others that you will defend it from being taken by others. I would argue that it is a natural 'right', and that it is the naturally emergent behaviour of human beings. Is that what you mean by 'inherent concept'?
Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.)
So because nation states are oppressive and use violence to get what they want when it suits them, the notion of property is therefore an artificial construct and a meaningless claim? I don't understand. Like I said before, I'm assuming you would defend your property from me. What is artificial about that? What is meaningless about that?
If a company intentionally floods your home then you have a legitimate claim against them for they have unequivocally caused damage to you. You said this has happened before by companies. Do you have a source? I'd like to examine it and the circumstances behind it.
I don't know much about how anarcho-capitalism is theoretically supposed to work but in any system that does have a central body of control will have serious issues with infrastructure.
The main issue is simply resources. Building and maintain large scale infrastructure (roads, pipes, etc.) requires a single large coordinated entity. This entity can be a corporation so I suppose the system could function with government fiscal sized corporations.
So in essence the corporations become the replacement for the government and what ever system they use to choose the director is what the system becomes (most corporations fall under some variant of dictatorship or feudal class system, think employees vs investors).
Therefore corporations need to be powerful or the nation's infrastructure will fail, but if this is the case then the system becomes of an unfavourable form for most dictatorship or feudal class system.
So how would you see anarcho-capitalism work in a favourable manner?
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.
But what makes 'your' home yours? You built it? Someone could build right next to you and that would be there home.
Sure. Why not? See the homesteading principle. See John Locke's definition of property. Anything that is unowned can be made use of without any coercion (since it is unowned and unclaimed). That is what makes it yours.
It is a strange definition of non-coercion that includes genocide, which is the basis of homesteading at least in America.
What do you mean by an 'inherent concept'? Your claim on property is a warning to others that you will defend it from being taken by others. I would argue that it is a natural 'right', and that it is the naturally emergent behaviour of human beings. Is that what you mean by 'inherent concept'?
First off, saying that property rights are a naturally emergent behavior is an empirical claim, and requires empirical evidence. Not to say that there isn't any: anthropologists actually study the development of the concept of property, but their empirical description contradicts many of the claims made by modern advocates of property.
And again, you ignore the issue of how we distribute property; that is, who gets to claim what
Property rights are not an inherent concept as evidenced by many First Nation societies in North America as well as settlers not recognizing the territory as First Nation territory despite the First Nations having built 'their' house. Beyond the physical ground that your house occupies, the notion of private property is an artificial construct. (And even then, one could always knock over your house or build a dam lower on the river and flood it- also been done by companies internationally.)
So because nation states are oppressive and use violence to get what they want when it suits them, the notion of property is therefore an artificial construct and a meaningless claim? I don't understand. Like I said before, I'm assuming you would defend your property from me. What is artificial about that? What is meaningless about that? [/QUOTE]
Again, you fall back on the example of a home, but under modern society, and under anarcho-capitalism as well, people can own property besides their homes. Would you agree that people only have the right to defend their homes, and not other property? If they have the right to defend property besides their homes, where does this right come from?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing?
By saying land that you do not live on, are you talking about land that is literally unused in any way? In which case you would be right, because land in the wilderness does not belong to anybody. And the "squatter" would have a legitimate claim to his camp, because the original owner does not. Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership.
Besides, why would somebody choose to fund for the defence of totally unused land? Remember, without a state you must fund for your own defence. You can't just offload the cost of it to the taxpayer, as it is with the rich wielding the power of government. So if the wilderness is literally doing nothing for you, what a waste it would be to try to "defend" it. That's assuming you even feel like you have any sort of claim to it in the first place (but why would you?).
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.
A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing?
Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership.
A better example would be if you owned land that you did not live on. What if someone decided to set up camp on it? It would require coercion to expel him. But such coercion would constitute an initiation of force against the squatter, since he never coerced the landowner. How could one justify the use of force in such a situation? In a capitalist society, the government grants a monopoly on all property to its owner backed by force, but wouldn't anarcho-capitalism reject such a thing?
By saying land that you do not live on, are you talking about land that is literally unused in any way? In which case you would be right, because land in the wilderness does not belong to anybody. And the "squatter" would have a legitimate claim to his camp, because the original owner does not. Calling dibs on acres (or continents) is not a legitimate way to acquire land ownership.
Besides, why would somebody choose to fund for the defence of totally unused land? Remember, without a state you must fund for your own defence. You can't just offload the cost of it to the taxpayer, as it is with the rich wielding the power of government. So if the wilderness is literally doing nothing for you, what a waste it would be to try to "defend" it. That's assuming you even feel like you have any sort of claim to it in the first place (but why would you?).
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.
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.
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.
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 09:50 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- 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 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.
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.
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 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 09:34 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 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 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 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.
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?
Not quite.
The issue I have in mind is things like SO2 Emission Markets, which was only possible through "coercion" to get it started and standardized. There are many other markets like that, and there WILL be markets like that, and simply put, it's going to take COMPLETE free market based systems a lot longer to adopt such a system.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it hinders developments because sometimes the fastest way and the most simple way is coercion.
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.
The only real issue is that these things take a lot of time and organization to pull off. You're assuming no transaction costs here, when there will literally be tons of transaction costs and opportunity costs.
Secondly, this only happens... "after the fact". Companies still pollute. How many of them would still pollute if it wasn't for a lot of the programs that got started by the government? You can say people will ostracize but sometimes... it doesn't quite work out with just that. There needs to be a kick.
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.
Invade? I'm thinking more of forming partnerships with big corporations in ACaps. Foreign policy will be an absolute disaster with this going on. Try this on a country like America and it won't be a united states for too long ;p which is why you need to apply this to the entire world pretty much.
I think one theoretical opposition to Anarcho-Capitalism is that information is not freely-available. That is to say, producers have an inherent advantage over consumers in terms of information. Unless corporations are somehow compelled to release information which may negatively affect their business, they will not do so, thus preventing consumers from making informed decisions. The assumption that consumers will rationally choose superior products cannot hold under such conditions.
Not to mention product safety - remember the melamine scandal in China? Some sort of governing agency is necessary to maintain product safety and quality. Evidence from the real world demonstrates repeatedly that it is a fantasy for companies to police themselves.
I will address the Anarcho-Capitalist alternative to a government agency, which I assume to be another private company whose role it is to investigate and prevent such things - I shall also assume that companies agree to acknowledge the company's authority to investigate them. (not that this would necessarily be the case, but I am generous) The problem therewith is that such a company would be driven, like any other, by profit and would thus be susceptible to bribery and corruption on a greater scale than a government agency. I doubt they would let a melamine-esque scandal slide, but smaller matters could be ignored.
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote: 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.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
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.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay.
On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote: Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry.
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.
I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
It does have a lot in common, but anarcho-capitalism would work on a different framework of property. No claiming huge chunks of land by your word alone. Lockean homesteading and all that. But even before that, it's always the best claim that owns the resource. "I made this house, or I paid it to be made, and therefore it is mine", is a stronger claim than "you were born into my domain, you shall forfeit me this house or pay me tribute", or even, "I invaded your house and now am in your couch, and because of biological necessities I can't live elsewhere, therefore it's partially mine too. PROLETARIAT UNITE!" eek
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.
A hundred thousand years ago people would have to work for their sustenance too. Nothing is different. You can't change what is a reality. If you sit down and do nothing, you will eventually die. The only difference is that it's orders of magnitudes easier to survive thanks to technological improvements, increases in the levels of wealth, standards of living and comfort. These improvements come from productive activity and voluntarily trade, etc. This is stifled by government involvement (coercion stifles productivity), as it leeches from the productive.
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.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay.
On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote: Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry.
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.
I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
I'm not a priori, though. Neither are you, nor is anyone: we are real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. If all you have are a priori theories with no connection to reality, all you are engaging is a sort of ideological sudoku where you strive for self-consistency but not relevance. Musings about politics or any other aspect of the human condition that are not based on facts are irrelelvant and worthless.
On August 29 2010 10:24 Adila wrote: 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?
I'm not sure how exactly it should be handled, but a few certainties: -Not by getting up their sticks and going to a battle to death. Everoyne loses. -Not by coercively funding a greater authority that could exterminate them both at its whim, to judge what has to be done
Perhaps: -The most popular law firm of the downstream society gathers resources and signatures to make a class action against the exact proprietaries who are dumping shit in the river. They both go to an agreeable court to decide if the downstream society is entitled to have a clear river or not. I don't know how their law would decide it, but it would probably come to a compromise agreeable to both better than I can myself imagine. -The downstream society gathers enough money to buy off the river upstream -The downstream society moves.
And THEN they can fight to death if they're that retarded.
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?
Yes. Do you or I own Earth? Do you feel entitled to say what can be done to Earth? I don't. I claim I own the air around me; and if someone is to hurt me, I can sue them, and the courts (and everyone in general) can find that legit, depending on circumstances.
What I disagree with is the idea that a global authority is 1- going to make sure Earth is taken care of better than every individual who legitimately owns their own space, and 2- not abuse it's effortlessly acquired powers.
You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
No i don't.
I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
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.
A hundred thousand years ago people would have to work for their sustenance too. Nothing is different. You can't change what is a reality. If you sit down and do nothing, you will eventually die. The only difference is that it's orders of magnitudes easier to survive thanks to technological improvements, increases in the levels of wealth, standards of living and comfort. These improvements come from productive activity and voluntarily trade, etc. This is stifled by government involvement (coercion stifles productivity), as it leeches from the productive.
Economic systems have a lot to do with how much people work though, not just technology. There were some societies in the past where people worked much less than today in order to survive. And pointing to productivity is a red herring too: consider how productivity has skyrocketed in America in the last four decades, but median real wages have remained stagnant. This massive upward redistribution of wealth was triggered not by increased government intervention, but rather accompanied by decreased intervention.
Technology is relevant, but the fact is that our level of technology today is adequate to sustain for the most part a post-scarcity society. That we do not live in one is a political and economic problem. Everyone could work twenty hours a week and wages could be even higher than today with the amount of productivity and wealth we have today, but this would require a different distribution of wealth.
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.
Environmental issues are pretty important. How would your system deal with natural disasters? Long droughts? Water shortages? Food shortages?
History has shown that these things force people to move into other people's areas. It creates conflicts because resources become scarce.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote: 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.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
"Who owns the environment" is not a relevant question in the face of the extinction of all life on earth. If I owned a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, would I be entitled to launch them all?
First I'll address your example of logging companies. Yes, they do have an economic incentive to maintain forests. However this means they will only do so in the way most economically beneficial for them. That means tree plantations and monocropping, which is just as harmful to forest ecosystems as cutting them down altogether.
Second, the example of logging companies and deforestation is not applicable to the environmentally destructive practices of most companies. Logging companies are unique because they sell products they extract from forests so they have an economic incentive to keep the forests around in some form. Electricity companies do not sell resources that they extract from the atmosphere. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has no direct effect on their profits, and they obviously do not own the atmosphere.
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?
Yes. Do you or I own Earth? Do you feel entitled to say what can be done to Earth? I don't. I claim I own the air around me; and if someone is to hurt me, I can sue them, and the courts (and everyone in general) can find that legit, depending on circumstances.
What I disagree with is the idea that a global authority is 1- going to make sure Earth is taken care of better than every individual who legitimately owns their own space, and 2- not abuse it's effortlessly acquired powers.
So you are really going to go out and sue millions of different people for just a very small amount for each lawsuit for the collective damage they have done with things like exposing you to carcinogens? How is this reasonable? And would you really even support broader action, such as say Bangladesh suing first world nations for contribution to climate change that increases the number of people who die in floods there? You say you own the air around you, but if you choke to death because the air around you has been slowly polluted over the course of a longer span of time than you have even been alive, it's a little late to start suing people. Nor will suing them get you clean air.
You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
No i don't.
I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
Yes, it is.
Anarcho-Capitalism proposes merely the nonexistence of a state. It does not propose that this will be a utopia, or that no market failures will occur - merely that it is better than all other options, all of which include state interventions. If interventions are not better, the argument holds.
On August 29 2010 10:37 Phrujbaz wrote: Employers cannot set wages arbitrarily low in an unregulated market.
ty. They can though, and you certainly agree, just that they won't be employing nobody with a brain, because the employer next door is offering a more marketable, a market wage. If they do employ somebody, it's still not exploitation because the dumbass accepted it voluntary. It would be exploitation if he forced the dumbass to keep working even after he doesn't want to, and contracts can be ruled fraudulent if they require absurd stuff to be done by the consenting party, like selling one's life for a cookie, but that part is debatable.
You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
No i don't.
I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
Yes, it is.
Anarcho-Capitalism proposes merely the nonexistence of a state. It does not propose that this will be a utopia, or that no market failures will occur - merely that it is better than all other options, all of which include state interventions. If interventions are not better, the argument holds.
My Impressions on the thread was that "what are some problems with acaps" and "why won't acaps work". Whether or not it is a 'better' form of society or not is completely and utterly irrelevant given the OP.
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.
I disagree, and I think someone who has more than enough food for himself can 99% of the time be talked with, before any stealing is done. Even if I had to steal food myself to live, I would still regard that as immoral, and would want to pay back in the future to restitute those I've robbed.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
A market failure is a case where individual rationality does not lead to group rationality. In order words, where a rational human being might act in a way that is beneficial to himself but detrimental, on the net, to society.
It's hard to motivate people to finance national defense. The benefit of your investment (less threat from foreign nations) is spread out amongst all the people of the nation. And if you don't pay, you still get the same protection as everybody else. It's also hard to motivate people to take proper care of the environment for similar reasons.
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
On August 29 2010 10:37 Phrujbaz wrote: Employers cannot set wages arbitrarily low in an unregulated market.
ty. They can though, and you certainly agree, just that they won't be employing nobody with a brain, because the employer next door is offering a more marketable, a market wage. If they do employ somebody, it's still not exploitation because the dumbass accepted it voluntary. It would be exploitation if he forced the dumbass to keep working even after he doesn't want to, and contracts can be ruled fraudulent if they require absurd stuff to be done by the consenting party, like selling one's life for a cookie, but that part is debatable.
This assumes the employee always has the means to find another paying job, but if all the companies are equally exploitative in the wake of a huge economic collapse. In the wake of the Great Depression, if employees wanted more wages, companies could throw them out and accept the workers waiting desperately at the gates at reduced wages, thus constantly driving down wages. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath details this problem. Sometimes geography and economic conditions allows cut-throat capitalism to ruthlessly exploit the workers and they have no recourse.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
A market failure is a case where individual rationality does not lead to group rationality. In order words, where a rational human being might act in a way that is beneficial to himself but detrimental, on the net, to society.
It's hard to motivate people to finance national defense. The benefit of your investment (less threat from foreign nations) is spread out amongst all the people of the nation. And if you don't pay, you still get the same protection as everybody else. It's also hard to motivate people to take proper care of the environment for similar reasons.
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
Define individual or group rationality.
Most cases of market failure are characterized by entirely rational individual decisions creating an arguably negative outcome for the group - but there is nothing intrinsically irrational about the failure.
Indeed, in most cases its arguably not even a failure.
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?
Not quite.
The issue I have in mind is things like SO2 Emission Markets, which was only possible through "coercion" to get it started and standardized. There are many other markets like that, and there WILL be markets like that, and simply put, it's going to take COMPLETE free market based systems a lot longer to adopt such a system.
I'm not saying it's impossible, I'm saying it hinders developments because sometimes the fastest way and the most simple way is coercion.
Actually something like this would be like a popularly endorsed collusion; the companies would be more than glad to reduce output if it means they can raise prices because everyone else is also socially pressured to do so. So I believe something like this is very possible to emerge naturally. Just need to talk a lot, and be a legitimate cause.
There is a direct profit incentive for corporations to cap their own shit, just think about it. The question is if they have enough popular support to either ostracize the noncompliant competition, or well, yeah the state to break their faces. Why do you support the state to break faces though, if you were against externalities? I think there are huge externalities when the government can just come and fuck you up whenever they want. I'd raise my prices to account for that risk; everyone else does too, in an interventionist world. Government increases externalities by being hasty and imposing their solutions; markets do what they do at the best times anyone can think of.
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.
The only real issue is that these things take a lot of time and organization to pull off. You're assuming no transaction costs here, when there will literally be tons of transaction costs and opportunity costs.
Secondly, this only happens... "after the fact". Companies still pollute. How many of them would still pollute if it wasn't for a lot of the programs that got started by the government? You can say people will ostracize but sometimes... it doesn't quite work out with just that. There needs to be a kick.
Pollute who's property? The government's? I think you should be blaming the government for allowing their property (not yours, not public, theirs, state propery.) to be polluted; and not allowing people to buy off their stuff. And even when they do allow private companies to own what was previously state property, there's always conditions; a lease, for some time, under these regulations and price tables. The state never lets go of what they get until it's like, borderline revolution time.
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.
Invade? I'm thinking more of forming partnerships with big corporations in ACaps. Foreign policy will be an absolute disaster with this going on. Try this on a country like America and it won't be a united states for too long ;p which is why you need to apply this to the entire world pretty much.
What bad outcome from a foreign state owning a non-coercive company in AC? If it's non-coercive.. it won't be retaliated againt. If it's coercive well.. it will be stopped by word or by force.
On August 29 2010 10:48 caewil wrote: I think one theoretical opposition to Anarcho-Capitalism is that information is not freely-available. That is to say, producers have an inherent advantage over consumers in terms of information. Unless corporations are somehow compelled to release information which may negatively affect their business, they will not do so, thus preventing consumers from making informed decisions. The assumption that consumers will rationally choose superior products cannot hold under such conditions.
Not to mention product safety - remember the melamine scandal in China? Some sort of governing agency is necessary to maintain product safety and quality. Evidence from the real world demonstrates repeatedly that it is a fantasy for companies to police themselves.
I will address the Anarcho-Capitalist alternative to a government agency, which I assume to be another private company whose role it is to investigate and prevent such things - I shall also assume that companies agree to acknowledge the company's authority to investigate them. (not that this would necessarily be the case, but I am generous) The problem therewith is that such a company would be driven, like any other, by profit and would thus be susceptible to bribery and corruption on a greater scale than a government agency. I doubt they would let a melamine-esque scandal slide, but smaller matters could be ignored.
Yes, that is a very classic objection, but it fails to notice the central planner comes to the same problem, and even worse, because he's only one entity, and has calculation problems, and has no direct incentives other than elections, etc.
I would be willing to bet the government in China already was responsible for that. And even if it was the case that there wasn't, all it means is that the consumers didn't want to know about it either. If everyone was worried about chemicals in their food, only the companies which best answer that demand would be leaders, so 'no regulation is needed for that which is demanded as-is', as there is no need for regulation requiring fresh milk to be delivered to delis, fresh bread to be produced by bakers everyday, etc. Market demand takes care of that, and most of what people call "externalities".
A private investigator relies on his investigation reputation; how well he's been able to solve crimes and occurrences. A bribed private investigator would be risking his reputation, more than a public one who is basically the only choice anyway, and the one everyone is forced to go to most of the time. Everyone knows the FDA is full of shit, yet they continue in business. A good example of something that wouldn't happen in the free market.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
A market failure is a case where individual rationality does not lead to group rationality. In order words, where a rational human being might act in a way that is beneficial to himself but detrimental, on the net, to society.
It's hard to motivate people to finance national defense. The benefit of your investment (less threat from foreign nations) is spread out amongst all the people of the nation. And if you don't pay, you still get the same protection as everybody else. It's also hard to motivate people to take proper care of the environment for similar reasons.
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
Define individual or group rationality.
Most cases of market failure are characterized by entirely rational individual decisions creating an arguably negative outcome for the group - but there is nothing intrinsically irrational about the failure.
Indeed, in most cases its arguably not even a failure.
very good posts & key to understading human behavior imho. edit wtf its actually kzn which i am agreeing with here lol sry for derail
Actually something like this would be like a popularly endorsed collusion; the companies would be more than glad to reduce output if it means they can raise prices because everyone else is also socially pressured to do so. So I believe something like this is very possible to emerge naturally. Just need to talk a lot, and be a legitimate cause.
There is a direct profit incentive for corporations to cap their own shit, just think about it. The question is if they have enough popular support to either ostracize the noncompliant competition, or well, yeah the state to break their faces. Why do you support the state to break faces though, if you were against externalities? I think there are huge externalities when the government can just come and fuck you up whenever they want. I'd raise my prices to account for that risk; everyone else does too, in an interventionist world. Government increases externalities by being hasty and imposing their solutions; markets do what they do at the best times anyone can think of.
I haven't seen an actual case of it emerging naturally. You can go back in history and argue some things arose naturally, but it's more likely that it was a result of an organized, state sponsored endeavor. I'm speaking of in the current environment, a lot of the pioneering done for the new markets have been government related (see: Carbon markets)
Pollute who's property? The government's? I think you should be blaming the government for allowing their property (not yours, not public, theirs, state propery.) to be polluted; and not allowing people to buy off their stuff. And even when they do allow private companies to own what was previously state property, there's always conditions; a lease, for some time, under these regulations and price tables. The state never lets go of what they get until it's like, borderline revolution time.
What? Don't go off on tangents...
Read the austrian section LOL
yeah and there's a reason no economist takes Austrians seriously when it comes to these. Austrians have a lot of good ideas and concepts... this is literally one thing that's making them look like retards.
What bad outcome from a foreign state owning a non-coercive company in AC? If it's non-coercive.. it won't be retaliated againt. If it's coercive well.. it will be stopped by word or by force.
State interests reflected in the companies. Just imagine if the US States were allowed to have their own foreign policy.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
It's not that market failure doesn't exist, but it's a misnomer for individual failure. Failure has to come from someone, somewhere, because only man act purposefully. The issue with market failure claims is that they claim that there can be one purpose to which everyone works for, and subverting or breaking that purpose would be a failure in the part of everyone in providing everyone with what they want. Which is bullshit, market doesn't work that way, the market doesn't have a goal, only individuals have goals, so there can only be failures in the extent that each individual sees it as a failure; there is no central authority to vouch what was failure and was not.
Market failure is individual failure, and individual failure does exist, but market failure is just an excuse for government intervention. You broke your nail, so now I'm justified in creating a national nail defense agency? Something stupid like that. Who's nail is it anyway?
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.
The only difference is that it's orders of magnitudes easier to survive thanks to technological improvements, increases in the levels of wealth, standards of living and comfort. These improvements come from productive activity and voluntarily trade, etc. This is stifled by government involvement (coercion stifles productivity), as it leeches from the productive.
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.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay.
On August 29 2010 10:21 HunterX11 wrote:
On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote: Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry.
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.
I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
I'm not a priori, though. Neither are you, nor is anyone: we are real-life, flesh-and-blood human beings. If all you have are a priori theories with no connection to reality, all you are engaging is a sort of ideological sudoku where you strive for self-consistency but not relevance. Musings about politics or any other aspect of the human condition that are not based on facts are irrelelvant and worthless.
They are connected to reality. But even science is necessarily a-priori; the scientific method is an a-priori "you do it this way to do it right". My a-priori axioms are no different, and perhaps more agreeable even. The golden rule: don't do to others what you wouldn't like to be done to yourself. The Non-Agression-Principle comes from that. Private property depends on that.
And they are very relevant, seeing that the state relies on yours and everyone else's ignorance on them to keep extorting your money, IMO.
On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote: It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree?
i will try to define society: Men form relationships with whom they trust. If i can trust you to not steel my stuff or stab me from behind we already build the foundations of a society, whatever etiquette you may give it. A society without such agreements is by definition not a society.
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.
Environmental issues are pretty important. How would your system deal with natural disasters? Long droughts? Water shortages? Food shortages?
History has shown that these things force people to move into other people's areas. It creates conflicts because resources become scarce.
Insurance is a big one; donations, volunteering, idk. No need to jump for the gunverment just because you have a problem. Most people are pretty empathetic to those in need, especially next door. And those who receive help can promise to pay back too. Allowance, emergency loans, financing, people can manage.
I would say government usually makes these problems worse when they own the crappy public infrastructure and just burrow their heads on the sand when something wrong happens.
Economic systems have a lot to do with how much people work though, not just technology. There were some societies in the past where people worked much less than today in order to survive.
Yes. I don't doubt it. Government today is hugely stifling, thus people have to work harder because they're pretty much living on the scraps. Even American society can be compared throughout the 19th century up to today.
And pointing to productivity is a red herring too: consider how productivity has skyrocketed in America in the last four decades, but median real wages have remained stagnant. This massive upward redistribution of wealth was triggered not by increased government intervention, but rather accompanied by decreased intervention.
Yes, massively more wealth is being stolen since the introduction of all the social programmes in the sixties and seventies and beyond. So people are forced to work harder in order to make ends meet. What's your point? By the by, those programmes were supposed to help the poor, not make people poorer.
Oh wait. Accompanied by decreased government intervention? Really? How do you figure? The size of the state is smaller than it was four decades ago? Of course, this is all ignoring the continually increasing national debt too, and the fact that they control the money supply through threat of force and manipulate interest rates, etc leading to continual inflation eating into everyone's savings.
Technology is relevant, but the fact is that our level of technology today is adequate to sustain for the most part a post-scarcity society. That we do not live in one is a political and economic problem. Everyone could work twenty hours a week and wages could be even higher than today with the amount of productivity and wealth we have today, but this would require a different distribution of wealth.
Umm. Wealth is not a fixed pie with some intrinsic value that just needs to be distributed equally to be "fair". I agree that people could work much less and still create much more wealth. Working creates wealth (and trade too, from subjective preference). Technologies allow for creating more wealth with less work. Working and productive activity creates new technologies. That is the mechanism I'm talking about. What the mechanism you talk about? Distributing Bill Gates' wealth so that Bill Gates is equal to everyone else?
Distributing the wealth (with violence) is what leads to less productivity, which leads to less wealth for everyone in the long term. To a insane amount that most people don't even understand. Like levels of magnitudes. So does it matter if everybody has equal wealth if everybody is also infact much poorer than they would otherwise be? Is the "equality" worth all that, even to a utilitarian ethicist who is willing to use violence to manipulate society to what he/she feels would provide the greatest good? And honestly, if somebody is wealthy then they have already provided value and wealth to others. That's how they became so wealthy in the first place: through voluntarily trade. Unless they are wealthy through coercive means, which I'm obviously against.
But I don't really understand what you're arguing. I'm saying productive, voluntary activity creates more wealth. Wealth makes it easier to survive and live in comfort. And I'm saying theft and coercion stifles that. And you're saying, what? That wealth is a fixed pie in the world that just needs to be distributed, using coercive force? I ask with genuine curiosity because I've been debating with you but I don't know your position on all of this, if you have one. Or if you just have criticisms for ancap, which is fine.
On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote: It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree?
i will try to define society: Men form relationships with whom they trust. If i can trust you to not steel my stuff or stab me from behind we already build the foundations of a society, whatever etiquette you may give it. A society without such agreements is by definition not a society.
Trust works for small populations. Populations on the scale of a nation will suffer much more clearly from environmental issues or questions of how to fund national defense.
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote: 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.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
"Who owns the environment" is not a relevant question in the face of the extinction of all life on earth. If I owned a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, would I be entitled to launch them all?
First I'll address your example of logging companies. Yes, they do have an economic incentive to maintain forests. However this means they will only do so in the way most economically beneficial for them. That means tree plantations and monocropping, which is just as harmful to forest ecosystems as cutting them down altogether.
Second, the example of logging companies and deforestation is not applicable to the environmentally destructive practices of most companies. Logging companies are unique because they sell products they extract from forests so they have an economic incentive to keep the forests around in some form. Electricity companies do not sell resources that they extract from the atmosphere. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has no direct effect on their profits, and they obviously do not own the atmosphere.
You aren't entitled to kill other people I feel. I think most would feel the same. But not only are you not entitled, it would bring you nothing for doing that. It would bring a bad reputation if anything, increasing the risks of someone lauching a nuke preemptively against you! I say only retarded governments would do that, because they got the nukes for free (by expropriation of capital) and so, easy come = easy go. They also can use the nation as a shield to himself; the crazy president can make everyone seem guilty for a missle launched, so a potential retaliation may come not to the guy who ordered the nukes, but private property elsewhere, like idk, 9/11 maybe? Terrorists retaliating against a state more often than not kill the innocent, coerced civilians. Oh sorry but I'm going on a tangent, you're not talking about global violence, you're talking about the environment. Lol.
Okay, and why would you like that the harvesters didn't do what you don't want them to do? What claim do you have over the forests? Do you have a better idea on what to do? Do you feel necessary to force them not to on your own principles? Why? They didn't do anything to you, and unless you can prove so, you really don't have a claim over the resource... just disagreement over its use, but no better claim to it. What happens in the free market is that, if someone has a better idea on how to use a resource that was previously already in use, they buy it off. They can afford it, because they expect a greater return from it, and the previous business ends up winning too, since they weren't making that much.
The CO2 on the atmosphere has no effect on anyone I feel, and if you think it does, on you even, then you can sue them, if it comes to that point. Raise campaigns against the companies, and if it's popular enough, they'll be glad to comply; because it means making their products more scarce, so they have to produce less and sell at higher prices; but only if the public outrage is big enough to force every other competitor to do the same thing. Environmental issues are great for big corporations, contrary to popular thought, because it enables collusion better than any other concern, well ok, not better than health and safety and stuff that the government already regulates them for. But third best. Fourth. IDK.
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?
Yes. Do you or I own Earth? Do you feel entitled to say what can be done to Earth? I don't. I claim I own the air around me; and if someone is to hurt me, I can sue them, and the courts (and everyone in general) can find that legit, depending on circumstances.
What I disagree with is the idea that a global authority is 1- going to make sure Earth is taken care of better than every individual who legitimately owns their own space, and 2- not abuse it's effortlessly acquired powers.
So you are really going to go out and sue millions of different people for just a very small amount for each lawsuit for the collective damage they have done with things like exposing you to carcinogens? How is this reasonable? And would you really even support broader action, such as say Bangladesh suing first world nations for contribution to climate change that increases the number of people who die in floods there? You say you own the air around you, but if you choke to death because the air around you has been slowly polluted over the course of a longer span of time than you have even been alive, it's a little late to start suing people. Nor will suing them get you clean air.
Could be a class action, that way there's a bigger pot. And yes, I support any type of voluntary action over coercive action. That's not to say I even believe in anthropological global warming, but that it would be best if the gun is not raised. Air pollution again, is suable today and it would be suable in the future. Unless someone's rich enough to pay and convince everyone to sell the atmosphere to him LOL but I don't see that happening.
On August 29 2010 10:51 Phrujbaz wrote: Instead of denying market failures exist, you can point out some government failures and compare them in severity and frequency to market failures.
Denying that either market failure or government failure exist at all seems to me a little overzealous.
Failure from what context? Utilitarianism? So wages weren't infinite? I'm confused. Point me to your best number one example of a "market failure" and let us discuss it.
A market failure is a case where individual rationality does not lead to group rationality. In order words, where a rational human being might act in a way that is beneficial to himself but detrimental, on the net, to society.
It's hard to motivate people to finance national defense. The benefit of your investment (less threat from foreign nations) is spread out amongst all the people of the nation. And if you don't pay, you still get the same protection as everybody else. It's also hard to motivate people to take proper care of the environment for similar reasons.
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
I dunno how can anyone consistently, and long-term profit from inflicting a net loss to others. And if that's market failure, then, the insolvency of big firms aren't, and you're referring to an unconventional definition of market failure even in mainstream economic terms, i think.
National defense.. I don't know much about, but there wouldn't be a nation in an-cap so I think it's again, a non-issue that can be just interpreted as defense. Besides there isn't anything stopping people from chipping in for a big army if they wanted and felt the need for. They'd do it better and with less externalities than forcing everyone to pay for one, PLUS denying competition in the field
You must also be able to prove that interventions can produce a better outcome than a failing market.
No i don't.
I'm not defending interventions here. Market Failures existing is a reason why "ACaps wont work". It's on your side to defend it. Saying "State failures are worse" aren't sufficient.
Yes, it is.
Anarcho-Capitalism proposes merely the nonexistence of a state. It does not propose that this will be a utopia, or that no market failures will occur - merely that it is better than all other options, all of which include state interventions. If interventions are not better, the argument holds.
My Impressions on the thread was that "what are some problems with acaps" and "why won't acaps work". Whether or not it is a 'better' form of society or not is completely and utterly irrelevant given the OP.
Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL
On August 29 2010 10:37 Phrujbaz wrote: Employers cannot set wages arbitrarily low in an unregulated market.
ty. They can though, and you certainly agree, just that they won't be employing nobody with a brain, because the employer next door is offering a more marketable, a market wage. If they do employ somebody, it's still not exploitation because the dumbass accepted it voluntary. It would be exploitation if he forced the dumbass to keep working even after he doesn't want to, and contracts can be ruled fraudulent if they require absurd stuff to be done by the consenting party, like selling one's life for a cookie, but that part is debatable.
This assumes the employee always has the means to find another paying job, but if all the companies are equally exploitative in the wake of a huge economic collapse. In the wake of the Great Depression, if employees wanted more wages, companies could throw them out and accept the workers waiting desperately at the gates at reduced wages, thus constantly driving down wages. Steinbeck's Grapes of Wrath details this problem. Sometimes geography and economic conditions allows cut-throat capitalism to ruthlessly exploit the workers and they have no recourse.
Defense from foreign nations and the environment are two notorious cases in which market failures are predicted and difficult to solve in theory.
In practice, however, the government is doing such a poor job that I can hardly imagine a market doing worse.
There are many ancap arguments for national defence. I don't subscribe to the idea of having nations anyway, at least not in the way they are used. But collective defence force by any group is ok so long as it's voluntarily funded. I find the most compelling argument is the fact that there is actually no state to take over, so what is the benefit to a large scale invasion?
What are you going to do, go to each house with tanks and steal from each individually? People in an enlightened ancap society would not welcome a new centralised authority; they would rebel against it even if it was successful in defeating their private armies. Also consider how difficult it is to invade a nation where private individuals can (and would) own guns, and would not welcome your presence given that obviously you're obviously just a bunch of vicious violent thugs.
Invasion is extremely expensive where defence is relatively cheap. You can see that today with American armed forces invading Afghanistan and Iraq. How little it takes to fend off an army with such a massive investment, funded by something like 50% of all tax from payers in the wealthiest nation on the planet. And I think that's ignoring national debt and inflation too. It's just insane. I mean, what is the cost of one Apache helicopter for example, compared to a cheap RPG that can blow it out of the sky?
And that's ignoring the low cost of a few nukes that would ward off any nation from invading. That's not that expensive.
Environmental issues are a little trickier so maybe I'll save that for another post. But suffice it to say, the government is the biggest polluter (and the biggest waste of wealth).
Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL
Actually something like this would be like a popularly endorsed collusion; the companies would be more than glad to reduce output if it means they can raise prices because everyone else is also socially pressured to do so. So I believe something like this is very possible to emerge naturally. Just need to talk a lot, and be a legitimate cause.
There is a direct profit incentive for corporations to cap their own shit, just think about it. The question is if they have enough popular support to either ostracize the noncompliant competition, or well, yeah the state to break their faces. Why do you support the state to break faces though, if you were against externalities? I think there are huge externalities when the government can just come and fuck you up whenever they want. I'd raise my prices to account for that risk; everyone else does too, in an interventionist world. Government increases externalities by being hasty and imposing their solutions; markets do what they do at the best times anyone can think of.
I haven't seen an actual case of it emerging naturally. You can go back in history and argue some things arose naturally, but it's more likely that it was a result of an organized, state sponsored endeavor. I'm speaking of in the current environment, a lot of the pioneering done for the new markets have been government related (see: Carbon markets)
If it hasn't, or you feel that it wouldn't arise spontaneously, then perhaps it shoudn't have arised at all. Analogy, if nuclear weapons haven't been made privately, then perhaps they shouldn't have been made by the state... Well I do argue that whatever the state does, shouldn't have been done indeed, for if what they do is necessary, then the market can supply that demand without it's law, and better... In this particular case, yes, I think it wasn't necessary at all, I don't know the specifics on SO2, but to me, and I think a good percentage of people in the world, don't think CO2 is such an issue as the state-funded researchers think it is.
Again, the corporations outputting CO2 would very pleasantly accept a government-mandated collusion; they'd raise prices, lay back on production, not worry about competition... so don't make this to be like something evil capitalists are fighting against, if you're trying that at all (idk)
Pollute who's property? The government's? I think you should be blaming the government for allowing their property (not yours, not public, theirs, state propery.) to be polluted; and not allowing people to buy off their stuff. And even when they do allow private companies to own what was previously state property, there's always conditions; a lease, for some time, under these regulations and price tables. The state never lets go of what they get until it's like, borderline revolution time.
What? Don't go off on tangents...
Ok sry. You don't know how much pollution there would be without a state, I don't either, but for the little word that I have, I guarantee that there would be as much pollution as the owners of the property in which the waste products reside don't mind it. And here is a few reasons why. There would be as much outrage from those proprietaries than there is from the government, if not more, because they directly suffer from the loss of real estate value caused by the pollution. The state has no such interest, and is only saving face for the electorate to vote them in again. So they do considerably less than a private owner of, say a river, would do, to stop it from being polluted. In sum, the government responds to a loss of value of it's capital much slower than any private individual or group. They got it for free; easy come, easy go. asdasdasd.
yeah and there's a reason no economist takes Austrians seriously when it comes to these. Austrians have a lot of good ideas and concepts... this is literally one thing that's making them look like retards.
Yep they're retards. Paul Krugman is a genius IMO, what do you think of him as a superb economist and nobel prize winner? That guy is so goooood...
What bad outcome from a foreign state owning a non-coercive company in AC? If it's non-coercive.. it won't be retaliated againt. If it's coercive well.. it will be stopped by word or by force.
State interests reflected in the companies. Just imagine if the US States were allowed to have their own foreign policy.
I think it would be awesome, does that mean that there wouldn't be a national army to waste hundreds of billions of dollars a year into? Does that mean that north korea would probably just nuke the sociopaths at Washington D.C. and leave the rest of the US alone? I see so many benefits... But on to the interests, uh, what kind of interests? If they're profitable interests, that people like and buy, uh, nothing wrong again. If the interests reveal themselves to be coercive, well, it will become unpopular just as the state in the past would be again...
First off, forgive me if I'm repeating some arguments already made here because I could not read every post. Second, no offense, but your original post is kind of a shadow boxer against some perceived argument that really only confuses the issue. Easily fixed: laws and government might be made up of people but are really just ideas. They are a bulging mass of ideas (democracies moreso, obviously), and ideas are held to a much higher standard than people. They are a constant feedback of ideas that alter as they progress, even in the most ruthless dictatorships. Any situation given many people is only acceptable to them inasmuch as they can accept the idea that this is the best, or good enough, or impossible to fight etc. So theoretically any government could be run by even a majority of 'flawed' humans, if the ideas are solid enough. Thats the entire idea behind seperation of powers, checks and balances, even voting. If you don't believe in the power of ideas, and our abilities to not only comprehend them but to understand their purpose and wider consequences, then this whole thread is obviously pointless. So we can assume that ideas exist, and some are probably good, or at least better than others. And we can also see that if government is an idea, then it can also be run by flawed (evil? stupid? fill in the blank) humans, sometimes whether they see the bigger idea or not. When the first ape shook the other first ape's hand to work together, the idea they both subscribed to could easily be imagined as an entire government/philosophy/way of life. So arguing that humans are inherently flawed so government is also, is not only wrong, it has nothing to do with your original question.
Define anarcho capitalism, in laymen's terms: no government, everyone exists in a free market. First off, we have to redefine even this definition. A government is an agency through which a political unit controls its subjects (wiki). Simply: a form of control, commonly associated with current and past forms democracy, communism, etc. Any market, especially one with humans involved, is ALREADY A FORM OF CONTROL. If I start with more than you, or I find out how to get more than you, or I have less and want more, as soon as we interact, through trade or sale, amicable or forcible (stealing) we have engaged in a form of control. We traded the trust, or threat of violence with each other, and there was control implied in that scenario. Its not hard to see, given multiple threads of proportionately expanding transactions, 'free' markets can engender HUGE forms of control. Indeed, this is actually the last great argument for hard line libertarianism (which is basically a synonym of arnarcho capitalism, and tea partiers love it btw). The idea is if you control the 'interests' in a piece of land, or the air, or the water, and 'own' it, then you will be much more interested in protecting it. That sounds like a lot of control to me. So basically, we can eliminate 'no government' from the definition.
What we have left is, edited for future argument-proofing, hopefully: everyone exists in a free market, with no necessary government. As I alluded to before, the idea is based on the notion that because we are human, sometimes working together and or trading will go on between us, and the nature of these trades can much better protect our rights, and the earth, because the market will eventually valuate things according to their actual value, and workable relationships will be put together between individuals based on actual needs, and not false ideals. Examples might be a few groups of people, agreeing on things, trading with each other, occasionally disbanding etc, with large 'interested parties' overseeing potential problems (local or environmental), OR a return to a much less organized way of life, involving a more hunter gatherer organization of small communities, hopefully respecting each other because of the implied losses non respect might incur. The advantages would be that you would not necessarily be told to do anything, and that people could make up their own laws in groups, large or small, thereby defining their own individuality (imo the secret hope of all libertarians) because they can individualise, hopefully without consequence.
Sounds nice, doesn't it? But the argument against can be divided into two realms, although imo either would suffice: the realistic and the theoretical. The theoretical: first off, and most importantly, the reality is that our world ALREADY EXISTS in an anarcho capitalistic society! Governments are really just ideas based around groups of people, primarily for the means of once or current mutual advancement of those people. People only formed groups because it meant they could be more successful at their life, whether it was hunting woolly mammoths, or joining churches, or shoving jews into an incinerator. Being successful is just a collection of satisfying more fully or easily the demands that free markets satisfy as well: efficiency, luxury, safety, food, shelter etc. So we are right now a form of free markets interacting with each other. As if there were any possibility! Again, you are obviously not advocating full on anarchy, because there is nothing dearer to a libertarian than their property. Even if we can just ignore that truism, what you want is a reformation of all existing governments organized on more free market esque principles. Newer ones, maybe, since obviously I agree that originally they already are. Putting aside all the inherent flaws in that plan, you have some kind of (more) utopian, survival of the fittest corporation ruled world, in which people are looked out for because of their use-value. Scary as that sounds, ideally each person would work for some kind of organized entity (government? whatever...) and they would be rewarded with better positions, and the weak would be weeded out. This example is the very BEST possible outcome of this idea, and if you can't see how similar this is to our current state and how much less preferrable to anyone but the few on top, the realistic side of the argument is for you
The realistic: 3 major problems: 1)environment 2)market problems 3)transition. 1) We are quickly making the earth inhabitable. If you don't agree with this premise skip it, or go become a priest and rape some children or blow up a mosque, or a church, who cares. You are an idiot. Sea levels are already rising quickly, and most of the population of earth lives on the coasts. Anyway, pointless to argue that, point being: a free market system absolutely CANNOT handle the changing of the seemingly inevitable path we are on to destruction. Unless the whole world was controlled, and the interests of the whole world were taken into consideration. One world government. Sounds real anarcho, huh? If you divided it even into two groups, the interest one places on a stream or a pond or air becomes a market force, and because market forces seek to grow and make themselves stronger, either the acquisition of that natural resource or the destruction of it would follow. Our environment is likely going to kill us. Libertarianisms only answer is a one world government. 2) Most people, especially libertarians, think that the 'free market' is some kind of living, growing idea that can solve problems on its own. This is, at least partially untrue. The market is a human creation, an idea (again, a government?). It can only do what we have told it it can do, and like all ideas it is only in existence because of its followers and its ability to perpetuate itself. Commodity rates responding to fluctuations in other areas of the market only do so because humans, with limited understanding, have determined that they should. They coded the algorithms to compute those transactions, they voted for the politicians that gave those computations power. If you believe so greatly in the free market, what you really believe in is economists and bankers' interpretations of reality. Not some hedonistic pot smoking pamphlet you can pull out to impress the ladies. And given that, you are hoping that their goodwill will make the entire system work, which is almost laughably naieve. Even if they were trying to, you think bankers have a better understanding as to how people should interact then scientists, philosophers, or the average joe schmoe? 3) I'm tired so I'm gonna ramp this up. The transition from our current governments to whatever type of world you see in your head would be waay more painful to everyone (except the extremely povertied classes) than you would be willing to bear. Massive adjustments on this scale would be, indeed, anarchic, but with technologies and centres of power such as we have today, would definitely kill us.
Counter argument: Look, all roads lead to the same dead end with libertarianism: even if we have roving indian tribes circa pre European genocidal imperialistic (see, im no fan of government, per se) America, your ideal is these roving groups eventually getting together some kind of technology or whatever to make their lives easier, expanding, consolodating resources, getting bigger as luxury allows blah blah blah huge corporations, huge fights or O.W.G.... Its dumb, and its what we already have. I know how fashionable it is to hate on government right now (although I'd be wary of your stylisic choices of alternatives), but let me posit a different idea. Cultural, conscious, massive historical evolution. Basically, all interactions between humans set us apart from animals in the sense that we could form abstract thoughts and communicate them. For me, this is what led us out of the jungle all the way up to here. But in that timeline, something else happened. As we began to satisfy the basics in life, we also began to evolve, consciously, ideas about how we should live. Some of these ideas died off (earth is flat, we were all born from mud), and some stayed (gravity, democracy), but we in effect, as a mass organism, decided our own fate, and how we wanted to live. No ideas are ever completely dead, and none are completely perfect, but we are all deciding, all the time, whats best for us, personally or together or both. Instead of trying to rewrite the huge book of history with cute catchphrases and base animosity toward things that aren't convenient to you, if we can admit that we will always subscribe to ideas, and contribute to their evolution and death, and that they in turn contribute to our evolution or death, we will actually be able to form something better for ourselves, which is obviously the point of this discussion. If you want something better for just you, go fuck someone over, and if you don't care to make things better for everyone, taking a step back to a shittier way of life is certainly easy. While I think inevitably our government might be able to do this, built on enough amazing ideas (many of which are there already), it is completely up to us to write the new laws we want, or support the things we believe in, or vote, or convince others of our arguments. We are our government, and if it fails or succeeds is up to us, leaning in the right direction, in the direction we have consciously decided to evolve to. We have evolved to believe in the wheel, non-discrimination, medical science (erm), all that. A free market allows for none of those positive evolutions and in effect puts us back into me take yours territory. I actually doubt that our current forms of government can save us from the incoming effects of our compromised environment, but thats a discussion for another post. Regardless, hopefully I have convinced some of you that libertarianism, or anarcho capitalism is as ridiculous as its current political incarnation (hello, Rand Paul!). And to all you people who have read through this entire thread, thank you, single reader! Tell your friends!
On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote: It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree?
I don't know what you mean by rational; IMO man is always rational, apart from unconscious actions like heart beating, blinking, salivating, but every other conscious action falls in the realm of rationality. Even a guy jumping of a bridge is rational if he thinks he can fly/wants to die for a variety of reasons. Even a communist is rational in supporting massive expropriation of capital from everyone in the world is rational if he believes that central planners can take care of everyone better than dirty capitalists.
In the first sentence, society as a group is nobody. There is no one called "society as a group", only individuals act within a society, and if you mean, "it would be net beneficial for individuals in a group to do X", then I don't know, I'm not part of that group and I don't know the circumstances. But what I know is that if it's really net beneficial for everyone, then everyone will certainly agree to participate in doing X. If it's not, then I feel it's not right to force them to do X.
The second sentence has a funny word, "let". And individual "lets" other people do stuff. In that small little word is implied that the individual has a claim of exclusive control over the resource that he's "letting" other people use. I don't think it's possible for any single individual to own the entire environment, so that question is a bit implausible to ever become relevant. And if the world does come to the point where an amazing individual owns all Earth, like, LEGIT, LOL then well I'd say he can do whatever he wants with it, he can let or not let others do whatever they want.
But obviously that's not what you meant on the second proposition, you meant, is it a good course of action for an individual to ... uh.. i don't know what the hell you mean on the rest, but I guess... respect the other people's claims of property over the environment? And pollute it anyway because you're a dick? I don't know... there lacks a clear definition of who owns each thing, then no distinction can be made on whether it is justifiable to pollute, "let", "take care", man I don't know what the fuck you mean, sorry. I'd say yes, just to answer something.
On August 29 2010 11:44 Phrujbaz wrote: It would be rational for "society" as a group to take good care of our environment. Agree/Disgagree?
It is rational for an individual to let everybody else care about the environment and pollute just a tiny bit. Agree/Disgagree?
i will try to define society: Men form relationships with whom they trust. If i can trust you to not steel my stuff or stab me from behind we already build the foundations of a society, whatever etiquette you may give it. A society without such agreements is by definition not a society.
Trust works for small populations. Populations on the scale of a nation will suffer much more clearly from environmental issues or questions of how to fund national defense.
Trust may be the wrong word, what about agreement? Of course everyone involved will try to get the best out of it for himself. Having the biggest gun can certainly be a very good argument when trying to get to an agreement. However, there can never be an "end of times" in the sense of Fukuyama - only if everyone is dead. It may be that problems increase when population increases, i dont deny that .
Work to the extent that it's possible to work, not to some impossible standard. If ancap outperforms everything else, I'd say it is at least workable LOL
"outperforms"
Define performance.
GOOD ONE. The degree to which a service or product fulfills the customer's or consumer's expectations in reaching an end. you know I ascribe to austrian econ, I wouldn't make such a mistake as objectifying value. And if I did then you'd be justified in cracking up, and I would hit my head on the monitor respectively.
Anarcho capitalism cannot work because it doesn't exist.
Someone had to make laws you know. They don't just pop out of nowhere. The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Someone had to make laws you know.
No they don't. We don't need them.
The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy.
The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy.
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
No they don't. We don't need them.
Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
People always miss the point whenever people talk about any kind of stateless political statement. They always talk super-idealistically about whether or not humans could not just all kill each other in the absence of government. This is demonstrably true. However, people forget that governments are ultimately imposed upon ourselves, created by ourselves.
Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple.
The following are facts --- Humans by nature organize, and the chance to create government type structures is non-zero. Governments have more power then independent Citiizens
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
Assuming that's true and assuming everybody does suppress those instincts, why would that not be anarchy? Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat? Do you eliminate that from your human nature equation?
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
Assuming that's true and assuming everybody does suppress those instincts, why would that not be anarchy? Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat? Do you eliminate that from your human nature equation?
How the fuck do you make everyone suppress their instincts In an Anarchy?
You'er right, if people didn't have the tendency to organize, Anarchy would not only be a viable form of government, governments would simply not exist.
That is not the case.
Anarcho-capitalism is even more silly. Its not even that it can't exist, it can exist, because the only thing you've changed is semantics, what you call the government.
Not that I agree with any of your premises, but the argument isn't even valid. Additionally, is it not human nature to defend themselves and their property when under threat?
What does this even have to do with what I just posted? In fact, its a contributing factor to why Anarchy doesn't work. Two people are better at defending property then one. Five people can protect property better then Two. A nation is even better.
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Someone had to make laws you know.
No they don't. We don't need them.
The very definition is a paradox. Its human nature to control others whom you have power over, and its human nature to gain power. Only by suppressing these two bases of human nature can you achieve any kind of Anarchy, and that by definition isn't Anarchy.
That has nothing to do with the definition of Anarchy.
You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
People always miss the point whenever people talk about any kind of stateless political statement. They always talk super-idealistically about whether or not humans could not just all kill each other in the absence of government. This is demonstrably true. However, people forget that governments are ultimately imposed upon ourselves, created by ourselves.
Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple.
The following are facts --- Humans by nature organize, and the chance to create government type structures is non-zero. Governments have more power then independent Citiizens
As a result
Long-term Anarchy is impossible.
I like this post. Wouldnt say its impossible though, just highly unlikely :-). Getting tired now, was a nice read thx everyone.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
Reality doesn't care about the theoretical need for "laws" that govern human behavior, or the lack of therof. It isn't about whether we need them, its about whether we make them or not. Its human tendency to organize so any Anarchy has to be regulated in order to retain an anarchy, by definition, not an anarchy.
"Organisation" isn't the very definition of government.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy).
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
How the fuck do you make everyone suppress their instincts In an Anarchy?
Ok, but you didn't say make everyone suppress their instincts. I thought you were talking about people suppressing their own instincts. And if making people suppress their instincts equals using defensive force against people when they try to exert power over you, then sure it's still anarchy assuming you win.
Lets apply simple to determine not of Anarchy could idealistically result in a happy place to live in, but could actually exist is quite simple.
I don't understand what you're trying to say here at all.
The same can be applied to Anarcho Capitalism. There would be literally no difference between a company of sufficient power or a government.
Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy).
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
LOOOOOOL.
I already responded to this.
Anarcho-capitalism is even more silly. Its not even that it can't exist, it can exist, because the only thing you've changed is semantics, what you call the government.
You described a mult-branch government, with a little bit of animosity between the ministries, quite common actually.
"Organisation" isn't the very definition of government
Once an organization becomes powerful enough to dictate how you can behave, it is government.
Define "power" and how would the company acquire said power.
The ability for an entity to effect its environment. Acquired through demand.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
Hrmm...ok. Ethiopia. 500,000 BC. First Homo Sapiens to exist on the planet.
olook they made government after a bit.
Ok, but you didn't say make everyone suppress their instincts. I thought you were talking about people suppressing their own instincts. And if making people suppress their instincts equals using defensive force against people when they try to exert power over you, then sure it's still anarchy assuming you win.
Power isn't simply HAI GIVE ME UR STUFF. That's a very shallow interpretation of government. The system you described contains you subject to the power of a organization of vast power, ie: government. The second you have "security corporations", you subject yourself to another persons power, at the expense of your freedom.
I'm not arguing why a theoretical Anarchy wouldn't be a nice place to live in because everyone would kill each other. Thats a silly argument. I'm saying the very definition of Anarchy as a sustainable form of government is a paradox that cannot exist. Anarchy is a transitional phase.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Someone had to make laws you know.
No they don't. We don't need them.
The first thing which happens in a community is to lay down rules of what people can or can't do. Those are laws. Nations are formed since communities naturally wants to cooperate with other communities and for it to work they need to decide on what rules will govern the interaction.
The "anarchists" are not really anarchists, they just don't see the need for that last step. They basically wants to have a large set of small governments. You know which communities stayed like that? In Africa this was the norm, same with Indians. Do you say that their way of living when they were still tribalistic is preferable to what we got today?
There is a reason why all tribalistic societies didn't develop further and all societies which did develop beyond the basic stone age had a central government. That wouldn't be true if the "anarcho" ideals would be viable, some of the countless tribes all over the world would have developed into something more. Of course some tribes through history were more advanced but only due to trade with nations.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
what is this I don't even.
Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure.
Hrmm...ok. Ethiopia. 500,000 BC. First Homo Sapiens to exist on the planet.
olook they made government after a bit.
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
Power isn't simply HAI GIVE ME UR STUFF. That's a very shallow interpretation of government. The system you described contains you subject to the power of a organization of vast power, ie: government. The second you have "security corporations", you subject yourself to another persons power, at the expense of your freedom.
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
externalities, aka "the tragedy of the commons". It is often in the best interests of a private person or corporation to behave in a way that indirectly causes problems for everyone else.
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
Because you CHOSE TO subject yourself in exchange for safety, one of the most basic progenitors of government. Thats like asking how are you subject to government because you can go to an island and be a hermit. We chose it, because the benefits of organization outweigh the benefits of isolation, up until a certain point where the organization becomes too powerful or too cumbersome and collapses, and we build up again in search for safety and human cooperation.
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
I just picked Ethiopia because its a relatively accurate guess for where the first humans came from. Regarding Somalia...whats their to say? All that Somali demonstrates is Anarchy as a transitional phase.
Let me repeat: If long term Anarchy is possible why has it not happened despite the fact that transitional Anarchy has occurred NUMEROUS times throughout history?
Once again I'm not arguing against the viability of temporary self imposed Anarchic communities or temporal transitional Anarchys after the breakdown of major institutions. However, its the inevitable fate of these Anarchy to dissipate or grow into "state" like entities. You have to Expand or Stagnate.
Honestly I think the majority of Anarchists are just Suburbanites with no real problems who want to see the world burn. Myself included I guess. Hell, I still want a revolution in the quest for a better state, and would actively support one, despite knowing its an ultimately futile effort.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
what is this I don't even.
Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure.
What does humans living together/tribes have to do with a government/state? Each of those civilizations ghrur posted did not just "come about" religion/idol worship whatever you want to call it played a big part in their existence. In fact I would say it is the main reason why these civilizations were able to tax, force slavery ect, ect, because they saw their leaders as "above human" do you see what I am saying?
I would really like to know about these tribes that have no conceptions of gods though (though I'm sure they have some if not many other superstitions), that is really fascinating.
On August 29 2010 12:51 Half wrote: You missed my point. I'm saying any kind of Anarchy is intrinsically flawed because any kind of Anarchy always evolves into government. You go to the most lawless place in the world and you see Drug Cartels and Mobs, primitive forms of government. If you take companies and strip away government then companies become government, and the only thing that changes is semantics.
Where is this most lawless place? Let us discuss it and the circumstances around it instead of talking about vague stuff.
The most lawless place used to be anywhere on Earth about 10,000-20,000BCE?(LOL I WAS SO WRONG) Maybe earlier, I don't know. Then they all developed into tribes, groups, etc. And then you start getting nations/empires like China, Egypt, Incan, Mayan, Aztec, Carthaginian, etc. which developed into modern day nations. So, where in the world did the people stay in Anarchy?
Only because everyone thought their "leaders" were gods.
what is this I don't even.
Your wrong. Human tribal organizations predates complex religion. Many tribes exist in extremely isolated parts of Africa that have had virtually no developments since mankinds "birth" (there number system goes up to four), they have no conception of any gods, but a somewhat rigid tribal structure.
What does humans living together/tribes have to do with a government/state? Each of those civilizations ghrur posted did not just "come about" religion/idol worship whatever you want to call it played a big part in their existence. In fact I would say it is the main reason why these civilizations were able to tax, force slavery ect, ect, because they saw their leaders as "above human" do you see what I am saying?
I would really like to know about these tribes that have no conceptions of gods though, that is really fascinating.
No sorry your completely wrong. Egyptian and Nubian Kingdoms had already risen and fell before the whole "Pharaohs as Gods thing you learned in School History Class started".
Oh wow first time I reached the end of the thread. I'm so slow. but now I have to read this...
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: This is an excellent thread. [PROCEEDS TO WRITE BIGGEST WALL OF TEXT]
[IDEAS BLABLABLA]
If by ideas you mean plans; okay, I can see that. The opening post was just to address the very easily refutable claim that humans are savage beasts and can't be trusted therefore ancap is impossible. Okay well, plans are courses of action that man elaborates and shares with others. The idea of anarchism is not a plan in itself, it's just denying any attempt from the part of a ruler to impose upon others his plan, for any reason. Anarchists find it better to work voluntarily, or in a setting that is perceived as voluntary (well it has to be at least more voluntary than state; taxation; etc. though i guess theres all kinds of anarchists... and ancommies would argue ancaps are coercive...THAT ASIDE,), not that there is an exact plan, a course of action, on what to do next; And society today is much like that outside of state forces. The state, well, in most countries that I know at least, don't plan your life from start to end. They have rules and courses of actions that you have to take sometimes, and others that they won't allow you to take without imprisonment or fines. But largely, life is already anarchic, and anarchists just wish to extend it to everything, not just the things that the central planners allow us to plan. It's true that central planners receive feedback from their plans, but ancaps like me argue that such feedback is subpar to voluntary interaction, in which both parties of a deal have to agree to the plan. A central planner forces upon others a plan, and only has to worry about whether the subservant will revolt or not. That's as much feedback as he gets. Well, in sum, there's a reason why markets are so much more efficient, and it's not just because it's voluntary, it is exactly because of that extensive net of feedbacks, basically, that allow for information dissemination. Capitalism allows to be exchange value (price), as people formally own their means (capital, stuff), and therefore specialization, division of labor, all the good stuff that I can't possibly explain in one post, but you can study on austrian economics.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Define anarcho capitalism, in laymen's terms: no government, everyone exists in a free market. First off, we have to redefine even this definition. A government is an agency through which a political unit controls its subjects (wiki). Simply: a form of control, commonly associated with current and past forms democracy, communism, etc. Any market, especially one with humans involved, is ALREADY A FORM OF CONTROL.
You're right, the question is, which form of control you find legitimate. I think it would be silly of anyone to argue they don't own their own body. Ancommies say they only own that which they use; personal belongings, and ancaps say they own anything they've ever first-used and appropriated into something useful. See lockean homesteading. You own the land you built a house on, but yo don't own a forest for cutting down some trees. You own that previously unowned resource that you transformed, but you don't own a tree by plucking an apple. Well, it's kind of arbitrary, and there's grounds for abandonment, repossession, idk what else. Of course it has to be arbitrary, because man came naked to the world, and only came with formalities to exchange as exchange happened and it became necessary to - but that is not to say it's all bogus, law, not that unlike plans, are codes for courses of action, that people mutually agree on. If they don't mutually agree on, well there's an easy solution, don't trade with eachother. And if there's a dispute over a common resource, try to settle it in a way both win. The need for coercion is bogus, violence is the last resource and everyone loses with it. If not in the short run, surely in the long run as people learn how to defend against a constant aggressor.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:That sounds like a lot of control to me. So basically, we can eliminate 'no government' from the definition.
If you want to say capitalism is akin to statism do go ahead. But just so you know, my definition of a state doesn't have "control" as that is too broad, it's plain and simple "a coercive, monopolistic institution of coercion in a given area", and I define coercion to be compatible with NAP and property rights.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: As I alluded to before, the idea is based on the notion that because we are human, sometimes working together and or trading will go on between us, and the nature of these trades can much better protect our rights, and the earth, because the market will eventually valuate things according to their actual value,
wow wow wow hold on there, there's no such thing as objective value, if that's what you meant. but if not, ok.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: and workable relationships will be put together between individuals based on actual needs, and not false ideals. Examples might be a few groups of people, agreeing on things, trading with each other, occasionally disbanding etc, with large 'interested parties' overseeing potential problems (local or environmental), OR a return to a much less organized way of life, involving a more hunter gatherer organization of small communities, hopefully respecting each other because of the implied losses non respect might incur. The advantages would be that you would not necessarily be told to do anything, and that people could make up their own laws in groups, large or small, thereby defining their own individuality (imo the secret hope of all libertarians) because they can individualise, hopefully without consequence.
Uh ok, I agree, but I have different prospects of what would happen. An anarchic society wouldn't be that different from what we have now, because there is a demand to keep things orderly. And they probably will be more orderly, and allow capitalism to continue as-is, even better of course, without the overhead of a GDP-sucking-state.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Sounds nice, doesn't it? But the argument against can be divided into two realms, although imo either would suffice: the realistic and the theoretical. The theoretical: first off, and most importantly, the reality is that our world ALREADY EXISTS in an anarcho capitalistic society! Governments are really just ideas based around groups of people, primarily for the means of once or current mutual advancement of those people. People only formed groups because it meant they could be more successful at their life, whether it was hunting woolly mammoths, or joining churches, or shoving jews into an incinerator. Being successful is just a collection of satisfying more fully or easily the demands that free markets satisfy as well: efficiency, luxury, safety, food, shelter etc. So we are right now a form of free markets interacting with each other. As if there were any possibility!
I see what you're saying, but it's just wrong. Would you tell a slave, in colonial america, that he actually wasn't being enslaved, because the free market of ideas judged that he's most successfully living or working in a state of slavery? That's just an appeal to the status-quo. It's not that the slave is the most successful as it will ever be; is that he's being used most successfully by those who expect there ain't no better choice; Sure there is a free market of idea. But that doesn't mean the current overwhelmingly used plan, course of action, is the best one available, when there hasn't been enough time to try them all especially. Humans are self-correcting individuals, and I do believe anarcho-capitalism will be adopted in the future, but an appeal to what-is-is-therefore-should-be would keep things stagnant and we'd be in despotism and tribalism still. Value the ideas, plans, for what (you think) they're worth, period.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Again, you are obviously not advocating full on anarchy,
No, I am for sure. Lol.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: [minarchy rules blablabla]
Nah, I've went through all that. Believe me, most ancaps, I'd say 80%, were previously minarchists who just got tired of the inconsistency and failure of their arguments and prefered go full-on liberty instead.
The idea of having a coercive state to defend us from coercion always sounded iffy to me. Plus all the arbitrary distinctions of which flavor, er, public service, you like stealing to pay for, and which ones you don't. Lol. "I choose vanilla, with bits of chocolate, and national defense please. Everything else is illegitimate. Constitution for the win!". Yay!...
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: The realistic: 3 major problems: 1)environment 2)market problems 3)transition. 1) We are quickly making the earth inhabitable. If you don't agree with this premise skip it, or go become a priest and rape some children or blow up a mosque, or a church, who cares. You are an idiot. Sea levels are already rising quickly, and most of the population of earth lives on the coasts. Anyway, pointless to argue that, point being: a free market system absolutely CANNOT handle the changing of the seemingly inevitable path we are on to destruction.
K. May I propose another dilemma. Statism is going broke. All nations are many times their GDP into debt. This cannot go on! A state absolutely CANNOT stay financially conservative, and we are on the way to destruction. I could fear monger too but I don't earn any brownie points for it; neither does you.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Unless the whole world was controlled, and the interests of the whole world were taken into consideration. One world government. Sounds real anarcho, huh? If you divided it even into two groups, the interest one places on a stream or a pond or air becomes a market force, and because market forces seek to grow and make themselves stronger, either the acquisition of that natural resource or the destruction of it would follow. Our environment is likely going to kill us. Libertarianisms only answer is a one world government.
Oh wow, what? I didn't get anything from the above. Market forces seek to grow and make themselves stronger... No, I think you mean profit, and there is such a thing as diseconomies of scale, that prove growing doesn't always lead to more profits. Besides, we all know which type of organization is the most power hungry, Lol. Wait... did you imply minarchist libertarians are for a NWO? oh wow. You must be kidding, I must have read it wrong.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 2) RANT
You don't understand what a market is.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: 3) I'm tired so I'm gonna ramp this up. The transition from our current governments to whatever type of world you see in your head would be waay more painful to everyone (except the extremely povertied classes) than you would be willing to bear. Massive adjustments on this scale would be, indeed, anarchic, but with technologies and centres of power such as we have today, would definitely kill us.
No it wouldn't, because there's market demand for it not to be. It would be as much as a frustration as switching to Geico and saving $500 on car insurance. People just stop paying for inefficient services, and more efficient companies come along, what's the big deal? The fear mongering of anarchism is of the same class as slavery apologists saying blacks would riot the streets and kill all whiteys. Non-sensical, it's not on their benefit to do so, and it's not on people's benefits to kill themselves. Violence and death does happen a lot more by the part of states than lowly criminals, I hope you understand that much.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Counter argument: Look, all roads lead to the same dead end with libertarianism: even if we have roving indian tribes circa pre European genocidal imperialistic (see, im no fan of government, per se) America, your ideal is these roving groups eventually getting together some kind of technology or whatever to make their lives easier, expanding, consolodating resources, getting bigger as luxury allows blah blah blah huge corporations, huge fights or O.W.G.... Its dumb, and its what we already have.
What the butt
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: I know how fashionable it is to hate on government right now (although I'd be wary of your stylisic choices of alternatives), but let me posit a different idea. Cultural, conscious, massive historical evolution. Basically, all interactions between humans set us apart from animals in the sense that we could form abstract thoughts and communicate them. For me, this is what led us out of the jungle all the way up to here. But in that timeline, something else happened. As we began to satisfy the basics in life, we also began to evolve, consciously, ideas about how we should live. Some of these ideas died off (earth is flat, we were all born from mud), and some stayed (gravity, democracy), but we in effect, as a mass organism, decided our own fate, and how we wanted to live. No ideas are ever completely dead, and none are completely perfect, but we are all deciding, all the time, whats best for us, personally or together or both.
That actually does sound like praxeology a little bit, grats for coming with that on your own.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: Instead of trying to rewrite the huge book of history with cute catchphrases and base animosity toward things that aren't convenient to you, if we can admit that we will always subscribe to ideas, and contribute to their evolution and death, and that they in turn contribute to our evolution or death, we will actually be able to form something better for ourselves, which is obviously the point of this discussion.
Well you're not helping much tbh... I couldn't make sense of over three paragraphs you wrote and wasted a lot of time But it's k
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: If you want something better for just you, go fuck someone over, and if you don't care to make things better for everyone, taking a step back to a shittier way of life is certainly easy. While I think inevitably our government might be able to do this, built on enough amazing ideas (many of which are there already), it is completely up to us to write the new laws we want
Um, no it isn't, in the current state, you have to convince over fifty percent of the population at large to stop poking you, if you don't want to be poked. And by poked, I mean, taxed, regulated, etc.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote:, or support the things we believe in, or vote, or convince others of our arguments. We are our government, and if it fails or succeeds is up to us, leaning in the right direction, in the direction we have consciously decided to evolve to. We have evolved to believe in the wheel, non-discrimination, medical science (erm), all that.
Sorry, no I love statist rhetoric but no.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: A free market allows for none of those positive evolutions and in effect puts us back into me take yours territory.
You don't know what the free market is... again, sorry but at least try to read up on the terms and arguments before saying stuff like that.
On August 29 2010 12:39 nashface wrote: I actually doubt that our current forms of government can save us from the incoming effects of our compromised environment, but thats a discussion for another post. Regardless, hopefully I have convinced some of you that libertarianism, or anarcho capitalism is as ridiculous as its current political incarnation (hello, Rand Paul!). And to all you people who have read through this entire thread, thank you, single reader! Tell your friends!
Rand Paul, an anarcho-capitalist? DAmn, if I read that last bit, I could have avoided wasting 1 hour reading the entire post altogether...
So define power. How am I subject to the power of the the voluntary security corporation?
Because you CHOSE TO subject yourself in exchange for safety, one of the most basic progenitors of government.
Am I the subject of Coca-Cola because I find their drinks refreshing? Define 'subject'. You have yet to really define power in this context, or how companies would acquire it. Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety. Are you saying monopoly security firms will naturally arise?
Human beings also became religious. Is this supposed to validate Christianity or something? The fact that states remain is because of the false meme that they have some legitimacy. Honestly this was actually born from religion itself. It's not through sheer power, as there would not be nearly enough force to maintain a state if the presupposed authority of states were not present. I want to pass through the anarchistic equivalent of the enlightenment period.
Ethiopia. I thought you'd bring up Somalia honestly. Can you be more specific about Ethiopia?
I just picked Ethiopia because its a relatively accurate guess for where the first humans came from. Regarding Somalia...whats their to say? All that Somali demonstrates is Anarchy as a transitional phase.
Let me repeat: If long term Anarchy is possible why has it not happened despite the fact that transitional Anarchy has occurred NUMEROUS times throughout history?
Transitional anarchy maybe. Not an example of any enlightened anarchy. A government that collapses may result in chaos for sure, especially if the society was highly dependant on it (i.e. because it used violence to maintain a monopoly on vital services). It's not exactly a fair example though, as the negative effects of government persist into the anarchy. And its people may clamour for a new ruler to 'stabilise' their society (the state would still have some presupposed authority).
And again, the fact that states arose at all says nothing to the meme that they are infact legitimate, any more than the fact that religions came about means that they are therefore true. Let me ask you this: if people (on the whole) don't consider states to be legitimate entities in an anarchy, will they still inevitably come about? How expensive would it be to put in place with all the resistance, and where would a company get all the money to fund that?
woah yurebis I now you made me have to read the other 8 pages of this thread in order to post anything remotely relevant or intelligent.
thx a lot brah -_-.
Am I the subject of Coca-Cola because I find their drinks refreshing? Define 'subject'. You have yet to really define power in this context, or how companies would acquire it. Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety. Are you saying monopoly security firms will naturally arise?
Stop asking me for redundant definitions like its relevant to your point. I am using any definition of subject you so chose in the political sense that is widely regarded as right, I'm hardly arguing off semantics. In fact you are.
Maybe if there is a monopoly security agency and I am forced to contract with it if I want safety
Even if their ISNT a monopoly on security firms lol. You can move to the US if you dun like the UK, does that make the government any less controlling?
You really are just argueing semantics. Just think of the US and insurance package A and the UK as insurance Package B, and maybe like China as shitty insurance policy C (I'm chinese so no offense). You can choose any one of them as a citizen of the UK lol. Just move.
AMG ANARCHOCAPITALISM? Its just semantics. Power arises from demand, if you remove government corporations step in to fill their shoes, and in the end its more or less the same.
On August 29 2010 12:46 Half wrote: Someone had to make laws you know.
No they don't. We don't need them.
The first thing which happens in a community is to lay down rules of what people can or can't do. Those are laws. Nations are formed since communities naturally wants to cooperate with other communities and for it to work they need to decide on what rules will govern the interaction.
The "anarchists" are not really anarchists, they just don't see the need for that last step. They basically wants to have a large set of small governments. You know which communities stayed like that? In Africa this was the norm, same with Indians. Do you say that their way of living when they were still tribalistic is preferable to what we got today?
There is a reason why all tribalistic societies didn't develop further and all societies which did develop beyond the basic stone age had a central government. That wouldn't be true if the "anarcho" ideals would be viable, some of the countless tribes all over the world would have developed into something more. Of course some tribes through history were more advanced but only due to trade with nations.
You bring a good point (apart from being empiricism which I don't like ofc but it's ok), and I agree, that the ruler may have provided a function in times where there was no better choice. A subsistance farmer may have been scared shitless of everything and everyone else and found to be better to become a subjulgate of a common ruler to all. With religious dogma added in. Sure. And that's the excuse I give you, it was lack of information, too much superstition, that prevented man from getting on the right foot. And you may call bullshit, I don't really care, I'd call bullshit on your historical perspective anyway. It's just perspectives. You should take the ideas for what they are, not for what men in the past were or weren't able to accomplish.
@ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
The OP topic is quite vague. It is unclear by which metric to measure the "works" parameter. Slavery "works", tribal warfare "works", taleban regime "works", North Korea "works". The proof is that the respective biological populations haven't disappeared. And usually biological populations disappear by a large scale cataclysm, either natural or by being taken over by a more "successful" competing population. Human populations are quite resilient; it takes *a lot* of damage to completely wipe them out. Yeah, anarcho-capitalism can work, but at what cost?
The other unclear OP part is what is it that "Anarcho-Capitalism" proponents want to replace. Alas, the only answer that I can find is: Democracy. The idea that all citizens are equal and deserve an equal voice in the affairs of their country. How do you reconcile Anarcho-Capitalism with Democracy? What does Democracy mean to you? Given that, historically, the only societies to deliver mass prosperity were Democracies, why do you think you have a silver bullet that works better (along the mass prosperity metric)? Or is there another metric that you are seeking?
On August 29 2010 13:29 Luddite wrote: externalities, aka "the tragedy of the commons". It is often in the best interests of a private person or corporation to behave in a way that indirectly causes problems for everyone else.
Tragedy of the commons is a problem of public domain, aka public property, aka state property. So the state creates moral hazards, and now it's the market's fault for acting on those twisted incentives. Okay....
Uh, anarcho-capitalism doesn't address monopolies and cartels?
Anarcho-capitalism assumes perfect competition and perfect information -- far from realistic. Information asymmetry and imperfect competition means economic inequalities translate to political inequalities. Even most libertarians draw the line at night watchman states.
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
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.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay.
On August 29 2010 10:05 Yurebis wrote: Maybe I'm too slot but I'll get through, sorry.
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.
I'm not an empiricist, I'm just being empirical when I know a little something. But my relevant claims are all a-priori. So yeah it really doesn't matter to me how society was, is, or is going to be, it could be slavery, mass murder, rape everywhere; i'd still strive for individual freedom because that is what appeals to me. And makes a lot, a lot of sense to me.
It does have a lot in common, but anarcho-capitalism would work on a different framework of property. No claiming huge chunks of land by your word alone. Lockean homesteading and all that. But even before that, it's always the best claim that owns the resource. "I made this house, or I paid it to be made, and therefore it is mine", is a stronger claim than "you were born into my domain, you shall forfeit me this house or pay me tribute", or even, "I invaded your house and now am in your couch, and because of biological necessities I can't live elsewhere, therefore it's partially mine too. PROLETARIAT UNITE!" eek
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because of human nature. You think I'm wrong? You really misunderstand the humankind then. It's a shame it can't work because your utopia would be sweet. Unfortunately it won't and can't work the way you imagine it. Sorry!
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Uh, anarcho-capitalism doesn't address monopolies and cartels?
Anarcho-capitalism assumes perfect competition and perfect information
No it doesn't. If by perfect competition you mean, homogenic products, homogenic prices, everything is the same, it's a ridiculous concept. It's not even demonstrably desirable. Perfect competition would be everyone making some type of product and there's no more desirable product than another. Markets are best at diversity. I don't get the perfect competition argument at all. People are different, there can't be perfect competition even if the government mandated it; and plus why would you want to anyway.
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: -- far from realistic. Information asymmetry and imperfect competition means economic inequalities translate to political inequalities.
What you fail to notice is that the same applies to the government; The state can't have perfect information either, and logically, it should know less, as it has less incentives to know more; as it has less people to know more. As it is a rat hole of sociopaths. Okay the last one is just my opinion. But the rest is true!
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Even most libertarians draw the line at night watchman states.
That is true, but also an appeal to popularity if you mean that.. "therefore, minarchism>anarchism"
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
In other words, if I'm not mistaken, your saying an open market would produce more qualified individuals for the job, resulting in higher efficiency...though these individuals of course would still have to be payed, supposedly resulting in a more efficient system, yet still with overhead costs in "management".
I get it, and it doesn't make sense. You can't have "competing" departments of say, police. The entire point of a state is centralization, (supposedly) all peoples interests are considered, and the stepping on of toes is minimalized.
At a certain point you enter the domain of common interest, where the actions of one individual is going to detriment another individual, and individuals would want to join a collaborative body for protection.
A state is formed to protect common interest.
The result is centralization (the formation of a state) or fragmentation (the formation of several smaller states), because private corporations will be forced to do so in order to provide satisfy consumer need.
but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
wut. I'm idealistically a Anarchist, but I'm also to level headed to believe in what I preach. So I guess your right lol.
At some level people enjoy being told what to do. Until you subvert that, a leader will always be able to take over an anarchy. Anarchy may ideally be preferred to democracy, but its so ubiquitously unstable that it boils down to the only system worse than despotism.
P.S. did OP ever define ancap? Wiki left me vague.
No sorry your completely wrong. Egyptian and Nubian Kingdoms had already risen and fell before the whole "Pharaohs as Gods thing you learned in School History Class started".
How do you know these kingdoms had no gods (ignoring royalty as a superstition itself since that is obviously in question)? How do we know these gods were not appealed to in order to create the state in some manner? If not outright "ruler being a god", but a "divine rights of kings" style appeal? Or even less but still there to some extent. I doubt we can even really know (unless you can show me otherwise and I'm genuinely curious if you can).
My guess is it must have involved some level of propagandising, as I cannot see how a state could possibly arise from the pure overwhelming power of violence from individuals and organisations alone. It just could not possibly be overwhelming enough without acceptances and compliance from the people.
Stop asking my for redundant definitions like its relevant to your point. I am using any definition of subject you so chose in the political sense that is widely regarded as right, I'm hardly arguing off semantics. In fact you are.
Sigh. What? How is I just arguing semantics? I'm asking for YOUR definitions so we can both use them and understand each other. Semantic arguments is just to mix up definitions relating to an argument and is therefore usually just confused and futile. I'm trying to a avoid semantic dispute by asking for the meaning in your terms. So from your definition of subject, am I a subject to the Coca-Cola company? Just answer the question straight up so we can progress past this bullshit?
Even if their ISNT a monopoly on security firms lol. You can move to the US if you dun like the UK, does that make the government any less controlling?
No it doesn't because the UK (in the context of the nation) does not legitimately own the UK (in the context of the landmass). That's kinda the whole point. But I don't get what the relevance is to your argument at all.
You really are just argueing semantics. Just think of the US and insurance package A and the UK as insurance Package B, and maybe like China as shitty insurance policy C (I'm chinese so no offense). You can choose any one of them as a citizen of the UK lol. Just move.
So nation states equal companies now? Well if that's how you define "company" it's no wonder we disagree. I don't agree that nation states own the area that they claim to have authority over in the same way that a company has authority over a factory that it owns. That's the crux of the issue.
AMG ANARCHOCAPITALISM? Its just semantics. Power arises from demand, if you remove government corporations step in to fill their shoes, and in the end its more or less the same.
Well, that's a nice sound-bite. But you've really failed to convince me of anything. I'm trying to understand why and how, but you refuse to answer claiming it's just semantics when it's nothing of the sort.
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Uh, anarcho-capitalism doesn't address monopolies and cartels?
Anarcho-capitalism assumes perfect competition and perfect information
No it doesn't. If by perfect competition you mean, homogenic products, homogenic prices, everything is the same, it's a ridiculous concept. It's not even demonstrably desirable. Perfect competition would be everyone making some type of product and there's no more desirable product than another. Markets are best at diversity. I don't get the perfect competition argument at all. People are different, there can't be perfect competition even if the government mandated it; and plus why would you want to anyway.
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: -- far from realistic. Information asymmetry and imperfect competition means economic inequalities translate to political inequalities.
What you fail to notice is that the same applies to the government; The state can't have perfect information either, and logically, it should know less, as it has less incentives to know more; as it has less people to know more. As it is a rat hole of sociopaths. Okay the last one is just my opinion. But the rest is true!
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Even most libertarians draw the line at night watchman states.
That is true, but also an appeal to popularity if you mean that.. "therefore, minarchism>anarchism"
So you're saying that you don't want perfect competition -- the most efficient market system -- in favour of something more inefficient? And then you complain about government being inefficient?
Your idea that markets are best 'at diversity' doesn't make sense at all. The only reason there are 'diverse markets' are presumably your assumption of 'diverse' agents.
The reason Austrian economists reject perfect competition is because they don't like the idea of governments enforcing authority to break up imperfect competition, e.g. inefficient markets or market failures. It's absolutely nonsensical because here we have a situation where government is trying to be pro-capitalist but alsopro-government. Anarcho-capitalists are thus anti-capitalist because they hate government.
Simply put, perfect competition is the most efficient market structure, and Austrians reject the most efficient market structure, because they dislike government. But they can't have it both ways, in complaining about how government is inefficient and trying to use the free market as a solution.
Well, that's a nice sound-bite. But you've really failed to convince me of anything. I'm trying to understand why and how, but you refuse to answer claiming it's just semantics when it's nothing of the sort.
I read your post and I missed any kind of central, connecting point :/. What exactly is your point? Everyone one of your responses seemed kind of anecdotal rather then direct refutations or new propositions.
Its really quite simple. You defined an Anarcho-Capitalism and then failed to distinguish it from a somewhat libertarian Government. Explain to me how it is different? Choice? No, it isn't choice, not substantially more then it is now.
No it doesn't because the UK (in the context of the nation) does not legitimately own the UK (in the context of the landmass). That's kinda the whole point. But I don't get what the relevance is to your argument at all.
The word "own" is not a philosophical proposition just as "is Anarchy possible" is not one either. The UK does have control over the UK regardless of philosophy and Sustained long term Anarchy is indeed impossible equally regardless of philosophy.
Well, that's a nice sound-bite. But you've really failed to convince me of anything. I'm trying to understand why and how, but you refuse to answer claiming it's just semantics when it's nothing of the sort.
I refused to answer your definition of subject because it felt needless and arbitrary and you didn't seem to have a point. But if you insist, subject means "under partial or total power of".
If you honestly think the only reason governments exist is because of religion, I don't even feel like properly refuting that becauses its such an insular viewpoint, no offense.
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.
You probably think the minimum wage is what stops evil entrepreneurs from exploiting their employees? Hokay.
Thanks for avoiding my point entirely!
Douche.
Allow me to redeem myself. The "environment" is no one's fault. Scarcity is a matter of physical nature, and human action seeks to end the scarceness as much as it can, always approaching the impossible. That man has to work hard to get what he wants is a fact that's going to perpetuate humanity to the point where man may have entire worlds at his disposal and still not be satisfied. What you may call poor now, a rich king in medieval times often could not have; heating, light at night, clothing, electricity, waste disposal, clean water from a pipe.
That some man may be doomed to his environment is not a valid complaint as much as "I hate that the sky is blue". What I'm tackling here is not scarcity, it's not the solution to poverty, it is the rejection that coercion can provide man with relief of his desires.
The cost of time and travel is not any more disregarded than the cost of production of a loaf of bread. Everything is accounted for when everything is someone's property, it is as regarded as the owner wants it to be. And as catallactics explain, the worker's body is also accounted for by the worker himself. He will put his efforts into what seems to give him the most return.
The statist solution to the issue of scarcity is not to facilitate the exchange between employer and employee, no sir, because if it were, the state would back of and let them resolve how they can best meet each others ends voluntarily. The state can only act through coercion, and by coercing one to give another a piece of his capital, he has made no one better off in net, and very much possibly and demonstrably made everyone worse off, for he disallowed the exchange to be established spontaneously and sustainable. It would be bad enough if he merely coerced people into paying him tribute, but he must also temper voluntary interactions and act like he did someone a favor? In the long run, the cheated party will simply either do less of what it's being tributed for, or charge more from those who want him to keep his business going. The poor also pay for the rich's taxes by proxy.
I don't have much else to say on that before going on even wider tangents that you may not appreciate as much as the effort I put into writing them.
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Tell me, what is a monopoly, and why is it bad? What is market failure, and why does it justify coercion?
I would explain everything but I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself. Perhaps you can help yourself in solving those dilemmas.
On August 29 2010 14:16 Djzapz wrote: Anarcho-capitalism can't work because of human nature. You think I'm wrong? You really misunderstand the humankind then. It's a shame it can't work because your utopia would be sweet. Unfortunately it won't and can't work the way you imagine it. Sorry!
Yes, I think you're wrong, because that's no argument for or against anything. Every institution is comprised of man, so every institution is susceptible to the flaws of man. The state is also comprised of man. My argument doesn't rely on human nature too much, but rather a-priori rationalizations on why the state is a worse mechanism of human organization than freely exchanging individuals. If you read anything I wrote you could better understand the argument at least.
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Tell me, what is a monopoly, and why is it bad? What is market failure, and why does it justify coercion?
I would explain everything but I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself. Perhaps you can help yourself in solving those dilemmas.
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
In other words, if I'm not mistaken, your saying an open market would produce more qualified individuals for the job, resulting in higher efficiency...though these individuals of course would still have to be payed, supposedly resulting in a more efficient system, yet still with overhead costs in "management".
You're not seeing it properly. Remember we are talking about the state. The state isn't merely "paid", it coercively expropriates the money from it's citizens to pay for its departments. Some problems that come from that, is that the government, compared to the free market 1- can't know as well how much to spend on each deparment 2- can't know as well how much to tax ("charge"), 3- it has a monopoly on almost whatever it provides, so it can't simply follow exchange prices from a market competitor 4- it has less incentives to do a good job, as the government employee not only is usually overcompensated, but his pay is assured no matter what he does. No matter how shitty the service is, it's still the only provider of it, and lawfully so. So, all the arguments people have against monopoly? Yeah, how about applying that criticism to the biggest monopoly of all, and be consistent for once?
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: I get it, and it doesn't make sense. You can't have "competing" departments of say, police. The entire point of a state is centralization, (supposedly) all peoples interests are considered, and the stepping on of toes is minimalized.
You can, there already exists today private security. Guards and body guards. The point of a state is being the final arbiter of all disputes, the enforcers could very well all be private even in a minarchist setting. It's ok that you can't imagine cops being private; the people in communist russia couldn't imagine bread being sold in the market either. Oh wow second time I pull that one.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: At a certain point you enter the domain of common interest, where the actions of one individual is going to detriment another individual, and individuals would want to join a collaborative body for protection.
You mean, there will be disputes, therefore, we need a common arbiter? Okay, even if I concede that, it still doesn't mean the arbiter needs to force everyone to be a member of it. I'm not doing anything to you, why do you bother if I'm a member of your group or not? Just don't trade with me and you're risk free. If I overstep your boundaries you can surely call your agency or remove me from your property risk-free of retaliation. If I insisted, I'm seen as a criminal for everyone else, and I'd have difficulties buying food, driving on the street (every street is private, remember), and worse stuff could happen to me. Anarcho-capitalism handles criminals differently; but that's not to say it's impossible to deal with them. Just have a bit of creativity and let go of the arguments from ignorance.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: A state is formed to protect common interest.
The result is centralization (the formation of a state) or fragmentation (the formation of several smaller states), because private corporations will be forced to do so in order to provide satisfy consumer need.
Yeah? You're starting to get it? Man, economy, and the state - murray rothbard. Skim through defense chapters...
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
Yes yes yes -- which is why even libertarians draw the line at security and defense -- because the common interest has such high marginal utility that it's imperative. I know a libertarian that was forced to at least supporting government-funded Medicare simply because of the effects of disease -- that a private system would be much more inefficient when it deals infectious diseases that spread easily -- or any general 'vector' in epidemiology.
On August 29 2010 14:24 gyth wrote: At some level people enjoy being told what to do. Until you subvert that, a leader will always be able to take over an anarchy. Anarchy may ideally be preferred to democracy, but its so ubiquitously unstable that it boils down to the only system worse than despotism.
P.S. did OP ever define ancap? Wiki left me vague.
A society absent of rulers, yet with general respect towards private property
On August 29 2010 14:26 Severedevil wrote: I think gangsters are the best model of government, so gogo anarchy.
Indeed, the state already is, and by definition always was.
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Uh, anarcho-capitalism doesn't address monopolies and cartels?
Anarcho-capitalism assumes perfect competition and perfect information
No it doesn't. If by perfect competition you mean, homogenic products, homogenic prices, everything is the same, it's a ridiculous concept. It's not even demonstrably desirable. Perfect competition would be everyone making some type of product and there's no more desirable product than another. Markets are best at diversity. I don't get the perfect competition argument at all. People are different, there can't be perfect competition even if the government mandated it; and plus why would you want to anyway.
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: -- far from realistic. Information asymmetry and imperfect competition means economic inequalities translate to political inequalities.
What you fail to notice is that the same applies to the government; The state can't have perfect information either, and logically, it should know less, as it has less incentives to know more; as it has less people to know more. As it is a rat hole of sociopaths. Okay the last one is just my opinion. But the rest is true!
On August 29 2010 14:02 adrenaline.CA wrote: Even most libertarians draw the line at night watchman states.
That is true, but also an appeal to popularity if you mean that.. "therefore, minarchism>anarchism"
So you're saying that you don't want perfect competition -- the most efficient market system -- in favour of something more inefficient? And then you complain about government being inefficient?
Your idea that markets are best 'at diversity' doesn't make sense at all. The only reason there are 'diverse markets' are presumably your assumption of 'diverse' agents.
The reason Austrian economists reject perfect competition is because they don't like the idea of governments enforcing authority to break up imperfect competition, e.g. inefficient markets or market failures. It's absolutely nonsensical because here we have a situation where government is trying to be pro-capitalist but alsopro-government. Anarcho-capitalists are thus anti-capitalist because they hate government.
Simply put, perfect competition is the most efficient market structure, and Austrians reject the most efficient market structure, because they dislike government. But they can't have it both ways, in complaining about how government is inefficient and trying to use the free market as a solution.
The idea of perfect competition as put forth by interventionists, is flawed on those two grounds that I can see... Is it or is it not "homogeneous products, homogeneous prices"? 1-How is that desirable for every, or even just most consumers? If it isn't, then it isn't perfect. Because the end of production should be to satisfy the consumer's wants 2-How can there be such a thing? You'd end up with a supermarket full of white boxes that don't do anything but are all exactly the same and all serve for absolutely nothing. Who the fuck would buy that shit? I want my products to be original, cheap, and the best on the rack. From a monopoly or not, I don't give a fuck. And so don't most people.
I don't like the idea of the state coming with a lame excuse of a nirvana fallacy to intervene in the market, to provide an even worse product than it was before, and establish oligarchies just by collateral side effects from raising the barriers of entry so much. I just want no coercion. It isn't asking much.
So you're complaining about perfect competition being "homogeneous products" -- do you instead prefer to spend money on brand names and reputations instead of the actual product? In perfect competition, brand names don't matter -- the products are identical. Think of wheat and corn markets. Food companies don't care about the brand of corn is supplied by them by farms -- they just want corn.
I think you need to understand some general economic concepts before going this far into economic philosophy. The example of market failures is where the state intervenes to improve the market.
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
In other words, if I'm not mistaken, your saying an open market would produce more qualified individuals for the job, resulting in higher efficiency...though these individuals of course would still have to be payed, supposedly resulting in a more efficient system, yet still with overhead costs in "management".
You're not seeing it properly. Remember we are talking about the state. The state isn't merely "paid", it coercively expropriates the money from it's citizens to pay for its departments. Some problems that come from that, is that the government, compared to the free market 1- can't know as well how much to spend on each deparment 2- can't know as well how much to tax ("charge"), 3- it has a monopoly on almost whatever it provides, so it can't simply follow exchange prices from a market competitor 4- it has less incentives to do a good job, as the government employee not only is usually overcompensated, but his pay is assured no matter what he does. No matter how shitty the service is, it's still the only provider of it, and lawfully so. So, all the arguments people have against monopoly? Yeah, how about applying that criticism to the biggest monopoly of all, and be consistent for once?
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: I get it, and it doesn't make sense. You can't have "competing" departments of say, police. The entire point of a state is centralization, (supposedly) all peoples interests are considered, and the stepping on of toes is minimalized.
You can, there already exists today private security. Guards and body guards. The point of a state is being the final arbiter of all disputes, the enforcers could very well all be private even in a minarchist setting. It's ok that you can't imagine cops being private; the people in communist russia couldn't imagine bread being sold in the market either. Oh wow second time I pull that one.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: At a certain point you enter the domain of common interest, where the actions of one individual is going to detriment another individual, and individuals would want to join a collaborative body for protection.
You mean, there will be disputes, therefore, we need a common arbiter? Okay, even if I concede that, it still doesn't mean the arbiter needs to force everyone to be a member of it. I'm not doing anything to you, why do you bother if I'm a member of your group or not? Just don't trade with me and you're risk free. If I overstep your boundaries you can surely call your agency or remove me from your property risk-free of retaliation. If I insisted, I'm seen as a criminal for everyone else, and I'd have difficulties buying food, driving on the street (every street is private, remember), and worse stuff could happen to me. Anarcho-capitalism handles criminals differently; but that's not to say it's impossible to deal with them. Just have a bit of creativity and let go of the arguments from ignorance.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: A state is formed to protect common interest.
The result is centralization (the formation of a state) or fragmentation (the formation of several smaller states), because private corporations will be forced to do so in order to provide satisfy consumer need.
Yeah? You're starting to get it? Man, economy, and the state - murray rothbard. Skim through defense chapters...
but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
wut. I'm idealistically a Anarchist, but I'm also to level headed to believe in what I preach. So I guess your right lol. I like this thread :3
Okay
I guess what your saying. Your saying that "laws" would be privately applied to private property, then privately enforced depending on whos property it was. So if I wanted to buy property and allow people hunting, sure, I could, but only on my property and without violating the local rules on other peoples property (plus people would probably kind of hate me lol). Which is workable. Likewise, in less extremes, it would basically be like everywhere you went had a shopping mall system, local rules.
Sounds awesome and workable right? Totally! No conflicts of interest, the consumers needs are satisfied, nobody is coercing money from you, a society built on mutual respect. And conflicting security companies aren't killing each other Deus Ex style on the streets.
Except that's the problem. Its still built upon mutual interest, and people with mutual interests will gravitate towards each other. Your not going to want to be the only guy on your block whos property has the "Murder and Rape allowed rule". Nobody is going to come to your dinner parties.
Likewise, in a poor neighborhood, people are going to maybe share one security company, and hang out with people who have similar rules.
Logistically, you can't have 10 security companies enforcing 10 rule sets on a single block. It would be absolute chaos. Moreover, people aren't going to want to live in that kind of situation.
The end result is simple, the one I already said. A bunch of little states, built on common interest. People who have common interests gravitate towards each other and eventually the system becomes set in stone due to a monopoly over the area.
I think the differences in our viewpoints are caused by one thing. I don't view Government as a state artificially imposed upon us by what? Aliens? Government is an intrinsic part of human cooperation on a larger scale. Systems of government, or structures of power, exist everywhere, in the office, in the family. Sometimes these systems can become too power, or too bureaucratized, and the freedoms of the individual are infringed.
But these systems are so basic, so intrinsic, that it isn't even something that can be removed. The basic structure of government -someone telling you what to do-, isn't something that can be removed.
If you don't like it, you have three options, become a hermit, start a revolution, or be powerful.
On August 29 2010 09:01 Milkis wrote: 2) Because people value rights that are not capitalizable.
I miss this It seems to have been subsumed by the debate on externalities where it doesn't really fit that well. It may be a bit fuzzy but if we're going to talk about the "fundamental human freedom" and the like that ACap provide it's probably worth taking note of.
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Tell me, what is a monopoly, and why is it bad? What is market failure, and why does it justify coercion?
I would explain everything but I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself. Perhaps you can help yourself in solving those dilemmas.
I'm not explaining things that you should know yourself if you made a thread about economics and philosophy.
A monopoly is bad because consumers get screwed over. Monopolies are one form of market failures.
Alright, then tell me, are you a monopolist of your own body? Are you a monopolist of your property? Isn't each one of us monopolists of our property? What is wrong with that? Aren't you entitled to exclusive control over what you produce?
If you make the new product X, that everyone wants to buy, you can charge whatever the fuck you want, legitimately so. If it weren't for you, X would not exist. But the government would say that's unlawful, you don't have a right to charge too high, or too low, or to charge what they think would be collusion with the second best competitor. All those are lawful charges of monopoly, and it comes down to "you don't own your shit, only if I allow you to". It's ridiculous.
And It's a complete misunderstanding of economics. The "monopolist" in the vast majority of cases is not a monopolist at all. He's someone who's leading the market, has the best priced product, and outperforms everyone else. So what do those little twats do? they call monopoly on the leader to break him up, or to bring his prices down, so he's essentially forced to underperform to everyone else's standards. How is the consumer favored in such inteverntion? He now has to pay more for the same product. The state in fact has NOW established an oligarchy in what before was a free market leader who just outperformed everyone.
The idea that monopolies are bad are a complete misrepresentation of property rights. That statists have so successfully embedded this idea into people's minds is abysmal to me, especially when the state Is the BIGGEST and TRUEST monopoly of all.
Well, that's a nice sound-bite. But you've really failed to convince me of anything. I'm trying to understand why and how, but you refuse to answer claiming it's just semantics when it's nothing of the sort.
I read your post and I missed any kind of central, connecting point :/. What exactly is your point? Everyone one of your responses seemed kind of anecdotal rather then direct refutations or new propositions.
I don't think I really made a point in my last post. I'm just trying to understand your claim that companies inevitably evolve into governments in an anarchy. Either I will understand it and agree and you will have changed my mind, or I will understand it and try my best to refute it. Unfortunately I don't even understand it because you seem to be refusing to go any deeper than your simple claim. In which case, sorry but you weren't particularly compelling.
Its really quite simple. You defined an Anarcho-Capitalism and then failed to distinguish it from a somewhat libertarian Government. Explain to me how it is different? Choice? No, it isn't choice, not substantially more then it is now.
I defined Anarcho-Capitalism? Where? But ok. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (lack of government) that also holds that private property is legitimate where it is acquired without aggression or fraud, etc. This is how it is distinguished from traditional anarchism, which actually more directly means no human hierarchies (including having a boss along with the state).
Anarcho-capitalism is different from a libertarian government because... there is no libertarian government in an ancap society. Ancaps hold that even small governments are still parasitic, in the same way that a small tumour is still a problem in a body comprised of 99% healthy cells.
I think you know this already though, so I don't know why you asked actually.
No it doesn't because the UK (in the context of the nation) does not legitimately own the UK (in the context of the landmass). That's kinda the whole point. But I don't get what the relevance is to your argument at all.
The word "own" is not a philosophical proposition just as "is Anarchy possible" is not one either. The UK does have control over the UK regardless of philosophy and Sustained long term Anarchy is indeed impossible equally regardless of philosophy.
Um.. ok. I agree that they control it. So how does it follow from the mere fact that they control it that sustained long term anarchy is impossible regardless of philosophy? If people have a philosophical disagreement with the notion that states are actually legitimate, will states still inevitably come about through power alone? Where would they get such overwhelming power from, if not the support of the population caught up by a false meme?
Well, that's a nice sound-bite. But you've really failed to convince me of anything. I'm trying to understand why and how, but you refuse to answer claiming it's just semantics when it's nothing of the sort.
I refused to answer your definition of subject because it felt needless and arbitrary and you didn't seem to have a point. But if you insist, subject means "under partial or total power of".
Ok, so then answer if am I under partial or total power of Coca-Cola? Of a private security agency when I choose to voluntarily purchase its services? Explain how this gives them such massive overwhelming power to establish a new state, even in a relatively small geographic area?
If you honestly think the only reason governments exist is because of religion, I don't even feel like properly refuting that becauses its such an insular viewpoint, no offense.
It's distinct from religion now, but regardless it still has a false presupposed legitimacy in the eyes of most, which directly helps to keep the cost of the oppression low. This is true even if it was not directly born from religions, as my argument is not even contingent on that anyway.
Unless you can establish why it has real legitimacy, but you don't appear to be arguing that. You're saying it's not legitimate, but still inevitable anyway. Ok, but if people on the whole agreed about it's false legitimacy, would it still be an inevitability? My point is, it would not be inevitable in an enlightened anarchy, unless you can convince me otherwise?
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Tell me, what is a monopoly, and why is it bad? What is market failure, and why does it justify coercion?
I would explain everything but I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself. Perhaps you can help yourself in solving those dilemmas.
I'm not explaining things that you should know yourself if you made a thread about economics and philosophy.
A monopoly is bad because consumers get screwed over. Monopolies are one form of market failures.
Alright, then tell me, are you a monopolist of your own body? Are you a monopolist of your property? Isn't each one of us monopolists of our property? What is wrong with that? Aren't you entitled to exclusive control over what you produce?
If you make the new product X, that everyone wants to buy, you can charge whatever the fuck you want, legitimately so. If it weren't for you, X would not exist. But the government would say that's unlawful, you don't have a right to charge too high, or too low, or to charge what they think would be collusion with the second best competitor. All those are lawful charges of monopoly, and it comes down to "you don't own your shit, only if I allow you to". It's ridiculous.
And It's a complete misunderstanding of economics. The "monopolist" in the vast majority of cases is not a monopolist at all. He's someone who's leading the market, has the best priced product, and outperforms everyone else. So what do those little twats do? they call monopoly on the leader to break him up, or to bring his prices down, so he's essentially forced to underperform to everyone else's standards. How is the consumer favored in such inteverntion? He now has to pay more for the same product. The state in fact has NOW established an oligarchy in what before was a free market leader who just outperformed everyone.
The idea that monopolies are bad are a complete misrepresentation of property rights. That statists have so successfully embedded this idea into people's minds is abysmal to me, especially when the state Is the BIGGEST and TRUEST monopoly of all.
I hope that helps
The state has a monopoly on things like the military and the police because there's a public interest for them to do that...
Please read the wikipedia article on what a "monopoly" is. A monopolist has the power to price products above what market equilibrium is and thus exploit consumers for money, among other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats".
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution.
No Private defense agency would ever be built in a place where they wouldn't talk over how they would interact. No one makes even a $50,000 investment someplace without doing some market probing first. Don't be retarded.
No PDA would have a policy of "not stopping murderers". If you knew anything about market law, is that it wouldn't be popular, they wouldn't be hired ever, and the other PDAs would probably be better funded to stop them if they tried anything funny, which they wouldn't anyway, because it would just make things worse for them.
Competing PDAs can interact just as good as competing cellphone companies can, or competing software companies, competing ANYTHING companies do TODAY. There is such a thing as cooperation even among competitors, if you spent the least bit of time reading a bit instead of coming up with this ridiculous scenario you'd at least be better educated on how not only it could work but how certain business models alike are working right now.
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution.
Sounds like you're appealing to some "unknown futuristic market model" that will be so super duper awesome because the anarcho-capitalism ROCKS!!!
Seriously, this paragraph you wrote really sums up the attitude in your posts -- you strawman the government state and try to impose solutions that have little empirical, historical, or philosophical rigour. Instead, you just resort to "anarcho-capitalism" because "government is bad."
I've had a lot of talks about this before, and it really boils down to two things. Theoretically AC works fine, but it relies on two things that aren't all that reliable
Firstly, it assumes that is natural for humans to optimize their material wealth and that they will attempt to do so rationally. The basis for this rational approach working is some fairly complex, abstract economics which the average person does not understand. If everyone in the system actually understood it then it would work perfectly. The problem is, not only is this not the case (almost the opposite in fact), but an AC system would probably be even worse. A person (from the initial rational standpoint) does not feel the need to understand the system, and so there is no external pressure to do so like in some cases in our society. It's the fundamental assumption behind the iterated prisoner's dilemma- if both players understand that if they cooperate they will both ultimately end up ahead, then you get an ideal society. If either of them don't however, you get the absolute opposite, an initial backstab and subsequent descent into a betrayal race, a bottom out, brief period of cooperation and then another back-stab loop as soon as the lesson gets forgotten (since the system does nothing to make sure it is remembered). In almost every debate and model I have entered into on this, there is no evidence that an AC system would create or maintain this pre-requisite to its own functioning
For an AC system to avoid this, we would have to create some kind of situation in which a critical mass of participants were intelligent and educated enough to understand when to cooperate, when to betray and by how much, if this mass could not be reached, the system would be ultimately unstable.
The second issue is a more practical, cultural one. As much as an AC system works well in theory, these theories do not generally factor the economic and chronological cost of overcoming 4 millennia of cultural inertia built up on the side of the state system. Every part of our life, language and upbringing is saturated in seeing things from a state frame of reference. For example, an informed person with no prior bias, if placed in a situation where they could steal and get away with it, might quite easily come up with the AC assumption that this is detrimental to the society as a whole, will inevitably in the long run cause them more problems via economic ripples and is actually an inefficient use of time in any case. But a human from any culture on earth today, if given the chance to take something of material worth to them that belongs to someone else, with the surety that no high authority could punish them for it, would take it the vast majority of the time. That's what having an authoritarian system does. If someone can figure out a way to disentangle the minds and culture of five and a half billion people from this notion then congratulations, an AC system will have a chance to function as intended (if you can also solve the issue of informed rationality above).
TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
Yes yes yes -- which is why even libertarians draw the line at security and defense -- because the common interest has such high marginal utility that it's imperative. I know a libertarian that was forced to at least supporting government-funded Medicare simply because of the effects of disease -- that a private system would be much more inefficient when it deals infectious diseases that spread easily -- or any general 'vector' in epidemiology.
What the... high marginal utility of what? Do you even know what marginal utility is, or are you just throwing that word to act smart? I'd be impressed, even though it's a basic concept. I don't mean to offend but I absolutely did not get the use of the word in that context. You mean security is a market with wide gaps of marginal utility, so therefore... what? People don't want to spend twice on the same service? So what? Does that mean that there can only be one PDA? If the marginal utility of mp3 players are low (I think it's more correct to say low for wider gaps, since marginal utility is diminutive), then does that mean Apple should be given legal monopoly, and other companies can't make generic ipods because...? It makes no sense. If an entrepreneur believes he can outcompete the current leader of a market, he should not be restricted from doing so; at worst, no one will hire him, but it's completely his own loss; at best, you got a more efficient provider of security, or ipods, or whatever! How's that bad? How's open competition bad? I can't fathom!
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution
You're right, I have no fucking clue how it works, until you just told me. You just explained IN DETAIL how said system would work, and I explained to you the repercussion of locality based laws, one demonstrated throughout history. In an area where multiple common interests are present, and their is a need to defend them, people will obviously gravitate towards common interest, it is absolutely no way they won't.
You either have two choices. This isn't business models, its simple logic. Every property and thus the person in them has their own values. These values inevitable conflict. As they conflict people with common interest will naturally band together (not necessarily involving physical violence).
You say people would be quite happy living in a neighborhood filled with people who don't share their values in distinctive ways (as to require different laws) and would be indifferent towards moving to one filled with like minded people This is of course, has never happened and will never happen.
The result is quite simple. Homogenized values (one state), where dissidents are marginalized, or fragmented states with polarized values (many smaller states).
It's distinct from religion now, but regardless it still has a false presupposed legitimacy in the eyes of most, which directly helps to keep the cost of the oppression low. This is true even if it was not directly born from religions, as my argument is not even contingent on that anyway.
Unless you can establish why it has real legitimacy, but you don't appear to be arguing that. You're saying it's not legitimate, but still inevitable anyway. Ok, but if people on the whole agreed about it's false legitimacy, would it still be an inevitability? My point is, it would not be inevitable in an enlightened anarchy, unless you can convince me otherwise?
Legitimacy is relative :/. So you don't think its legit, ok. I don't really like it either.
I defined Anarcho-Capitalism? Where? But ok. Anarcho-capitalism is a form of anarchism (lack of government) that also holds that private property is legitimate where it is acquired without aggression or fraud, etc. This is how it is distinguished from traditional anarchism, which actually more directly means no human hierarchies (including having a boss along with the state).
I'm talking about this
Except a company doesn't have a presupposed legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people. And the expensive of enforcement to that company would be enormous to "collect taxes" (aka steal as people would see it without the presupposed legitimacy).
Companies fulfilling the role of government is government.
On August 29 2010 14:55 adrenaline.CA wrote: Here is paradise for anarcho-capitalists: http://mises.org/daily/2066
Somalia, most developed country in the world!
The article at no point says somalia is the ideal anarchy, nor that it's completely capitalist. The article claims that people in Somalia, without the overhead of a state, are better able to accumulate capital and prosper, as shown by some pretty graphs. At no point it says we should all adopt Somalias' law structure (which is pretty garbage and not capitalistic at all in my opinion), nor any policy. It just notes that Somalia isn't as bad as people say it is, and compared to it's neighbors, it's prospering the most.
I don't endorse empiricism, but I do endorse you shutting up if it comes to talking about articles you didn't even read.
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
Yes yes yes -- which is why even libertarians draw the line at security and defense -- because the common interest has such high marginal utility that it's imperative. I know a libertarian that was forced to at least supporting government-funded Medicare simply because of the effects of disease -- that a private system would be much more inefficient when it deals infectious diseases that spread easily -- or any general 'vector' in epidemiology.
What the... high marginal utility of what? Do you even know what marginal utility is, or are you just throwing that word to act smart? I'd be impressed, even though it's a basic concept. I don't mean to offend but I absolutely did not get the use of the word in that context. You mean security is a market with wide gaps of marginal utility, so therefore... what? People don't want to spend twice on the same service? So what? Does that mean that there can only be one PDA? If the marginal utility of mp3 players are low (I think it's more correct to say low for wider gaps, since marginal utility is diminutive), then does that mean Apple should be given legal monopoly, and other companies can't make generic ipods because...? It makes no sense. If an entrepreneur believes he can outcompete the current leader of a market, he should not be restricted from doing so; at worst, no one will hire him, but it's completely his own loss; at best, you got a more efficient provider of security, or ipods, or whatever! How's that bad? How's open competition bad? I can't fathom!
Marginal utility means that protecting one more citizen does not come at much of a cost. The rest of your post is too incoherent for me to address, especially when you start talking about MP3s and Apple.
You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats".
I don't think it's fair to say he is "defending" imperfect markets. He's saying it's descriptive, not prescriptive.
On August 29 2010 15:04 adrenaline.CA wrote: So you're complaining about perfect competition being "homogeneous products" -- do you instead prefer to spend money on brand names and reputations instead of the actual product? In perfect competition, brand names don't matter -- the products are identical. Think of wheat and corn markets. Food companies don't care about the brand of corn is supplied by them by farms -- they just want corn.
I think you need to understand some general economic concepts before going this far into economic philosophy. The example of market failures is where the state intervenes to improve the market.
Don't you understand your own concept? You cannot have wheat and corn markets, as they compete over food. If they compete over a common end, then these products have to be merged in a homogeneous form. In fact, perfect competition would result in a non-market with a single product, whatever it is, because every product is competing over money. Perhaps if money itself is considered a product, then you could have a supermarket of fiat notes where you trade your fiat notes for other exactly even fiat notes. What a superb exchange!
I think you need to understand what you're vouching for. You're vouching for the lack of consumer choice by human intevention. You're vouching restricting what companies can do, and in turn, what can the consumer receive. How about letting the consumers choose what products they like, and what competitors should stay afloat, instead of screwing that over some vague concept of perfect competition that you yourself doesn't understand?
On August 29 2010 15:27 adrenaline.CA wrote: Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
I don't get it... that in no way talks about what I was talking about, nor have I assumed that people are methodologically individualist if that means what I think it does. I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to shoot down every single argument everyone else makes (not sarcastic), but chill and try and frame your counters more... coherently.
On August 29 2010 15:46 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I don't get it... that in no way talks about what I was talking about, nor have I assumed that people are methodologically individualist if that means what I think it does. I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to shoot down every single argument everyone else makes (not sarcastic), but chill and try and frame your counters more... coherently.
Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary.
And no one is bothered by the use of 'consensus' and 'popularity' to determine laws and values? Protection of minority rights and privileges is almost always definitionally anti-majoritarian and it doesn't seem like they'd fare too well under ACap.
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
In other words, if I'm not mistaken, your saying an open market would produce more qualified individuals for the job, resulting in higher efficiency...though these individuals of course would still have to be payed, supposedly resulting in a more efficient system, yet still with overhead costs in "management".
You're not seeing it properly. Remember we are talking about the state. The state isn't merely "paid", it coercively expropriates the money from it's citizens to pay for its departments. Some problems that come from that, is that the government, compared to the free market 1- can't know as well how much to spend on each deparment 2- can't know as well how much to tax ("charge"), 3- it has a monopoly on almost whatever it provides, so it can't simply follow exchange prices from a market competitor 4- it has less incentives to do a good job, as the government employee not only is usually overcompensated, but his pay is assured no matter what he does. No matter how shitty the service is, it's still the only provider of it, and lawfully so. So, all the arguments people have against monopoly? Yeah, how about applying that criticism to the biggest monopoly of all, and be consistent for once?
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: I get it, and it doesn't make sense. You can't have "competing" departments of say, police. The entire point of a state is centralization, (supposedly) all peoples interests are considered, and the stepping on of toes is minimalized.
You can, there already exists today private security. Guards and body guards. The point of a state is being the final arbiter of all disputes, the enforcers could very well all be private even in a minarchist setting. It's ok that you can't imagine cops being private; the people in communist russia couldn't imagine bread being sold in the market either. Oh wow second time I pull that one.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: At a certain point you enter the domain of common interest, where the actions of one individual is going to detriment another individual, and individuals would want to join a collaborative body for protection.
You mean, there will be disputes, therefore, we need a common arbiter? Okay, even if I concede that, it still doesn't mean the arbiter needs to force everyone to be a member of it. I'm not doing anything to you, why do you bother if I'm a member of your group or not? Just don't trade with me and you're risk free. If I overstep your boundaries you can surely call your agency or remove me from your property risk-free of retaliation. If I insisted, I'm seen as a criminal for everyone else, and I'd have difficulties buying food, driving on the street (every street is private, remember), and worse stuff could happen to me. Anarcho-capitalism handles criminals differently; but that's not to say it's impossible to deal with them. Just have a bit of creativity and let go of the arguments from ignorance.
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote: A state is formed to protect common interest.
The result is centralization (the formation of a state) or fragmentation (the formation of several smaller states), because private corporations will be forced to do so in order to provide satisfy consumer need.
Yeah? You're starting to get it? Man, economy, and the state - murray rothbard. Skim through defense chapters...
On August 29 2010 14:23 Half wrote:
but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
wut. I'm idealistically a Anarchist, but I'm also to level headed to believe in what I preach. So I guess your right lol. I like this thread :3
Okay
I guess what your saying. Your saying that "laws" would be privately applied to private property, then privately enforced depending on whos property it was. So if I wanted to buy property and allow people hunting, sure, I could, but only on my property and without violating the local rules on other peoples property (plus people would probably kind of hate me lol). Which is workable. Likewise, in less extremes, it would basically be like everywhere you went had a shopping mall system, local rules.
Allow "people hunting"...? You'd allow people to kill eachother in your property? No, you'd be sued for letting people be killed in front of your eyes for no justifiable reason. You're not entitled to do whatever you want to other people even when they're in your property. There's a degree of cultural limits to what you can do. You can't shoot whoever steps on your front yard. You can't punch whoever comes past your door. Yes, your would become extremely unpopular and PDAs would reject protecting you, and you probably would have no one to rely on that wanted to keep a good reputation, and could be killed with no repercussions. And you could be killed yourself, in your own property indeed, by your own rules. That's a retarded idea, a waste of real estate, and a waste of human life, if I knew you any better that is.
Sorry if I completely misunderstood what "people hunting" meant. But even then, it's worth evaluating how much feasible such worst case scenario is.
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Sounds awesome and workable right? Totally! No conflicts of interest, the consumers needs are satisfied, nobody is coercing money from you, a society built on mutual respect. And conflicting security companies aren't killing each other Deus Ex style on the streets.
There are conflicts of interest, but they're significantly less prevalent as compared to a statist system. If you would be honest enough to spare half the criticism towards it instead, you'd see it in an instant and I wouldn't have to stay here trying to explain why your scenarios are non-issues.
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Except that's the problem. Its still built upon mutual interest, and people with mutual interests will gravitate towards each other. Your not going to want to be the only guy on your block whos property has the "Murder and Rape allowed rule". Nobody is going to come to your dinner parties.
If everyone simply decides to kill each other and themselves, not even the state would be able to stop them. It's just not the case, and you can't draw a complete chain of interest for someone to do so, except for the very less than 1% of sociopaths who do it today anyways.
And that you cite "mutual interest" as if it were an imaginary motive, but not "social contract", which is a much more laughable binding matter, shows that you're biased and not working from the ground-up, but from the state-down. Loose the arguments from ignorance a little, will you?
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Likewise, in a poor neighborhood, people are going to maybe share one security company, and hang out with people who have similar rules.
You don't know that. It may very well be ppossible for multiple agencies to coexist. As there are multiple delis, or multiple car insurances. There's no a-priori reason to why there can't be, it's circumstantial to the entrepreneurial ingenuity of the area, demand, capital accumulation, standards of living, cultural prefence, so many things...
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: Logistically, you can't have 10 security companies enforcing 10 rule sets on a single block. It would be absolute chaos. Moreover, people aren't going to want to live in that kind of situation.
Absolutely. And you knowing that, why don't you put the entrepreneurial hat and try to solve your way through? Do you think: 1- 10 PDAs would even be built before coming to an agreement first? 2- 10 PDAs are needed in the same block? And if so, why not? 3- Why is there a need for different codes of law? They could very well agree to enforce the same laws.
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: The end result is simple, the one I already said. A bunch of little states, built on common interest. People who have common interests gravitate towards each other and eventually the system becomes set in stone due to a monopoly over the area.
They aren't states, because no single PDA has monopolistic nor coercive authority. They're service providers. They do what they're paid to do. And if you're concerned that they someday may use the guns coercively, then the entrepreneurs too, will want to provide insurances to ease your demand for transparency, stability. Since they aren't hindered by bureaucrats sitting in some white building, they can adapt to such demands as fast as the customer requires it.
There's a long explanation why it wouldn't be profitable for PDAs to aggress, too, but it's pointless for me to go there if you don't even understand the basics...
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: I think the differences in our viewpoints are caused by one thing. I don't view Government as a state artificially imposed upon us by what? Aliens? Government is an intrinsic part of human cooperation on a larger scale. Systems of government, or structures of power, exist everywhere, in the office, in the family. Sometimes these systems can become too power, or too bureaucratized, and the freedoms of the individual are infringed.
Yeah, and slavery was also once a common course of action by man too. Does that mean it's ideal, efficient, or desirable? No, the merits of a system have to come from the system itself, not from an appeal to nature, the status-quo, or ignorance.
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: But these systems are so basic, so intrinsic, that it isn't even something that can be removed. The basic structure of government -someone telling you what to do-, isn't something that can be removed.
And the slave apologist would say slavery can't be abolished. That's an empty assertion. You don't know that. And it's not about hierarchy, hierarchies and division of labor are good things. It only isn't when it's obviously forced upon you; coercive. Duh. Employers and rulers are different things for the employer and ruled respectively, and I hope you can understand why, someday at least.
On August 29 2010 15:04 Half wrote: If you don't like it, you have three options, become a hermit, start a revolution, or be powerful.
And the thug on the streets says, "if you don't like being robbed by me every weekend, you can go out of town, fight me, or become one of us thugs" Another non-argument. I'm not here to debate what can be done. I'm here to debate the feasibility of a future system of human organization exempt of coercion.
Except that's the problem. Its still built upon mutual interest, and people with mutual interests will gravitate towards each other. Your not going to want to be the only guy on your block whos property has the "Murder and Rape allowed rule". Nobody is going to come to your dinner parties.
Why would there be a block with an explicit murder and rape allowed rule. And if it there were for some strange reason, would people not defend themselves from murder and rape regardless of some stupid, arbitrary nonsense rule?
Likewise, in a poor neighborhood, people are going to maybe share one security company, and hang out with people who have similar rules.
Logistically, you can't have 10 security companies enforcing 10 rule sets on a single block. It would be absolute chaos. Moreover, people aren't going to want to live in that kind of situation.
Yes. 10 security companies enforcing 10 different sets of arbitrary bullshit laws on one block would be chaos. But why would this happen?
The end result is simple, the one I already said. A bunch of little states, built on common interest. People who have common interests gravitate towards each other and eventually the system becomes set in stone due to a monopoly over the area.
Ok, but that's not a bunch of little states. A state has the supposed authority to initiate force in a given geographical area (in order to supposedly solve social problems like rape). Defensive force is not the initiation of coercion; it is a response to it. So therefore security companies are not states.
Defensive agencies are no longer defensive agencies if they subsidise rape (or collect taxes to fund themselves), and even then they wouldn't necessarily be states because people wouldn't automatically think they have any legitimacy to do that. But there wouldn't be fucking neighbourhoods where rape is deemed ok, and other neighbourhoods where rape is not. That's just retarded. We're talking about defence agencies, not aggressive rape agencies.
I think the differences in our viewpoints are caused by one thing. I don't view Government as a state artificially imposed upon us by what? Aliens? Government is an intrinsic part of human cooperation on a larger scale. Systems of government, or structures of power, exist everywhere, in the office, in the family. Sometimes these systems can become too power, or too bureaucratized, and the freedoms of the individual are infringed.
Cooperation being a euphemism for violence? Cooperation to me conjures up images of peaceful people working together, where as apparently you think human slaves being beaten to build pyramids constitutes cooperation too.
But these systems are so basic, so intrinsic, that it isn't even something that can be removed. The basic structure of government -someone telling you what to do-, isn't something that can be removed.
If you don't like it, you have three options, become a hermit, start a revolution, or be powerful.
The same argument could be made for religion in the dark ages. Thankfully society progressed through the enlightenment. Though you're right in one sense: that a philosophical enlightenment could be considered a revolution. But isn't that what we are sort of trying to achieve, even if only on some very small level in this very thread? Every little bit helps.
Legitimacy is relative :/. So you don't think its legit, ok. I don't really like it either.
Ok. Say it's relative to mere opinion. Would states emerge if there is an inter-subjective consensus that it is not legitimate to initiate coercion in any circumstance? Is slavery legitimate, or do people now understand (even if only merely inter-subjectively and not purely objectively) that slavery is not legitimate?
Companies fulfilling the role of government is government.
Yes, agreed, but it wouldn't happen which was my point. It's far to expensive without the handrail of presupposed authority. And companies don't get money out of thin air either.
On August 29 2010 14:00 Half wrote: @ Yurebis- I haven't read the entire thread, but a core component of your argument is built around avoiding "overhead costs" of a State that is essentially coercing money from you.
What makes you think that private companies would have any less overhead? In fact, if recent history shows anything their would even be more mismanagement. If your assuming these corporations can avoid the mismanagement of the state why cant the state just avoid the mismanagement of the state?
Half, the state are basically just bureaucrats, the central planners, who write the law, regulations, and determine how taxpaying money is spent. They don't administrate anything directly. They form bureaus, agencies, comittees which are more comparable to the private institutions that would do the work intended otherwise (but with incentives perverted ofc)
Someone has to pay those bureaucrats that otherwise wouldn't exist, and that's the overhead. But that's not the main problem of course; even if those bureaucrats worked for free and were the most brilliant men of the land, they still would not compare to the entrepreneurial efficiency of thousands of entrepreneurs each acting on their own localities, figuring out ways to profit, or in other words, finding new things to do, improve, undercut the leading brand, etc.
I was going to make a big post out of things that you said but you seem to be a trolling anarchist of sorts so I wasn't going to bother anymore :D no offense intended.
You conflate arguing against government 'bureaucracy' with arguing against 'government' in general. Politicians are lawmakers -- they make laws such as the Antitrust Act. Without these laws, the 'free market' that you love to say is more 'efficient' than government would not exactly be efficient at all.
In fact, unregulated markets can delve into high levels of inefficiency -- they're called market failures. Things such as monopolies and cartels are example of market failures, which government is supposed to help prevent. Anarcho-capitalism does nothing to address this.
Tell me, what is a monopoly, and why is it bad? What is market failure, and why does it justify coercion?
I would explain everything but I'm getting rather tired of repeating myself. Perhaps you can help yourself in solving those dilemmas.
I'm not explaining things that you should know yourself if you made a thread about economics and philosophy.
A monopoly is bad because consumers get screwed over. Monopolies are one form of market failures.
Alright, then tell me, are you a monopolist of your own body? Are you a monopolist of your property? Isn't each one of us monopolists of our property? What is wrong with that? Aren't you entitled to exclusive control over what you produce?
If you make the new product X, that everyone wants to buy, you can charge whatever the fuck you want, legitimately so. If it weren't for you, X would not exist. But the government would say that's unlawful, you don't have a right to charge too high, or too low, or to charge what they think would be collusion with the second best competitor. All those are lawful charges of monopoly, and it comes down to "you don't own your shit, only if I allow you to". It's ridiculous.
And It's a complete misunderstanding of economics. The "monopolist" in the vast majority of cases is not a monopolist at all. He's someone who's leading the market, has the best priced product, and outperforms everyone else. So what do those little twats do? they call monopoly on the leader to break him up, or to bring his prices down, so he's essentially forced to underperform to everyone else's standards. How is the consumer favored in such inteverntion? He now has to pay more for the same product. The state in fact has NOW established an oligarchy in what before was a free market leader who just outperformed everyone.
The idea that monopolies are bad are a complete misrepresentation of property rights. That statists have so successfully embedded this idea into people's minds is abysmal to me, especially when the state Is the BIGGEST and TRUEST monopoly of all.
I hope that helps
The state has a monopoly on things like the military and the police because there's a public interest for them to do that...
Please read the wikipedia article on what a "monopoly" is. A monopolist has the power to price products above what market equilibrium is and thus exploit consumers for money, among other things: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-competitive_practices
You're literally defending imperfect markets here, and that's literally not an argument for anarcho-capitalism. I am really seeing no arguments with substance other than your emotional hatred for the "statists" by calling them "twats".
Oh, there's a public interest for that, really? How do you go about proving that? Forcing everyone to pay for it? "You see, I threatened they would go to jail if they didn't pay me for this, and then, everyone paid me! The public is very much interested in this."
You're the one who doesn't understand a thing about markets, to say that you can even know what the market equilibrium price for any given product at any given time is. Markets naturally fluctuate, and that may not be perfect for you, but who gives a shit about what you think? The market isn't you, it's millions of people acting voluntarily, and whenever they do exchange, it's because the price was good enough for them. The aggregation (God I hate that word) of everyone's preferences do point to a market equilibrium, but it is no more attainable than looking for an absolute truth of anything, empirically.
The market price is a constant research on what value exchange best makes both supplier and consumer happy, most efficiently. There can't be a time where you say "wow, this is THE intersection this time". It's all subjective preference. Those curves on the board? That's just estimatives, predictions, subjective as well. You haven't brain-scanned every individual around the globe to know that's what they're willing to pay for every amount. And even if you did, it would have changed by the time you put it up for show!
The list of anti-competitive practices are retarded. The only ones that are relevant are those that necessitate state force to accomplish. Barriers to entry, coercive monopoly, subsidies, regulations, patents, are all aberrations of the state. The rest are non-violent, non-coercive, and are no less anti-competitive than you doing whatever you want with your own property.
The very first for example, an apprentice filling a company's job opening could be said to be "dumping" his labor, denying entry level workers from their jobs because the apprentices don't charge anything, but then by the time they're done being apprentices and are then paid, workers will be working somewhere else already and the apprentice got the job.
There is nothing wrong for the top business to raise prices, do all sorts of non-coercive shenanigans with other companies, because the consumer isn't entitled to the leader's (I'll call the "monopolist" a leader if you don't mind, because that's what he should be called, if non-coercive) products at the exact price the consumer wants. That's not how the market works. The leader isn't obliged to serve the costumer at their rates, it serves at whatever rates it wants to, and if you don't like it, then get the fuck out. Go to the second best, at which time, he should no longer be second best and the leader now, right? But that's not what usually happens, the leader is leader for a reason, and even if it's something silly like being the first to arrive at an isolated province or fill a niche market with some silly product, it's still a function people are paying for it to do more than anyone else. If people were discontent of the leader's price, then don't fucking buy it. A leader cannot be both undesirable yet the most popular in sales, it logically has to be at least as desirable if not more desirable than the second best, or else it wouldn't be the most popular.
I really can't add anything else on the non-issue that monopoly and market competition is. I'd dump links but you probably can search mises yourself. Only this in particular: https://mises.org/journals/rae/pdf/rae9_2_3.pdf And http://mises.org/media/1160 which I had posted already, the second one being slightly less relevant but still talks about the industrial revolution quite a bit throughout the series.
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution.
Sounds like you're appealing to some "unknown futuristic market model" that will be so super duper awesome because the anarcho-capitalism ROCKS!!!
Seriously, this paragraph you wrote really sums up the attitude in your posts -- you strawman the government state and try to impose solutions that have little empirical, historical, or philosophical rigour. Instead, you just resort to "anarcho-capitalism" because "government is bad."
I don't have to act like an argument has been made when none has. "People will kill each other" is a non-argument in the scope that we were debating, and on grounds that he himself had conceded already.
It won't work because not every country is as well off as Western powers.
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
Armchair economists are hilarious. Go outside. Meet people. And maybe then you'll understand for yourself why Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.
On August 29 2010 15:55 ROFLChicken wrote: Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary..
I see the misunderstanding. I did not state that this is an assumption we can make, but one that we could only if we engineered a situation in which the players could be relied upon to be rational. I've spent a lot of time to figure out if it would be possible, and I think it could be, but in the sort of way that getting men to mars in the next three or so years is possible. Dooable, but requiring such a tack against the flow it's essentially impossible.
The studies to the contrary on rational behavior, by the way, often fail to give the principle of subjective rationality enough clout. We act rationally based on previous experience and our understanding of the principles involved. Very few studies I have seen have gone to sufficient lengths to justify their conclusions by objectively ensuring that they made their participants aware of what they are actually doing (many results can be put down to the average participant simply misunderstanding the bounds and parameters of the experiment as opposed to acting irrationally in full possession of the facts) I admit I have not actually read many of these papers in full, but I doubt anyone else here has either, we read the professors and academics who analyse the results, and they often make conclusions that are not as careful as they should be- so I'd advise against being so sure that the evidence is so clear cut.
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote: 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.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
"Who owns the environment" is not a relevant question in the face of the extinction of all life on earth. If I owned a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, would I be entitled to launch them all?
First I'll address your example of logging companies. Yes, they do have an economic incentive to maintain forests. However this means they will only do so in the way most economically beneficial for them. That means tree plantations and monocropping, which is just as harmful to forest ecosystems as cutting them down altogether.
Second, the example of logging companies and deforestation is not applicable to the environmentally destructive practices of most companies. Logging companies are unique because they sell products they extract from forests so they have an economic incentive to keep the forests around in some form. Electricity companies do not sell resources that they extract from the atmosphere. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has no direct effect on their profits, and they obviously do not own the atmosphere.
You aren't entitled to kill other people I feel. I think most would feel the same. But not only are you not entitled, it would bring you nothing for doing that. It would bring a bad reputation if anything, increasing the risks of someone lauching a nuke preemptively against you! I say only retarded governments would do that, because they got the nukes for free (by expropriation of capital) and so, easy come = easy go. They also can use the nation as a shield to himself; the crazy president can make everyone seem guilty for a missle launched, so a potential retaliation may come not to the guy who ordered the nukes, but private property elsewhere, like idk, 9/11 maybe? Terrorists retaliating against a state more often than not kill the innocent, coerced civilians. Oh sorry but I'm going on a tangent, you're not talking about global violence, you're talking about the environment. Lol.
Okay, and why would you like that the harvesters didn't do what you don't want them to do? What claim do you have over the forests? Do you have a better idea on what to do? Do you feel necessary to force them not to on your own principles? Why? They didn't do anything to you, and unless you can prove so, you really don't have a claim over the resource... just disagreement over its use, but no better claim to it. What happens in the free market is that, if someone has a better idea on how to use a resource that was previously already in use, they buy it off. They can afford it, because they expect a greater return from it, and the previous business ends up winning too, since they weren't making that much.
The CO2 on the atmosphere has no effect on anyone I feel, and if you think it does, on you even, then you can sue them, if it comes to that point. Raise campaigns against the companies, and if it's popular enough, they'll be glad to comply; because it means making their products more scarce, so they have to produce less and sell at higher prices; but only if the public outrage is big enough to force every other competitor to do the same thing. Environmental issues are great for big corporations, contrary to popular thought, because it enables collusion better than any other concern, well ok, not better than health and safety and stuff that the government already regulates them for. But third best. Fourth. IDK.
If you really believe that Co2 in the atmosphere has no effect then I suggest you educate yourself on the issue.
You still haven't answered that while logging companies will replant forests, they have an economic incentive to do so in the form of tree plantations with monocropped trees, which destroys those ecosystems.
Your argument seems to boil down to "So what if companies destroy the environment, dooming us all in the process? You can't tell them what to do man." This is why I drew the comparison with me owning nuclear weapons. If I did own enough to wipe out all life, and wanted to use them, what basis would you have to stop me in your system? All you have is a disagreement with me about how I should use something that I own.
You say that if I have a better idea about how to use the forests, I should just buy them. This misses the point of my argument which is that the most economically efficient choice is not always the most socially optimal especially when it comes to the environment. Your argument doesn't hold in this instance because the logging company is already using the forest in the most economically efficient way (For a logging company. Obviously the land could be turned into a parking lot or something but that's moot).
You also haven't answered that the logging example doesn't apply to most environmentally destructive companies because they don't exploit resources directly. They either buy them from other companies or the product they sell has an environmental side effect that cannot be factored into their costs, such as energy companies emitting greenhouse gasses from burning coal.
You say that public outcry will motivate companies to be less environmentally destructive. I answered this in my original post and you seem to have ignored those answers:
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.
Even if coercion is bad the extinction of all life from warming is worse. Do you disagree?
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Why would living in Russia be so difficult compared to anywhere else? And why does that give legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people?
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
So ancap is being selfish, I take it? Ok, but that's not really an argument and therefore not particularly compelling. Any reasoning?
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I've had a lot of talks about this before, and it really boils down to two things. Theoretically AC works fine, but it relies on two things that aren't all that reliable
Firstly, it assumes that is natural for humans to optimize their material wealth and that they will attempt to do so rationally. The basis for this rational approach working is some fairly complex, abstract economics which the average person does not understand. If everyone in the system actually understood it then it would work perfectly. The problem is, not only is this not the case (almost the opposite in fact), but an AC system would probably be even worse. A person (from the initial rational standpoint) does not feel the need to understand the system, and so there is no external pressure to do so like in some cases in our society. It's the fundamental assumption behind the iterated prisoner's dilemma- if both players understand that if they cooperate they will both ultimately end up ahead, then you get an ideal society. If either of them don't however, you get the absolute opposite, an initial backstab and subsequent descent into a betrayal race, a bottom out, brief period of cooperation and then another back-stab loop as soon as the lesson gets forgotten (since the system does nothing to make sure it is remembered). In almost every debate and model I have entered into on this, there is no evidence that an AC system would create or maintain this pre-requisite to its own functioning
For an AC system to avoid this, we would have to create some kind of situation in which a critical mass of participants were intelligent and educated enough to understand when to cooperate, when to betray and by how much, if this mass could not be reached, the system would be ultimately unstable.
The second issue is a more practical, cultural one. As much as an AC system works well in theory, these theories do not generally factor the economic and chronological cost of overcoming 4 millennia of cultural inertia built up on the side of the state system. Every part of our life, language and upbringing is saturated in seeing things from a state frame of reference. For example, an informed person with no prior bias, if placed in a situation where they could steal and get away with it, might quite easily come up with the AC assumption that this is detrimental to the society as a whole, will inevitably in the long run cause them more problems via economic ripples and is actually an inefficient use of time in any case. But a human from any culture on earth today, if given the chance to take something of material worth to them that belongs to someone else, with the surety that no high authority could punish them for it, would take it the vast majority of the time. That's what having an authoritarian system does. If someone can figure out a way to disentangle the minds and culture of five and a half billion people from this notion then congratulations, an AC system will have a chance to function as intended (if you can also solve the issue of informed rationality above).
TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
The first issue is a non-issue. Humans as a species has already overcome the prisoner's dilemma. Less than 1% of the people are sociopathic, everyone else feels enough empathy to dislike killing and stealing, and use force mainly on retaliatory basis. If you're really interested in the prisoners dilemma, watch this: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First Also on sociopathic behavior: The Truth About Killing - Episode 1 Part 1
Second issue is not a critique of AC itself but the means of which it can be reached. I don't have any problem whatsoever if you think it's a hard road to travel, but insofar as this thread goes, I'm full enough trying to explain to statists what freedom even means, so if you spare me the time, I'd like to spend it on more imminent objections.
...Except there's a difference between a market functioning and a market functioning efficiently. The benefits of anarcho-capitalism only make sense when markets distribute goods in the best way possible for society as a whole. Defending imperfect markets is defending a system you know will not yield the best outcome as opposed to one that's a least trying to make things better (it helps that governments generally aren't "for profit" in quite the same way as monopolists).
Referring to theoretical intersections seems fair when discussing an economic system that only exists on paper.
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd.
Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point.
Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
You don't have the slightest clue on how it can work. Don't try to make up retarded business models and make it look like it's the best it can get. Not you nor I know exactly how it will work, but sadly for the state, it isn't really hard to think of something even remotely better than the coercive, monopolistic, one-size-fits-all solution
You're right, I have no fucking clue how it works, until you just told me. You just explained IN DETAIL how said system would work, and I explained to you the repercussion of locality based laws, one demonstrated throughout history. In an area where multiple common interests are present, and their is a need to defend them, people will obviously gravitate towards common interest, it is absolutely no way they won't.
I didn't say they won't. I said you don't know that they will. They will tend to buy those services that best satisfy their ends. Not I nor you can tell what the specifics are, without background or context, and without the government in reality allowing such a thing to occur. We'll only know for sure how it works when it's go-time. I'm presenting you ideas on how it could work, but it is not my obligation to predict how it will, nor even that it will "work" in some arbitrary standard. The slave didn't have to show the whitey where would he be working at to be freed. The founding father didn't have to tell everyone how a minarchy would work as opposed to a monarchy. No, the first step is to recognize what now exists is coercion. It doesn't matter what is done next, if you know that what's going on now is absolutely wrong and subpar to what people themselves want to do.
In fact, if I could show to you every single answer, it would be more of an argument in favor of a flavor of statism, as I the ultimate central planner, was able to devise the exact plans in which society can best be ran. The truth of the matter is that I don't, the central planners don't either. The ones who know best is Everyone, free to chase their own ends. And it just so happens that humans are empathetic enough to cooperate without the need of coercion. It is unnecessary at this point; and that's my point.
On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: You either have two choices. This isn't business models, its simple logic. Every property and thus the person in them has their own values. These values inevitable conflict. As they conflict people with common interest will naturally band together (not necessarily involving physical violence).
You don't know that they inevitably conflict, as for the rest, so what?
On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: You say people would be quite happy living in a neighborhood filled with people who don't share their values in distinctive ways (as to require different laws) and would be indifferent towards moving to one filled with like minded people This is of course, has never happened and will never happen.
Strawman, and again, lack of perspective. Even with different laws, people can still respect each other to the degree that conflict is unnecessary. You have your house and I have mine, as long as you leave me alone, what evil can you do to me? You talk like different people living to each other necessarily makes them incompatible and want to force one another to do things. That's ridiculous, be more specific on the incentives there are for one to do so, and we can actually debate something useful like arbitrage, property contracts, dispute resolutions, etc.
Also the lack of perspective again, is not comparing your scenario in a statist world vis-a-vis. What's there stopping people wanting to kill one another in the state? Public Police? Laws? And why do you feel those things don't exist in ancap...?
On August 29 2010 15:31 Half wrote: The result is quite simple. Homogenized values (one state), where dissidents are marginalized, or fragmented states with polarized values (many smaller states).
Dissidents are marginalized. Okay. What kind of dissidents do you picture in ancap, as opposed to statism? Tax avoiders? well, there are no taxes in ancap, so that's one less. Black marketeers? no such thing in the free market. Drug dealers and users? drugs aren't illegal as much as rat poison isn't. Victimless crime offenders? there is no dispute to settle in a victimless crime, so no crime is committed. Prostitutes and pimps? Consensual sex isn't illegal.
So I say, if you're worried about people being picked at by PDAs, I'd say you should be more worried about the people that are unjustly jailed TODAY all over the world. If you wanted to be any consistent that is. If you just want to cling to your believes and arguments from ignorance, then that's fine too, but at least be honest that you have no clue.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
I think you mean respect for property rights (which I think is attainable in 'anarchy').
if you fill something with context then it makes sense and is justified. comparing things out of context, like theoretical applications of vague political definitions is just cognitive masturbation.
On August 29 2010 14:42 Half wrote: ^ Adding onto that
A ancap driven by monopolistic systems is one indistinguishable from government, and government requires monopoly to protect common interest.
You can't have two police departments catering to two different interest groups in one area with selective service.
You can't have one police department "stop murders" and the other "not stop murders", because as you see there is a conflict of public interest. These two companies cannot compete (outside of the oldest form of competition, killing each other), because they intrinsically cannot coexist with each other. The result is a monopoly on any given area by one "company", in order to preserve common interest.
So an area with one set of laws which everyone must follow and funded by everyone if you want to live there.
Sounds a lot like government.
Yes yes yes -- which is why even libertarians draw the line at security and defense -- because the common interest has such high marginal utility that it's imperative. I know a libertarian that was forced to at least supporting government-funded Medicare simply because of the effects of disease -- that a private system would be much more inefficient when it deals infectious diseases that spread easily -- or any general 'vector' in epidemiology.
What the... high marginal utility of what? Do you even know what marginal utility is, or are you just throwing that word to act smart? I'd be impressed, even though it's a basic concept. I don't mean to offend but I absolutely did not get the use of the word in that context. You mean security is a market with wide gaps of marginal utility, so therefore... what? People don't want to spend twice on the same service? So what? Does that mean that there can only be one PDA? If the marginal utility of mp3 players are low (I think it's more correct to say low for wider gaps, since marginal utility is diminutive), then does that mean Apple should be given legal monopoly, and other companies can't make generic ipods because...? It makes no sense. If an entrepreneur believes he can outcompete the current leader of a market, he should not be restricted from doing so; at worst, no one will hire him, but it's completely his own loss; at best, you got a more efficient provider of security, or ipods, or whatever! How's that bad? How's open competition bad? I can't fathom!
Marginal utility means that protecting one more citizen does not come at much of a cost. The rest of your post is too incoherent for me to address, especially when you start talking about MP3s and Apple.
That's not what marginal utility means at all... you're talking about economies of scale, and the cost-per-product. Obviously the rest of my post would be incoherent if you used a term incoherently first. I'm addressing something you didn't say.
But anyway, economies of scale has a very simple answer, and that is diseconomies of scale. Unless you can prove one of the other, it does not always follow that cost per-product diminishes as the company grows. A PDA may very well become bloated with officers and judges. In fact diseconomies of scale apply much more cohesively to human services than economies of scale do. Because it's much easier to become bloated.
So no, it doesn't follow that because PDAs are free to grow, that they'll become too big and eventually use their indisputable power for coercion. Measures could be taken by the part of third parties and consumer demand by themselves to ensure such a thing wouldn't happen. And even if it did happen, what are you afraid of? The state coming back? Nothing that people haven't handled in the past' (that's what I'd say in ancap land)
If you're worried about an ever-growing entity that never diminishes in power....well... you know where I'm going.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
The first issue is a non-issue. Humans as a species has already overcome the prisoner's dilemma. Less than 1% of the people are sociopathic, everyone else feels enough empathy to dislike killing and stealing, and use force mainly on retaliatory basis. If you're really interested in the prisoners dilemma, watch this: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First Also on sociopathic behavior: The Truth About Killing - Episode 1 Part 1
Thanks for the references, but I'm already past that. I've read Dawkins (everything he's written for the popular market, in fact), not only that but I've read Tucker's outline, the Axelrod studies in their raw form, plus a half dozen other applications of the dilemma by various others like Hofstadter. To say that humanity has overcome the dilemma is laughable, just as much as to say that humanity has overcome mathematics or physics. You can't. If the fundamental assumptions of the dilemma hold true it is as solid as a mathematical proof. There is no evidence as far as I can see that they don't hold true, and no one has ever formally challenged their validity. People will kill and steal if it is rationally worth their while, again factoring all the elements of subjective rationality- mental trauma this will cause due to conditioning, habituated restraint, potential retaliation, difficulty of resisting or diverting current sensations caused by endocrine activity etc. Both an authoritarian and an AC system are effective at limiting the situations in which either of these activities are subjectively rational, but neither 'overcome' the principle that if X and Y are true, Z follows. To modify your wording- Humans as a *society* have overcome the prisoner's dilemma *in a majority of possible situations*
Second issue is not a critique of AC itself but the means of which it can be reached. I don't have any problem whatsoever if you think it's a hard road to travel, but insofar as this thread goes, I'm full enough trying to explain to statists what freedom even means, so if you spare me the time, I'd like to spend it on more imminent objections.
Typically, the 'It's not relevant' objection is the strongest to any given argument. If you ignore it you're more or less saying 'I don't care about reality, I just want to waste these good peoples' time and frustrate them'. Theory is entirely useless unless it has a relevant practical application. It need not be immediate, simply conceivable. Establish your practical reasoning and work backwards, you'll probably find that a lot more conducive to constructive debate. Though, from your initial post, I'm honestly not sure that's what you want.
On August 29 2010 15:46 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I don't get it... that in no way talks about what I was talking about, nor have I assumed that people are methodologically individualist if that means what I think it does. I appreciate the effort you're making in trying to shoot down every single argument everyone else makes (not sarcastic), but chill and try and frame your counters more... coherently.
Actually I think his statement ties into your point fairly well... you talked about rational players and their inability to cooperate for mutual gain. His point was that even making the assumption that players act rationally is a huge leap given all the studies to the contrary.
And no one is bothered by the use of 'consensus' and 'popularity' to determine laws and values? Protection of minority rights and privileges is almost always definitionally anti-majoritarian and it doesn't seem like they'd fare too well under ACap.
To the extent that a business discriminates, he proportionally loses profit. It is best for everyone if everyone can work and do what they do, and it doesn't matter if they're black, gay, asian, illegaly hispanic, etc etc. *insert rhetoric here*
Contrary to popular thought, it's not. Companies do not profit from segregation and discrimination. They profit the most when they take any customer they can. And contrary to popular thought, it was more by the part of government's laws than private business that blacks were discriminated againt, particularly in areas where blacks were predominant. What type of business owner would be idiotic enough to deny service or provide lower quality service to blacks when they're the group that gives him the most business? Blacks weren't forced to sit on the back of the bus by business initiative, that only decreases their business with them! It's mainly the state that has the great idea of sacrificing economical efficiency for the political interest of the day.
I don't think a PDA could get away discriminating on any minority group today, as much as the government can't get away either. And if they did, I really don't care, it's their business, they can choose not to do businesses with whoever they want, as much as I could only allow white beautiful women into my house and no one else. Now, if they were to go out and murder blacks for example, surely there would be an outrage, not only because of morality, but they're misusing the resources invested in them for defense purposes only. There would be multiple contract breaches for every unjust act they commit, endorsed by third party courts.
On August 29 2010 16:21 leve15 wrote: It won't work because not every country is as well off as Western powers.
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
Armchair economists are hilarious. Go outside. Meet people. And maybe then you'll understand for yourself why Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.
Sympathy isn't mutually exclusive with capitalism. Nor anarchism. Nor both... combined... I'd say ancap is even more sympathetic than any coercive system, because it respects the proprerty which is duly yours, and only you can make the decision to share it. And people do; there is such a thing as private charity, donation bodies, that act completely non-coercively and no subsidies, and have worked for... I don't know how long, but for very long, before any statist had the jolly idea of stealing a bit from everyone and saying he's doing something good for society! Whatever he chooses to do with the money is irrelevant tbh.
On August 29 2010 16:27 ShroomyD wrote: I think perfect competition is a big old fanatsy
ty
On August 29 2010 16:27 exeexe wrote: Anarchy --> dont listen to boss --> no excessive demands --> no growth --> no capitalism
Any questions?
You don't listen to your boss, you get fired. Someone who does listen to the boss gets hired. If the boss is such a prick that no one listens to him, he's fired, someone better replaces him. And if he's the sole business owner, then he goes bankrupt, and another firm can serve consumer demand better.
Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Hmm... well that's a lot of stuff for me to possibly respond to. Since this is supposed to be a discussion and not just a list of stuff, how about you pick one of those things that you think best justifies your case and then we can talk about it?
anarcho capitalism fails because it prevents corporations from cornering markets and preventing competition. Government is truly the only institution capable of enforcing anti-trust and making sure that markets are capable of easy entry. Other than that, government shouldn't get involved in capitalism as it is impossible to raise capital if businesses are being taxed to death.
There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Hmm... well that's a lot of stuff for me to possibly respond to. Since this is supposed to be a discussion and not just a list of stuff, how about you pick one of those things that you think best justifies your case and then we can talk about it?
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
On August 29 2010 16:27 exeexe wrote: Anarchy --> dont listen to boss --> no excessive demands --> no growth --> no capitalism
Any questions?
You don't listen to your boss, you get fired. Someone who does listen to the boss gets hired. If the boss is such a prick that no one listens to him, he's fired, someone better replaces him. And if he's the sole business owner, then he goes bankrupt, and another firm can serve consumer demand better.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote:It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation.
I'm going to be really annoying by just attempting to use the Socratic method here, and simply ask why? Because your post, by itself, has little merit without some form of argumentation to back it up.
On August 29 2010 10:19 Lysdexia wrote: 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.
Who owns the environment? Do you feel you have a claim as to how the environment has to be treated? Why is your claim stronger than the company using said resource? These things can be solved in court, and most relevant property would be owned to avoid such issues in the first place anyways. Does a company profit for polluting their own property? I don't know, it's for them to decide, but probably not.
You'd be surprised to know most deflorestation occurs due to government leases to practically fake companies, who are arms of bigger firms, lease the forest from the government for dirty cheap, and then break up when it's deflorested. The government knows that too, but they let the loophole continue to go round for as much money the firms are willing to bribe them for.
When a wood harvesting company is defloresting their own property though, they make sure that the property remains profitable in the future by, duh, refloresting it. Two trees for every one down sometimes even. To the extent that it's more profitable to bribe the state to harvest national parks though, they do it of course.
"Who owns the environment" is not a relevant question in the face of the extinction of all life on earth. If I owned a massive stockpile of nuclear weapons, would I be entitled to launch them all?
First I'll address your example of logging companies. Yes, they do have an economic incentive to maintain forests. However this means they will only do so in the way most economically beneficial for them. That means tree plantations and monocropping, which is just as harmful to forest ecosystems as cutting them down altogether.
Second, the example of logging companies and deforestation is not applicable to the environmentally destructive practices of most companies. Logging companies are unique because they sell products they extract from forests so they have an economic incentive to keep the forests around in some form. Electricity companies do not sell resources that they extract from the atmosphere. The amount of Co2 in the atmosphere has no direct effect on their profits, and they obviously do not own the atmosphere.
You aren't entitled to kill other people I feel. I think most would feel the same. But not only are you not entitled, it would bring you nothing for doing that. It would bring a bad reputation if anything, increasing the risks of someone lauching a nuke preemptively against you! I say only retarded governments would do that, because they got the nukes for free (by expropriation of capital) and so, easy come = easy go. They also can use the nation as a shield to himself; the crazy president can make everyone seem guilty for a missle launched, so a potential retaliation may come not to the guy who ordered the nukes, but private property elsewhere, like idk, 9/11 maybe? Terrorists retaliating against a state more often than not kill the innocent, coerced civilians. Oh sorry but I'm going on a tangent, you're not talking about global violence, you're talking about the environment. Lol.
Okay, and why would you like that the harvesters didn't do what you don't want them to do? What claim do you have over the forests? Do you have a better idea on what to do? Do you feel necessary to force them not to on your own principles? Why? They didn't do anything to you, and unless you can prove so, you really don't have a claim over the resource... just disagreement over its use, but no better claim to it. What happens in the free market is that, if someone has a better idea on how to use a resource that was previously already in use, they buy it off. They can afford it, because they expect a greater return from it, and the previous business ends up winning too, since they weren't making that much.
The CO2 on the atmosphere has no effect on anyone I feel, and if you think it does, on you even, then you can sue them, if it comes to that point. Raise campaigns against the companies, and if it's popular enough, they'll be glad to comply; because it means making their products more scarce, so they have to produce less and sell at higher prices; but only if the public outrage is big enough to force every other competitor to do the same thing. Environmental issues are great for big corporations, contrary to popular thought, because it enables collusion better than any other concern, well ok, not better than health and safety and stuff that the government already regulates them for. But third best. Fourth. IDK.
If you really believe that Co2 in the atmosphere has no effect then I suggest you educate yourself on the issue.
No ty.
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote:
You still haven't answered that while logging companies will replant forests, they have an economic incentive to do so in the form of tree plantations with monocropped trees, which destroys those ecosystems.
Destroys whose ecosystems? Are they yours? Who loses with such destruction? Can they sue? Why not? Is there a dispute to be settled between plaintiff and defendant, or are you talking about victimless crimes? Why should it be a crime for a firm to destroy their own property? If what they're doing is so awful, then why don't you go, buy it, and make it better? So many long questions, but life is so short...
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote: Your argument seems to boil down to "So what if companies destroy the environment, dooming us all in the process? You can't tell them what to do man." This is why I drew the comparison with me owning nuclear weapons. If I did own enough to wipe out all life, and wanted to use them, what basis would you have to stop me in your system? All you have is a disagreement with me about how I should use something that I own.
Not comparable. You owning a weapon of mass destruction can be debated in court whether it's a menace for your neighbors or not. And yes there are some things to which private property is arbitrarily irrelevant. If you're deemed as an imminent threat to the neighborhood, and it's provable in court, and nearly everyone agrees, I think I would be hard pressed myself to go against the judgment of a PDA in invading your property and taking you out. An apocalyptic scenario of something that may or may not happen in 50 year due to something you did in your property is a much less imminent threat than that, I hope you agree. If it's proved beyond a shadow of doubt that the harvester, by cutting down trees and planting them a certain way, would I don't know, kill baby children everywhere due to some unexpected link between CO2 levels and child death, then it would be ruled alike to your nuke scenario.
But this is all very circumstantial of course, and I don't think you make justice with me or the thousands of freely working judges that each would be competing to be the best dispute settler, to say that it can't be solved unless we give all the guns to some guys and let them force us to do what they think it's proper (and-I-wish-what-they-deem-proper-is-what-I-deem-proper-because-I-voted-for-barack-obama). A bit of a stretch, sorry I'm sleepy.
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote: You say that if I have a better idea about how to use the forests, I should just buy them. This misses the point of my argument which is that the most economically efficient choice is not always the most socially optimal especially when it comes to the environment. Your argument doesn't hold in this instance because the logging company is already using the forest in the most economically efficient way (For a logging company. Obviously the land could be turned into a parking lot or something but that's moot).
If it's not socially optimal, then they'll lose popularity accordingly. The environment is only accountable to the owner of it. You propose that government owns all environment, and forces everyone to lay off the resources to the extent that you want them preserved; meaning, you support coercing people out of producing useful things out of nature because you feel it may backstab everyone in the end. But the firms also know that. That's the whole point of them owning the land. They're fully accountable of what happens when they treat it bad, as opposed to a no-liability lease, easily obtained with a bit of lobbying.
You're not comparing properly when you regard Government as the perfect solution by default, because it isn't. At best it would only be the perfect solution if you had complete control over what the government does (which is not the case, no matter how much rhetoric you can throw at me), and even then, you'd be creating externalities yourself; You'd be denying other more hardcore environmentalists the opportunity to pass their own plans on how the environment should be treated (back to stone age pls?), and you're denying businesses the chance of profiting, yes, profiting, the evil word, which in turn provides the consumer with cheaper products and higher quality of life. Does preserving the state of nature raises the quality of life? I don't think so, but I also don't think nature preservation is mutually exclusive to technological and industrial advancement. They can both be accomplished to the extent that both are profitable and socially acceptable (popular) ventures. Parks and tourist hotspots are a niche that environmentalists could very well market and profit off, if they had the least bit of imagination.
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote: You also haven't answered that the logging example doesn't apply to most environmentally destructive companies because they don't exploit resources directly. They either buy them from other companies or the product they sell has an environmental side effect that cannot be factored into their costs, such as energy companies emitting greenhouse gasses from burning coal.
Okay, well, it doesn't really matter at what stage of production and for what product the pollution is produced. What matters is who's bearing the cost of real estate degradation due to pollution - if it's the owner himself, then there's no conflict. If it's someone else, then he is certainly entitled to restitution, even in ancap. If "nature" is the victim, then there can be no plaintiff, because no one owns "nature". And to the extent that people love nature and aesthetics, they can simply not buy a product that mistreats nature to the extent they dislike. Aaand that way the entrepreneurs feel the cost of what was deemed a meaningless externality.
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote: You say that public outcry will motivate companies to be less environmentally destructive. I answered this in my original post and you seem to have ignored those answers:
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.
You mean like, fraud? That's suable. You've been promised something that is a lie. If the firm promises it hasn't hurt any baby whales, and it's killing baby whales left and right, well, that's a great example of fraud...
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.
You don't know that, because you don't know what the tipping point is. And if you can prove in court that you know such a tipping point, and can name names, then lawsuits can be made. And you can profit off the what otherwise wouldn't be seen as aggression from those firms, by defending all the people that would be victims. In the case of THE ENTIRE WORLD, I think there would be a large pot to be collected, and restrictive action to be made against any further attempt at DESTROYING THE WORLD.
That is all contingent on you proving so, of course.
On August 29 2010 16:27 Lysdexia wrote: Even if coercion is bad the extinction of all life from warming is worse. Do you disagree?
I agree that extinction is worse. However is it a false dichotomy as I deny that coercion is necessary period.
On August 29 2010 16:32 ROFLChicken wrote: ...Except there's a difference between a market functioning and a market functioning efficiently. The benefits of anarcho-capitalism only make sense when markets distribute goods in the best way possible for society as a whole. Defending imperfect markets is defending a system you know will not yield the best outcome as opposed to one that's a least trying to make things better (it helps that governments generally aren't "for profit" in quite the same way as monopolists).
Referring to theoretical intersections seems fair when discussing an economic system that only exists on paper.
You can't know what the best outcome is, because you don't know what the preferences of each human being are, mr. central planner. The people who can best expect what consumers demand at any given place, are freely acting entrepreneurs. They have the mechanisms and price signals to guide them; you just have a conviction that you think you're doing the right thing by forcing everyone to do your thing. Well mister, if your thing is so good, then surely everyone will be doing you without you even asking! Damn, first innuendo I did.
I'm not referring to intersections, the central planners who think they got those intersections figured out do. I made the case that it's impossible to know what they are; and they're only approximations, estimates. The only way to know which one is best is by letting each persons' expectations compete with no hindrance or barriers of entry. Every other option is a machination that will deviate from what would have been a more accurate estimate.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Actually, no. I'd venture to say 90% of Austrian Economists are also in favor of market anarchism. Be around any longer to the mises institute and you'll figure it out for sure.
Perhaps what you mean are Ron Paul economists, in which case, yeah they're half-assed austrian minarchists. But it's ok, I don't blame them. I don't blame you either. Can we all get along now? No guns? Pinky swear?
On August 29 2010 16:54 ShaperofDreams wrote: haha this is all so silly.
of course anarcho capitalism can "work". just like anything else is possible, that doesnt exist now.
if all the stars align then anything can "work". theres no need to get upset about theoretical situations.
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd.
Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point.
lol wow. Do you understand any philosophy whatsoever? Just because you're hardcore individualist doesn't mean you have to ignore the very existence of collectivism or anything outside of your atomistic world.
Right now your argument for anarcho-capitalism is like arguing that a 6-pool zergling build is optimal economic behaviour, when it is clearly not. Sure it is "possible", but it's not exactly smart, efficient, or equitable.
By your own stupidity, we would all be studying physics instead of chemistry, biology, computer science, or anything of "higher order", because you think everything can be broken down into the lowest denomination of "individuals".
Your worship of individualism is short-sighted, and your personal insults only show how emotional you get on this subject matter, detracting from your already weak rational arguments to begin with.
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
Who prevents the company? Well, how about the people down the river who are being killed for a start? Would they not want to protect themselves from being killed? How about the people up the river who have even a small amount of empathy for their fellow man, and who therefore wouldn't even buy the product from the evil killing company in the first place? You said it yourself, this is just an extreme scare scenario and has little basis in reality.
I mean really the argument here isn't that it can't work but that it would suck if it did work. You're acting like all of these cheap goods and services come without having a bunch of slaves whose lives suck balls.
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
Who prevents the company? Well, how about the people down the river who are being killed for a start? Would they not want to protect themselves from being killed? How about the people up the river who have even a small amount of empathy for their fellow man, and who therefore wouldn't even buy the product from the evil killing company in the first place? You said it yourself, this is just an extreme scare scenario and has little basis in reality.
Because the people don't have money to move, and everyone else in the world doesn't care, and still buys the product.Consumers up the river don't care, because they don't know (imperfect information). Politicians don't care, because the company can buy them out.
You ask more questions than you give solutions, which is exactly the problem with anarcho-capitalism. People aren't going to boycott corporate bad behaviour, because people aren't aware about the problems, don't care about them, and want someone else will fix it. That's why we there's always government to clean up after corporate messes, like the BP oil spill in New Orleans. Imagine if there were no laws in place to require them to clean up their own mess. Do you think BP would willingly give up their own money if they weren't forced to for the environment?
The first issue is a non-issue. Humans as a species has already overcome the prisoner's dilemma. Less than 1% of the people are sociopathic, everyone else feels enough empathy to dislike killing and stealing, and use force mainly on retaliatory basis. If you're really interested in the prisoners dilemma, watch this: Richard Dawkins - Nice Guys Finish First Also on sociopathic behavior: The Truth About Killing - Episode 1 Part 1
Thanks for the references, but I'm already past that. I've read Dawkins (everything he's written for the popular market, in fact), not only that but I've read Tucker's outline, the Axelrod studies in their raw form, plus a half dozen other applications of the dilemma by various others like Hofstadter. To say that humanity has overcome the dilemma is laughable, just as much as to say that humanity has overcome mathematics or physics. You can't. If the fundamental assumptions of the dilemma hold true it is as solid as a mathematical proof. There is no evidence as far as I can see that they don't hold true, and no one has ever formally challenged their validity. People will kill and steal if it is rationally worth their while, again factoring all the elements of subjective rationality- mental trauma this will cause due to conditioning, habituated restraint, potential retaliation, difficulty of resisting or diverting current sensations caused by endocrine activity etc. Both an authoritarian and an AC system are effective at limiting the situations in which either of these activities are subjectively rational, but neither 'overcome' the principle that if X and Y are true, Z follows. To modify your wording- Humans as a *society* have overcome the prisoner's dilemma *in a majority of possible situations*
Well of course you can't prevent everyone from doing what is deemed as undesirable activities (coercion!), but I think you're being a tad too demanding and a bit too pessimistic. When I say it has overcome, I mean it has overcome to the extent I'm fine with it. 1% of sociopaths doesn't hurt all that much by themselves. What hurts more is the system in place enabling those sociopaths to get the most power, IMO.
Second issue is not a critique of AC itself but the means of which it can be reached. I don't have any problem whatsoever if you think it's a hard road to travel, but insofar as this thread goes, I'm full enough trying to explain to statists what freedom even means, so if you spare me the time, I'd like to spend it on more imminent objections.
Typically, the 'It's not relevant' objection is the strongest to any given argument. If you ignore it you're more or less saying 'I don't care about reality, I just want to waste these good peoples' time and frustrate them'. Theory is entirely useless unless it has a relevant practical application. It need not be immediate, simply conceivable. Establish your practical reasoning and work backwards, you'll probably find that a lot more conducive to constructive debate. Though, from your initial post, I'm honestly not sure that's what you want.
Well it is relevant, I'm just saying, I'm not going to be answering "how we get there" before most people are like "wtf is that place". I'd rather answer them first. But basically, you don't pay the state tribute, state goes bankrupt. That entails morally bankrupt concurrently too of course. Hm in fact I have not much else to say besides that, so consider it the full response LOL. Was it practical enough for you? I hope so, and sorry for not having THE MEANING OF LIFE figured out for you... I tried my best.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
Okay also under anarcho-capitalism unchecked human nature is a lot worse than under, say, a representative democracy.
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
Who prevents the company? Well, how about the people down the river who are being killed for a start? Would they not want to protect themselves from being killed? How about the people up the river who have even a small amount of empathy for their fellow man, and who therefore wouldn't even buy the product from the evil killing company in the first place? You said it yourself, this is just an extreme scare scenario and has little basis in reality.
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own. As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
Right, because mom-and-pop shops can compete with Walmart, even if Walmart forces suppliers to sell them at the lowest possible price by the bulk and puts all the other stores in the city out of business!
These mom-and-pop shops just need to be more entrepreneurial, but right now they're just too stupid and can't ever be capitalist enough to compete with Walmart. And if people keep buying from Walmart, it's clearly because Walmart is so innovative and efficient, not big bullies!!! They're not abusing subsidies and cheap Chinese exports and unequal contracts at all!!!
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Why would living in Russia be so difficult compared to anywhere else? And why does that give legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people?
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
So ancap is being selfish, I take it? Ok, but that's not really an argument and therefore not particularly compelling. Any reasoning?
Every country cannot be as developed as the west. There aren't enough resources. I was making a satirical point that these anarcho-capitalist ideas seem to stem from upper-middle class white people who don't take a second to think about other people. How's AC working out in Somalia? Why don't developing nations try it out? Because it's impossible is why.
Well, in Russia 1/8 of the soil is usable for growing crops. When the weather permits. (Maybe you've read the news this summer... if you haven't, the outlook for this year's harvest is.. bad) Also, maybe you've you heard of the Russian winter? Famine occurs every 10 years in Russia. They're nearly landlocked as well, which in history was more detrimental than it is today.. Must I continue?
Ancap is selfish. If you really believe you've earned your lifestyle of sitting behind a computer and working a safe and easy job or going to school, or whatever it is you do in peace, then you are selfish. The world didn't start in 1980-something, it's been spinning long before you were here.
On August 29 2010 17:39 darmousseh wrote: anarcho capitalism fails because it prevents corporations from cornering markets and preventing competition. Government is truly the only institution capable of enforcing anti-trust and making sure that markets are capable of easy entry. Other than that, government shouldn't get involved in capitalism as it is impossible to raise capital if businesses are being taxed to death.
How can a non-coercive company prevent competition if not by being the most efficient at providing a product? Whenever it raises the price it risks losing both popularity and leadership, no matter how many relatively shady deals they do.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
Right, because mom-and-pop shops can compete with Walmart, even if Walmart forces suppliers to sell them at the lowest possible price by the bulk and puts all the other stores in the city out of business!
These mom-and-pop shops just need to be more entrepreneurial, but right now they're just too stupid and can't ever be capitalist enough to compete with Walmart. And if people keep buying from Walmart, it's clearly because Walmart is so innovative and efficient, not big bullies!!! They're not abusing subsidies and cheap Chinese exports and unequal contracts at all!!!
Seriously, just look at Rockefeller for an example of how to drive all competition into the ground and not let anyone get a leg up because you control every possible means of getting a leg up in the business. People don't give enough credit to the effects of volume and size in a free market. Walmart can afford to take a loss in some areas in order to come up ahead in other areas. Smaller businesses don't have that luxury.
Aw fuck it I'm going to sleep. I might as well have opened a thread on monopoly first because people seem to be so indoctrinated on the idea that "monopoly bad", and can't elaborate any more than that... "collusion... uhhh.... price fixing..." Yeah, so what? you price fix your own labor too. Unions collude with members to price fix labor. That's all swell right? Even worse; a scab comes along, and you think the union is justified in using gov't to stop them. Ridiculous double standards. Corporations are evil for colluding, but unions aren't. Corporations are evil for using coercion, unions aren't. I know no one specifically said unions are fine, and it may be a strawman, but seeing that they readily accept the mainstream idea that "monopolies bad", whoever claim such nonsense probably defends that "union backed by government good", without noticing it's the exact type of collusion they're against when it comes to companies. Such hypocrisy.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
I like how all the things you blamed on government are things the private sector would do worse on, or are responsible for.
Next Bear Stearns, please!
EDIT: Hey guys, corporations are people too! Please vote for this company into Congress
On August 29 2010 18:28 Yurebis wrote: Aw fuck it I'm going to sleep. I might as well have opened a thread on monopoly first because people seem to be so indoctrinated on the idea that "monopoly bad", and can't elaborate any more than that... "collusion... uhhh.... price fixing..." Yeah, so what? you price fix your own labor too. Unions collude with members to price fix labor. That's all swell right? Even worse; a scab comes along, and you think the union is justified in using gov't to stop them. Ridiculous double standards. Corporations are evil for colluding, but unions aren't. Corporations are evil for using coercion, unions aren't. I know no one specifically said unions are fine, and it may be a strawman, but seeing that they readily accept the mainstream idea that "monopolies bad", whoever claim such nonsense probably defends that "union backed by government good", without noticing it's the exact type of collusion they're against when it comes to companies. Such hypocrisy.
Wow you are such a modern-day Tea Party caricature.
companies = good individuals = good unions = bad communities = bad government = bad
In case you didn't know, in the framework of anarcho-capitalism, there is literally no difference between a union and a corporation. Organized labour = organized capital
On August 29 2010 18:27 vetinari wrote: Anarcho-capitalism won't work, because I'll will use my money to take over the world and slaughter everyone in my way.
And if you band together to stop me, congratulations. You just formed a government.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
Evidence that government contributes to market inefficiency does not mean that it is worse than a purely free market. Sure, the government creates its fair share of market inefficiencies. The point is that the government can fix all of those problems I listed much more efficiently and easily than the free market can. If the free market is so perfect, why were things like collusion and externalities a much bigger problem during the gilded age when there were far less laws regulating business? Why were workers essentially enslaved to their employers? Do you really think that the market back then was so much more efficient without all the regulation we have now preventing these problems?
Because the people don't have money to move, and everyone else in the world doesn't care, and still buys the product.Consumers up the river don't care, because they don't know (imperfect information). Politicians don't care, because the company can buy them out.
They shouldn't have to move, but why don't they have the money to move to somewhere where there isn't a river? And consumers up a mere river don't notice that people are dropping like flies down river? It's pretty hard to miss something like that. Could somebody not just pick up a phone and tell them? I mean, you might have a better argument if your talking about something that's less extreme and harder to pin down. Like some unhealthy, but hard to notice hormonal changes or something. But he specifically brought up people dying.
And in the case of something that's hard to notice even by the people directly involved, why would a government notice it? Aren't they subject to the imperfect information too? What would trigger a government to act against the company if nobody notices that anything is wrong?
People aren't going to boycott corporate bad behaviour, because people aren't aware about the problems, don't care about them, and want someone else will fix it.
It's not contingent on boycotting; it's just a factor. You can go and fucking destroy the people running the evil company with C4 explosives for the crime of killing people (if it must come to that in some sort of private war, which it wouldn't but w/e).
But why wouldn't people be aware or even care about people dying down a river? Are you talking about yourself here, or just some vague 'other people'?
That's why we there's always government to clean up after corporate messes, like the BP oil spill in New Orleans. Imagine if there were no laws in place to require them to clean up their own mess. Do you think BP would willingly give up their own money if they weren't forced to for the environment?
Yes, because the BP execs themselves are personally going to have to pay for the cost of the clean-up of the oil spill. Oh wait, they aren't held responsible for it in any way because the legal status of the corporation protects them from those sort of losses.
And how did the safety regulations that were already in place help to prevent the oil spill?
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose?
On August 29 2010 18:27 vetinari wrote: Anarcho-capitalism won't work, because I will use my money to take over the world and slaughter everyone in my way.
And if you band together to stop me, congratulations. You just formed a government.
Not really. Government initiates force by definition. It is part of what makes a government a government. A voluntarily funded defensive organisation that fights against you would not be initiating force. Therefore, not government.
This point has probably been made already, but anarchy can't really exist for long. People will eventually realize that by banding together to gain power they will be more benefited, and groups of people will form and exert control over others.
You are just missing one thing: a voluntarily funded defensive organisation will lose.
Because I am taxing the population of my territories, I have the funding to have a larger, better equipped and better trained army than any volunteer army.
The only way to win is to have a better army and the only way to do that is to coerce your people into supporting the army. This is also called "taxation" and "conscription".
On August 29 2010 19:20 vetinari wrote: edit: @dvide
You are just missing one thing: a voluntarily funded defensive organisation will lose.
Because I am taxing the population of my territories, I have the funding to have a larger, better equipped and better trained army than any volunteer army.
The only way to win is to have a better army and the only way to do that is to coerce your people into supporting the army. This is also called "taxation" and "conscription".
I thought you were slaughtering your population? =) Anyway, besides the point.
Ok. So say you win vs the voluntary army. So you roll your army of slaves into an enlightened peaceful ancap society where every house has probably has a gun (maybe even a rifle), and expect to tax them? Good luck. I mean, that's commonly accepted as the reason for why Hitler decided not to go into Switzerland.
Anyway, I already made the argument that defence is massively cheaper than invasion. Why do you think it takes the American army to invade somewhere like Afghanistan? And even they struggle.
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd.
Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point.
Right now your argument for anarcho-capitalism is like arguing that a 6-pool zergling build is optimal economic behaviour, when it is clearly not. Sure it is "possible", but it's not exactly smart, efficient, or equitable.
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose?
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
On August 29 2010 19:20 vetinari wrote: edit: @dvide
You are just missing one thing: a voluntarily funded defensive organisation will lose.
Because I am taxing the population of my territories, I have the funding to have a larger, better equipped and better trained army than any volunteer army.
The only way to win is to have a better army and the only way to do that is to coerce your people into supporting the army. This is also called "taxation" and "conscription".
I thought you were slaughtering your population? =) Anyway, besides the point.
Ok. So say you win vs the voluntary army. So you roll your army of slaves into an enlightened peaceful ancap society where every house has probably has a gun (maybe even a rifle), and expect to tax them? Good luck. I mean, that's commonly accepted as the reason for why Hitler decided not to go into Switzerland.
Anyway, I already made the argument that defence is massively cheaper than invasion. Why do you think it takes the American army to invade somewhere like Afghanistan? And even they struggle.
The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription.
because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
Right, because mom-and-pop shops can compete with Walmart, even if Walmart forces suppliers to sell them at the lowest possible price by the bulk and puts all the other stores in the city out of business!
These mom-and-pop shops just need to be more entrepreneurial, but right now they're just too stupid and can't ever be capitalist enough to compete with Walmart. And if people keep buying from Walmart, it's clearly because Walmart is so innovative and efficient, not big bullies!!! They're not abusing subsidies and cheap Chinese exports and unequal contracts at all!!!
Seriously, just look at Rockefeller for an example of how to drive all competition into the ground and not let anyone get a leg up because you control every possible means of getting a leg up in the business. People don't give enough credit to the effects of volume and size in a free market. Walmart can afford to take a loss in some areas in order to come up ahead in other areas. Smaller businesses don't have that luxury.
Rockefeller was an excellent businessman that built his empire by introducing efficient business methods into the oil industry. So long as a monopoly is producing more for less, we don't mind!
Rockefeller did try to cut prices to force out competitors, and soon learned that a big monopoly that cuts prices below the market level is losing money 100 times as fast as the competitor he's trying to force out.
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
DeBeers is undeniably in bed with governments. I understand that's not your point; it's that rich people still buy diamonds regardless. But again, I never said that my argument against evil companies arising in an ancap society was only contingent on managing to organise a peaceful boycott against them. If that's the only power we would have against coercion then we're probably fucked, but I'm not a pacifist. So, in the same way that you want the government to use force in order to hold the members of these types of companies accountable for their actions, I want individuals and private agencies to do it. And fat chance for you anyway, since they're far more protected by governments than actually held accountable by them.
I only said that a boycott can be a factor, and especially so in this one example where whole swathes of people are dying down a mere river and nobody seems to give a crap for some reason? Even when they know the company is causing it, people still don't give a crap? Who are these people? And if they don't know then how does a government anyway? Is government the only entity that can perform an investigation? A boycott would undoubtedly happen in this scenario. So I do understand the point you're making with DeBeers, etc, but it has nothing to do with the specific hypothetical situation that was brought up, which was the context of my boycott statement.
Just because one voluntary solution might not work in every possible given circumstance isn't really an argument against voluntarism. And it's not really an argument in favour of government either, where a one-size fits all solution to problems is always imposed regardless of whether there are better solutions under certain sets of circumstances. Markets lead to a multiplicity of solutions.
Foxconn thing I read was a myth anyway? Dodgy statistics? Why do people agree to work for Foxconn if it's so damn bad that it literally drives them to suicide? Makes no sense. I mean, wouldn't it be easy for another company to simply NOT drive their employees to suicide and gobble up all the labour force?
The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription.
Do you honestly believe I said that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because IT was a peaceful ancap society? Of course not. I know you don't actually think that's what I said, so come on man. Forcing people to into armies and to forcing people to keep guns is not the only reason that people will have guns. I'm sure most people would keep guns voluntarily in an ancap society. So the same point still applies.
On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote: because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
Market institutions follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. People trying to act in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones, and voluntarily associating with others that are trying to do the same, are usually able to create a decently attractive society. The reason for that has to do with supply and demand, price theory, and all kinds of mechanisms that get people to act efficiently.
Those mechanisms do not always work. There are cases where people trying to act in their own best interest and voluntarily associating do not cause an attractive result. Such cases are called market failures. In the areas where market failures are common, the case for government regulation is the strongest. For example, people theorize that people would not take good care of the environment without regulation.
However, I don't think it's true that the government necessarily produces an attractive result. Government institutions, just like market institutions, follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. A government institution might completely waste a part of its budget that it doesn't need, because it worries that if it doesn't spend all of its budget, it won't get as much money next year, when it does need it. This is one of the reasons government spending rarely, if ever, shrinks, and instead increases every year.
There is a bigger problem with democracy. Even if governments were to efficiently act out the preferences expressed by the majority through their votes, people might not vote in their best interest. My friends and colleagues generally do not spend much time and effort deciding their vote. They tend to vote for the most charismatic politician, or vote for the party they have been voting for all their lives. From what I can see, a completely insignificant percentage of people actually makes an in-depth decision weighing pros and cons of voting for various politicians.
You might say that this is not democracy's fault but a fault of the population. I think that's a cop-out. With perfect people, it doesn't matter if we choose anarcho-capitalism, government institutions, or whatever institutions. Perfect people will make perfect choices and we'll have a perfect society.
It is more useful trying to figure out WHY people don't put as much effort into their votes as they do into other decisions. I think it's because people have learned that who you vote for doesn't really matter. If you choose to buy a different house, or a different car, that decision has a lot of effect on your life. If you choose to vote democratic instead of republican, how much really improves for you? You are just one vote out of millions.
... a big monopoly that cuts prices below the market level is losing money 100 times as fast as the competitor he's trying to force out.
That's not true. A big monopoly can cut prices in some regions where competitor start ups have happened and keep the prices high everywhere else. They can also stock capital in a way that no competitor can which will keep them alive longer in a price battle.
There are lots of other reasons why the market its self will not solve monopolies and always strives to create more of them. If one company owns all the infrastructure he can keep the competitors from using it. The competitor would them have to create his own set of infrastructure which in some cases would be infeasible. Why would anyone want to use the telecom, roads or railways from a company that only covers a fraction of the country when the other company covers all of it. How would a company make enough capital to create a network of country wide infrastructure in order to compete? Even if he was able to you would then have one redundant set of infrastructure. Imagine two railway systems covering the entire country. Reeks of inefficiency.
An even worse example is when the monopoly is based on natural resources. What if one company buys up all the other oil companies in the world or all the iron mines. What is the competitor going to do then? Summon oil and iron out of thin air?
You don't even need one company owning everything for a situation like that to happen. In a system where no one is controlling the companies they will cooperate whenever possible. It is far more profitable for them to agree to keep prices high if there are only a few competitors. There is no reason for them to compete if no one forces them to.
Competition in completely free capitalism is just a dream. If you don't have a government there to keep the corporations in check they will just rape the economy and the population. I am in no way a statist but capitalism with no checks and balances is far worse than government. The main reason for government to exist is to protect the population from the corporations. If we want to get rid of government (I'm not sure we would want to) we have to get rid of corporations first.
DrainX, you make a lot of good arguments. Let me try to discuss your theoretical points and the discuss some history.
There are three kinds of monopoly. Natural monopoly, artificial monopoly, and state monopoly.
Increasing the size of a firm has two effects. One, it can use economies of scale to produce more efficiently. I don't think this needs any explanation. Two, it becomes a lot harder to administer it. The further removed the guys at the top are from what actually happens at the bottom, the easier it is to make disastrous decisions. A lot of very large firms try to split up into multiple, basically autonomous units to try and mitigate this problem, but it doesn't help much.
You might imagine that a firm would increase to some optimum point, where becoming even larger doesn't give you much added efficiency, but does make the firm a lot harder to administer. A natural monopoly arises when this optimum point is a firm that controls almost all of the market. There do exist natural monopolies. Google is an example. For a search engine goes: the bigger you are the more efficiently you can work. The more data you have to tune your algorithms, etc.
Natural monopolies have some leeway to try and screw customers over, but not too much. Google controls almost all of the search engine market, but what would happen if it doubled the amount of ads on the search engine and the ads became obnoxious? For some percentage of people, that would be a reason to use bing or yahoo, or various of the smaller, in comparison crappy search engines. Google's market share might drop from almost all of the market to 60%, and the more they make their product suck, the more people will flee to other search engines, which will suddenly be able to use economies of scale to bring their product up to the quality google used to have. For Google to maintain its monopoly, it needs to keep ads to a level that is as profitable as possible but not obnoxious, limiting its ability to screw us over.
Natural monopolies can raise prices a little bit, but in general that won't be that worrisome.
What you are worried about is an artificial monopoly. An artificial monopoly is where multiple firms of optimum size fuse to one giant firm to try and control the market and raise prices. First of all, because the size is now above optimum, this new firm will produce less efficiently. Second, because they tried to control the market, so they could raise their profits, they raise their prices. In effect, what used to be a good product at a reasonable price is now a product with a price that's way above market level.
At this point, a competitor can step in, produce efficiently, keep prices at market level and put the giant out of business. If there need to be made significant up-front investments, the entrepreneur can work together with some large customers of the monopoly, to ask if they want to invest in the new firm. It will be in the interest of those customers to agree, so he will be able to raise money for the significant up-front investment.
In history, where artificial monopolies have been tried, they always failed miserably. US Steel, Standard oil, etc, are all examples of artificial monopolies that eventually got caught up by the competition. Even in the cases where they succeeded in controlling the market, they were often less profitable than the original non-monopolistic before-the-fusion firms, pissing off stakeholders that eventually would break them apart.
The most effectively monopoly in history, the one that has been able to maintain itself across multiple years, has been the state monopoly. In fact, almost any monopoly that you see today is supported by the state either indirectly through patent laws, or directly through subsidies or regulation that give the monopoly a competitive advantage.
OP's point about cops being men and therefore as likely to be violent are flawed. Police officers are motivated by salaries which are paid by governing bodies. You can't simply discount violence. That's absurd.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote: OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription.
Do you honestly believe I said that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because IT was a peaceful ancap society? Of course not. I know you don't actually think that's what I said, so come on man. Forcing people to into armies and to forcing people to keep guns is not the only reason that people will have guns. I'm sure most people would keep guns voluntarily in an ancap society. So the same point still applies.
Of course not. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because its like invading afghanistan before 9/11. There was nothing there that Hitler wanted (basically, it wasn't on the road to anywhere and had no oil) and the mountains make it a pain in the ass to conquer and hold. I don't think people really appreciate how much of a difference terrain makes to the difficulty of holding a place after the standing army is defeated.
I'm just making the point and I believe it to be the correct one, that a "peaceful ancap society" has absolutely no chance against the army of a state (or quasi-state). The state can simply direct resources towards war much, much better than an ancap society and generally, if you will pardon the pun, better resourced armies win.
As a result, ancap cannot exist as anything other than a transitory period between one state and another.
On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote: OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
I did not agree to it. Did you?
You did, by not renouncing your citizenship and emigrating when you reached age of majority.
I didn't say they won't. I said you don't know that they will. They will tend to buy those services that best satisfy their ends. Not I nor you can tell what the specifics are, without background or context, and without the government in reality allowing such a thing to occur. We'll only know for sure how it works when it's go-time. I'm presenting you ideas on how it could work, but it is not my obligation to predict how it will, nor even that it will "work" in some arbitrary standard. The slave didn't have to show the whitey where would he be working at to be freed. The founding father didn't have to tell everyone how a minarchy would work as opposed to a monarchy. No, the first step is to recognize what now exists is coercion. It doesn't matter what is done next, if you know that what's going on now is absolutely wrong and subpar to what people themselves want to do.
In fact, if I could show to you every single answer, it would be more of an argument in favor of a flavor of statism, as I the ultimate central planner, was able to devise the exact plans in which society can best be ran. The truth of the matter is that I don't, the central planners don't either. The ones who know best is Everyone, free to chase their own ends. And it just so happens that humans are empathetic enough to cooperate without the need of coercion. It is unnecessary at this point; and that's my point.
Yes, I do know they will, because human history has shown people with common interests settle together in EVERY SINGLE TIME WITH EXCEPTION.
Can you find a reason why this precedent would stop in ancap?
You don't know that they inevitably conflict, as for the rest, so what?
By conflict I don't mean (necessarily) physical confrontation. By conflict I mean that these values are inherently going to be incompatible with each other.
Strawman, and again, lack of perspective. Even with different laws, people can still respect each other to the degree that conflict is unnecessary. You have your house and I have mine, as long as you leave me alone, what evil can you do to me? You talk like different people living to each other necessarily makes them incompatible and want to force one another to do things. That's ridiculous, be more specific on the incentives there are for one to do so, and we can actually debate something useful like arbitrage, property contracts, dispute resolutions, etc.
All I'm saying is if you have 12 houses on a block, and their are two sets of drastically different governing rules on each, 6 for one and 6 for the other, humans would inherently gravitate towards each side of the block having one rules. On a large scale this leads to the formation of states within an ancap.
Also the lack of perspective again, is not comparing your scenario in a statist world vis-a-vis. What's there stopping people wanting to kill one another in the state? Public Police? Laws? And why do you feel those things don't exist in ancap...?
Thats not what I'm saying at all lol.
[quite] Dissidents are marginalized. Okay. What kind of dissidents do you picture in ancap, as opposed to statism? Tax avoiders? well, there are no taxes in ancap, so that's one less. Black marketeers? no such thing in the free market. Drug dealers and users? drugs aren't illegal as much as rat poison isn't. Victimless crime offenders? there is no dispute to settle in a victimless crime, so no crime is committed. Prostitutes and pimps? Consensual sex isn't illegal.
So I say, if you're worried about people being picked at by PDAs, I'd say you should be more worried about the people that are unjustly jailed TODAY all over the world. If you wanted to be any consistent that is. If you just want to cling to your believes and arguments from ignorance, then that's fine too, but at least be honest that you have no clue.
Except laws DO exist in an Ancap. They're just private. I mean, ok, you can call them "rules" if you want, but they're functionally just private applied sets of laws. And as private property holders organize and make macrostates or microstates, certain common values are going to marginalize people who do not hold them.
You seemed to have missed the gist of my argument.
When you put two groups of people with opposing values together...they may not fight...they may not physically conflict. But you can bet that these people will self segregate so they hang with people with similar values. On a large scale, this is what makes communities, and eventually, this is what makes states.
For example.
Your not going to have cities where you have 6 "no Muslim" properties interspersed within 6 "muslim allowed" properties. No, these six properties will be close to each other. Maybe not with no exception, there are always anomalies, but in a city of millions, people with common values will seek to cooperate with each other.
@Divide
Why would there be a block with an explicit murder and rape allowed rule. And if it there were for some strange reason, would people not defend themselves from murder and rape regardless of some stupid, arbitrary nonsense rule?
It was just an example, not entirely serious. The point is people would have social pressures to make their laws vaguely conform. Which some would take as why the system would work, but thats just the thing, the "system working" is indistinguishable from a libertarian government with ez immigration laws.
Yes. 10 security companies enforcing 10 different sets of arbitrary bullshit laws on one block would be chaos. But why would this happen?
Thats my entire point. IT WON'T HAPPEN, because it would be a shit place to live and these 10 people would find sub communities with people with similar laws/values.
Ok, but that's not a bunch of little states. A state has the supposed authority to initiate force in a given geographical area (in order to supposedly solve social problems like rape).
Huh? So would these substates. As people with common interests will stick together, you get vast patches of land with unilateral law.
Defensive force is not the initiation of coercion; it is a response to it. So therefore security companies are not states.
um...ok. So you're saying they cannot wage war? Yes they can. Now that we have substates revolving around a single security corporation and common interests, whats to stop us from paying our security companies to say, "overtextend their boundaries" into another areas jurisdiction? And sure, they can fight back, but that by definition, is war.
Cooperation being a euphemism for violence? Cooperation to me conjures up images of peaceful people working together, where as apparently you think human slaves being beaten to build pyramids constitutes cooperation too.
By definition, it is. I understand that sentimentally, you don't like that, and I agree, its "wrong", but it still a form of cooperation.
And its not the only form of cooperation fyi.
Your boss tells you what to do. You have little say in following that order.
Would states emerge if there is an inter-subjective consensus that it is not legitimate to initiate coercion in any circumstance?
Yes, because not everyone shares the same definition of coercion. Is it coercion if its voluntary? It still is voluntary. Its "If you want to use these advantages WE have built for you, with tax money, YOU pay us tax, otherwise, gtfo". Nobody is going to bother you for tax money in a random island in the middle of the pacific, or in a forest somewhere.
Defensive agencies are no longer defensive agencies if they subsidise rape (or collect taxes to fund themselves), and even then they wouldn't necessarily be states because people wouldn't automatically think they have any legitimacy to do that. But there wouldn't be fucking neighbourhoods where rape is deemed ok, and other neighbourhoods where rape is not. That's just retarded. We're talking about defence agencies, not aggressive rape agencies.
Once again I'm using extremes. We could use non-extremes like where "religion isn't ok", etc.
On August 29 2010 23:02 leve15 wrote: Private courts, man. LOL
But do I go to my court or your court?
On August 29 2010 21:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: capitalism is doomed to failure because capitalism requires continual growth yet there is a set amount of resources on earth
Which just means capitalism encourages humans to get the fuck off this rock.
Good plan imo.
On August 29 2010 16:21 leve15 wrote:
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
Armchair economists are hilarious. Go outside. Meet people. And maybe then you'll understand for yourself why Anarcho-capitalism doesn't work.
On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote: because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
Market institutions follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. People trying to act in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones, and voluntarily associating with others that are trying to do the same, are usually able to create a decently attractive society. The reason for that has to do with supply and demand, price theory, and all kinds of mechanisms that get people to act efficiently.
the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government)
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
why anarcho-capitalism does not work
...
However, I don't think it's true that the government necessarily produces an attractive result. Government institutions, just like market institutions, follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. A government institution might completely waste a part of its budget that it doesn't need, because it worries that if it doesn't spend all of its budget, it won't get as much money next year, when it does need it. This is one of the reasons government spending rarely, if ever, shrinks, and instead increases every year.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
There is a bigger problem with democracy. Even if governments were to efficiently act out the preferences expressed by the majority through their votes, people might not vote in their best interest. My friends and colleagues generally do not spend much time and effort deciding their vote. They tend to vote for the most charismatic politician, or vote for the party they have been voting for all their lives. From what I can see, a completely insignificant percentage of people actually makes an in-depth decision weighing pros and cons of voting for various politicians.
You might say that this is not democracy's fault but a fault of the population. I think that's a cop-out. With perfect people, it doesn't matter if we choose anarcho-capitalism, government institutions, or whatever institutions. Perfect people will make perfect choices and we'll have a perfect society.
It is more useful trying to figure out WHY people don't put as much effort into their votes as they do into other decisions. I think it's because people have learned that who you vote for doesn't really matter. If you choose to buy a different house, or a different car, that decision has a lot of effect on your life. If you choose to vote democratic instead of republican, how much really improves for you? You are just one vote out of millions.
that the voter base in many democracies is becoming near-apathetic in regard to politics is in my opinion (and as you point out) due to the fact that their vote counts for so little in the mass of votes. you see much more involvement from voters in smaller population countries (like my own) while you see disinterest in larger countries (like the US) and this is a known problem I think. in the states they have tried to solve it by dividing the country into smaller states, the only problem with this is that the purpouse of these states seems to have been denied as the federal government piece by piece has claimed greater and greater power, making the state-elections uninteresting to the voters (media and press also has blame in this; they hype presidential elections to bolster national identity and patriotism/pride while drawing attention away form the elctions that have most impact on the individual voter)
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote: the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government)
In anarcho-capitalism, multiple, competing private private agencies negotiate law amongst themselves. It's unreasonable to think that an agency stealing from its customers (as the Mafia does) would have very many customers: those it had would soon flee to other protection agencies, which would not allow the thieves to continue. The protection agencies will compete on how well they protect you, price, and the deals they have negotiated with other protection agencies. The last one is important because that's effectively the law you live under.
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
That's like saying a baker has it in his best interest for people to be hungry, so he will make bread that doesn't feed people properly. It doesn't work that way in the market for food, and there is no reason to expect things to work that way in the market for protection. Competition will make protection agencies offer high quality protection or make them lose their customers to agencies that do.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
that the voter base in many democracies is becoming near-apathetic in regard to politics is in my opinion (and as you point out) due to the fact that their vote counts for so little in the mass of votes. you see much more involvement from voters in smaller population countries (like my own) while you see disinterest in larger countries (like the US) and this is a known problem I think. in the states they have tried to solve it by dividing the country into smaller states, the only problem with this is that the purpouse of these states seems to have been denied as the federal government piece by piece has claimed greater and greater power, making the state-elections uninteresting to the voters (media and press also has blame in this; they hype presidential elections to bolster national identity and patriotism/pride while drawing attention away form the elctions that have most impact on the individual voter)
Agreed. There is hardly any nation with a small enough population for democracy to work well, though. The closest you can get is "less bad".
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote: the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government)
In anarcho-capitalism, multiple, competing private private agencies negotiate law amongst themselves. It's unreasonable to think that an agency stealing from its customers (as the Mafia does) would have very many customers: those it had would soon flee to other protection agencies, which would not allow the thieves to continue. The protection agencies will compete on how well they protect you, price, and the deals they have negotiated with other protection agencies. The last one is important because that's effectively the law you live under.
if this were true, how do you explain the existance of maffias? obviously the maffia would not conduct itself in a way that short-circuits it's operation, that would be defeating the purpose of forming the crime syndicate in the first place...
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
That's like saying a baker has it in his best interest for people to be hungry, so he will make bread that doesn't feed people properly. It doesn't work that way in the market for food, and there is no reason to expect things to work that way in the market for protection. Competition will make protection agencies offer high quality protection or make them lose their customers to agencies that do.
the difference being the service delivered, a corrupt police that is already in place would obviously not allow another organization to form and compete with them, this applies to the first point aswell; you can't have matters of security and healthcare be solved by the free market principles because if there is ever an imbalance there is no mechanism to self-correct the market. the only reason this model works in respect to security firms today is because there are governmental bodies keeping track of them to make sure they behave, in short there is always a more powerful entity that can beat them down if they misbehave that is under the will of the representatives of the people.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd.
Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point.
lol wow. Do you understand any philosophy whatsoever? Just because you're hardcore individualist doesn't mean you have to ignore the very existence of collectivism or anything outside of your atomistic world.
Right now your argument for anarcho-capitalism is like arguing that a 6-pool zergling build is optimal economic behaviour, when it is clearly not. Sure it is "possible", but it's not exactly smart, efficient, or equitable.
By your own stupidity, we would all be studying physics instead of chemistry, biology, computer science, or anything of "higher order", because you think everything can be broken down into the lowest denomination of "individuals".
Your worship of individualism is short-sighted, and your personal insults only show how emotional you get on this subject matter, detracting from your already weak rational arguments to begin with.
See my other thread where I tried to refute collectivism. Most people realized there isn't such a thing as a "common good", because only individuals can feel "good". Collectivism is a misnomer for what the individual expects from and to others. http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=121813
This of course ties in with the idea that no single central planning entity can ever be as efficient as multiple, independent acting entities, even with all the power in the world.
Also, on starcraft analogies, I can't think of a way to represent the calculation problem, but it would be like someone trying to win without looking at the resource count. The statist could have all the money in the world, but he doesn't know how much he can or should tax because he doesn't react to market demand; he doesn't know how many real resources there are because he ignores the price mechanisms, and his money may run out before he starts a big project; his money may be stockpilling, what's otherwise just another form of misuse (unless the saving has an intent; but the state never saves anyway so... yeah). In any case, it's a weak analogy because it's by the time the capital is extorted that it becomes misused; everything else is secondary and can't give back to the extorted exactly that which he would have bought or done with it. Coercion is irrevesible, even if it can be restitution (which almost never is. Lol@tax returns. "I stole thousands of dollars from you. Here, have a few hundred back. I'm so nice!")
Anyway, your particular example of 6 pool would be best represented not by the thousands of entrepreneurs attempting their own builds and strategies - those are more akin to the thousands of players figuring out optimal ways to solve a problem - the opponent's build and strategy. The one-size-fits-all-build-that-I-try-every-time, is very very more analogous to the monopolistic central planner. It takes great dishonesty in your part to switch sides, like the central planner is the smart guy who is diverse and openly competes with everyone, and the entrepreneur is the old timer, stale dumbass who would only 6 pool every game. No sir, the state is exactly the one who does the same thing every game: Coercion. That's all. That's his build. He coerces to stay in power; coerces to collect funds; coerces to regulate people's business; coerces to give his friends subsidies and monopolies; coerces to destroy his enemies, including non-lobbying companies if the lobbyists pay him enough; coerces the world and back. That is his only build.
Your worship of collective coercion is short-sighted, I can see both the forest for the trees, and the trees for the forest. You my friend, only sees a blob of green. And I was mad yesterday. Spending hours after midnight trying to knock some sense into collectivists-that-disregard-even-themselves-yet-not-quite-because-they're-still-individuals and anti-monopolists-yet-not-anti-biggest-monopoly-of-all? It gets to you.
On August 29 2010 18:01 ZERG_RUSSIAN wrote: I mean really the argument here isn't that it can't work but that it would suck if it did work. You're acting like all of these cheap goods and services come without having a bunch of slaves whose lives suck balls.
Cheap goods and services are better for everyone. Higher-than-market wages only benefit the laborer of a product or service at the cost of every consumer. Cheaper goods and services signal better efficiency, less cost-per-unit, and higher standards of living. Higher wages mean higher costs-per-product.
You've seen the worker side of the story, now, how about you consider every other side, and what happens to every other entity in the market? When the worker works for less or more, what's happening? When the entrepreneur sells for less or more, what's happening? When the consumer buys for less or more, what's happening? Think a little.
When the government raises barriers of entry, what's happening? When the government punishes entrepreneurship, what's happening? When the government prohibits lower-than-x-rate wages, what's happening? Think some more.
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
Who prevents the company? Well, how about the people down the river who are being killed for a start? Would they not want to protect themselves from being killed? How about the people up the river who have even a small amount of empathy for their fellow man, and who therefore wouldn't even buy the product from the evil killing company in the first place? You said it yourself, this is just an extreme scare scenario and has little basis in reality.
Because the people don't have money to move, and everyone else in the world doesn't care, and still buys the product.Consumers up the river don't care, because they don't know (imperfect information). Politicians don't care, because the company can buy them out.
You ask more questions than you give solutions, which is exactly the problem with anarcho-capitalism. People aren't going to boycott corporate bad behaviour, because people aren't aware about the problems, don't care about them, and want someone else will fix it. That's why we there's always government to clean up after corporate messes, like the BP oil spill in New Orleans. Imagine if there were no laws in place to require them to clean up their own mess. Do you think BP would willingly give up their own money if they weren't forced to for the environment?
Complete ignorance of catallactics. Don't act like you have a better solution when you don't. Yes, it may be that they were in horrible conditions of living, can't move, and are fighting every other day for food. But the reason why they take shitty jobs it's because it's BETTER for them, PERIOD. If it weren't for the employer OFFERING (NOT FORCING) them a job, they'd be back to their even more miserable lives. If someone makes the choice of working for someone, it's NOT exploitation, it CANT be. It can only be exploitation in the case of fraud, arguably invalid contracts, or threat of violence toward the employee. Which, if any of those happen, then the employer is obviously in the wrong. But that DOESNT happen because usually it's not WORTH the backslash that may come from doing such a thing. And there are plenty of subsistence people out there that they do want to work for less. They WANT to be given the chance to accumulate capital through harsh times, just like the US and Europe did. Thankfully when the government started involving then, it had been quite a few decades of hard work and increased standards of living already.
The statist solution is to DISMANTLE those factories and sweatshops. Completely denying those people the VOLUNTARY OPPORTUNITY TO WORK IF THEY CHOSE TO. What happens then? They go back to subsistence farming, parents sell their children to child rape rings. Sure that's better, better a child getting raped all over the world than working at a factory. The state knows what's best, and only steals and denies us stuff for our own good. God bless regulations.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
Okay also under anarcho-capitalism unchecked human nature is a lot worse than under, say, a representative democracy.
See OP. There are man in the state, and there are sociopaths in the state as well. The state is like fire to the moth, power to those who want it. All they have to do is run a successful campaign, boom, they're in. As much valiant as the efforts of minarchism are, it still fails when sociopaths manage their way in, calculation problems and inefficiencies aside even.
Sure. Let's go with externalities. Say a company can turn a tremendous profit making a product, but at the price of everyone in a small town downriver from the company being killed by the pollution the manufacture of the product causes. In a society with no government, who stops this company from killing all the people downriver? Obviously this is an extreme example, but it illustrates the basic problem with not having a government to control somewhat for externalities.
And this is just one example from that long list of other problems.
Who prevents the company? Well, how about the people down the river who are being killed for a start? Would they not want to protect themselves from being killed? How about the people up the river who have even a small amount of empathy for their fellow man, and who therefore wouldn't even buy the product from the evil killing company in the first place? You said it yourself, this is just an extreme scare scenario and has little basis in reality.
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own. As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Give me examples, and I'll see if the state helped, not stopped them, which is usually the case.
People don't understand that the state is the greatest producer of externalities. You want to drill some oil in the middle east? Don't have enough money to contract private militia? No problem, lobby the government at a few million, and you got a million dead Iraqi.
It is far far cheaper to use the apparatus of power in place, subsidized by the taxpayer, and the go-to-place for all the power of the land, than building your own army and getting dirty yourself.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
Right, because mom-and-pop shops can compete with Walmart, even if Walmart forces suppliers to sell them at the lowest possible price by the bulk and puts all the other stores in the city out of business!
These mom-and-pop shops just need to be more entrepreneurial, but right now they're just too stupid and can't ever be capitalist enough to compete with Walmart. And if people keep buying from Walmart, it's clearly because Walmart is so innovative and efficient, not big bullies!!! They're not abusing subsidies and cheap Chinese exports and unequal contracts at all!!!
Mom-and-pops can't compete with walmart for a simple reason: they're less efficient. Consumers GENERALLY want low prices - efficiency, and even if they DIDN'T, they could still go to mom-and-pops and buy there. MOM-AND-POPS ARENT ENTITLED TO THE CUSTOMER. The customer chooses which businesses are the successful ones. EXTERNALITIES INCLUDED.
Now for the STATE, THERE you have the best example you can get of UNFAIR, COERCIVE competition. How about you be consistent for once and criticize them for once, huh?
God damnit, people complain about voluntary aspects of the economy, but take it in the ass any day for the state. So... sad.
And of COURSE, if walmart takes subsidies and supports from ANY government, I'M AGAINST IT. And you know I'm against it. Don't act like I'm not. You're the one more prone to be in favor of it. "The government is the people", isn't it right? NO IT AINT. >
Russians didn't become communists because they're lazy, they became communists because living in Russia is hard, and they had to rely on each other for survival.
Why would living in Russia be so difficult compared to anywhere else? And why does that give legitimacy to initiate violence against peaceful people?
Through hardship, a selfish attitude yields little sympathy. And through prosperity, selfish attitudes are born.
So ancap is being selfish, I take it? Ok, but that's not really an argument and therefore not particularly compelling. Any reasoning?
Every country cannot be as developed as the west. There aren't enough resources. I was making a satirical point that these anarcho-capitalist ideas seem to stem from upper-middle class white people who don't take a second to think about other people. How's AC working out in Somalia? Why don't developing nations try it out? Because it's impossible is why.
Well, in Russia 1/8 of the soil is usable for growing crops. When the weather permits. (Maybe you've read the news this summer... if you haven't, the outlook for this year's harvest is.. bad) Also, maybe you've you heard of the Russian winter? Famine occurs every 10 years in Russia. They're nearly landlocked as well, which in history was more detrimental than it is today.. Must I continue?
Ancap is selfish. If you really believe you've earned your lifestyle of sitting behind a computer and working a safe and easy job or going to school, or whatever it is you do in peace, then you are selfish. The world didn't start in 1980-something, it's been spinning long before you were here.
How do countries develop? How did the west develop? Was it by coercion, or voluntary activity? Think. Hard.
Somalia has been a hellhole and only recently became an-cap. They have a completely different culture, one not so individualistic at that. You're born into a family, and the family basically arbitrates disputes with other families in your place. It's not completely free, I would call it more of a panarchy or IDK. Not quite what I advocate, nor is it proper to say that "they suck hur dur" when they've only gotten rid of the state a few decades ago; plus there's still statist warlords trying to submit people back into their reign (as opposed to decentralized families' reigns, which is still better for the purposes of capital accumulation as there is more competition amongst them, but I still don't advocate it, being a born-into system). Don't compare apples and oranges.
I suspect people don't try it because there's statist everywhere using tradition fallacies and arguments from ignorance. Much like there were theocracies everywhere because everyone thought it was the best thing since breakfast. It's an information problem, and it will be resolved sooner or later. Later if you don't help of course. MY THEORY.
Of course the world didn't start in 1980, and I'm not the one acting like it did. But I'm no empiricist so I'd rather not claim whether I "understand history better", even though I will try to reject perspectives that go completely opposite to catallactics, praxeology. Because they're demonstrably dumb.
On August 29 2010 18:27 vetinari wrote: Anarcho-capitalism won't work, because I will use my money to take over the world and slaughter everyone in my way.
And if you band together to stop me, congratulations. You just formed a government.
Not really. Defense is a private resource. Not unlike bread. Just because the government monopolizes great part of it, doesn't mean it can't be privately administered. Like bread.
On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism.
Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
If the state were to wither away, what would you propose be done about existing unjust ownership? i.e. the kind of ownership the that comes about through partnering or colluding with the state?
Does Lockheed Martin just get to keep the massive amounts of wealth accumulated at the expense of others through cooperation with governments?
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
I like how all the things you blamed on government are things the private sector would do worse on, or are responsible for.
Next Bear Stearns, please!
EDIT: Hey guys, corporations are people too! Please vote for this company into Congress
Again, I'm no empiricist, but the case is made by other empiricist austrians that the failure of finance firms was not entirely their fault, but the housing bubble's that the FED helped create after the .com bubble. Obviously if the government forces everyone to lower the PRICE OF TIME, aka interest rates, the future seems much more prosper, and people invest in things that wouldn't be invested. It twists the stages of production both in the direction of consumption, because consumers do take loans too, and long term investment (and I say long term, because I consider any spending to be investment, but that's confusing so I should just call it investment yeah), which is unsustainable; there either won't be enough consumption to account for the many more products delivered in the future, or there won't be future products because of the overconsumption today.
What interventionists don't understand is that prices mean something. If a coal mine collapses, coal prices go up. It would be retarded for the government to artificially lower the price of coal, as that would cause coal to deplete. Kind of the same deal with interest rates. They mean something - the availability of savings in the market. Not only do banks already fiddle with that through fractional reserve banking, and using savings accounts and time deposits intermittently for loaning out, but with a lower than 1% fixed interest rate, the banks basically get money for free. Then you add in regulations that could give anyone with a job a "free house" (because equity was expected to go up up up), then you have the perfect recipe, coercively made, for a bubble that is doomed to pop someday (four years later this time.)
For more, google austrian view on housing bubble or something like that. or austrian business cycle theory.
On August 29 2010 18:28 Yurebis wrote: Aw fuck it I'm going to sleep. I might as well have opened a thread on monopoly first because people seem to be so indoctrinated on the idea that "monopoly bad", and can't elaborate any more than that... "collusion... uhhh.... price fixing..." Yeah, so what? you price fix your own labor too. Unions collude with members to price fix labor. That's all swell right? Even worse; a scab comes along, and you think the union is justified in using gov't to stop them. Ridiculous double standards. Corporations are evil for colluding, but unions aren't. Corporations are evil for using coercion, unions aren't. I know no one specifically said unions are fine, and it may be a strawman, but seeing that they readily accept the mainstream idea that "monopolies bad", whoever claim such nonsense probably defends that "union backed by government good", without noticing it's the exact type of collusion they're against when it comes to companies. Such hypocrisy.
Wow you are such a modern-day Tea Party caricature.
companies = good individuals = good unions = bad communities = bad government = bad
In case you didn't know, in the framework of anarcho-capitalism, there is literally no difference between a union and a corporation. Organized labour = organized capital
You obviously didn't get my point. I'm the consistent one. I'm against coercion period. However usually the people who are against "monopolies" are not only hypocritical that they're fine with the biggest coercive monopoly of coercion (lol), but they're fine with unions using coercion to stop competitors. They're blind to "monopolies" using government to raise barriers of entry, and that much I understand, it's not something quite talked about. But unions using government is an obvious obvious contradiction with the idea that "monopolies" are always bad.
I don't care about unions as long as they don't coerce, by proxy in the case of union-related regulations. Unions are usually silly though, because (just like an oligopoly) the individuals (or companies) that could cheat on the group to profit under the table on more efficient sales, have a huge incentive to do so, and so the collusion goes broke. Collusions can only happen when companies are already selling at a close rate, or close to the market equilibrium rate, in which case, it's not really collusion, just an average, relatively stale market. Can you do better? Then enter it. A market being stale is no reason to regulate it. It's as innovative as entrepreneurs can figure out, as innovative as consumers demand...
Regulations can only hurt the relation between entrepreneur and consumer, it never helps... and if it did help, it's not really help, as it's something they'd do anyway, and adds bureaucratic costs on top.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
Evidence that government contributes to market inefficiency does not mean that it is worse than a purely free market. Sure, the government creates its fair share of market inefficiencies. The point is that the government can fix all of those problems I listed much more efficiently and easily than the free market can. If the free market is so perfect, why were things like collusion and externalities a much bigger problem during the gilded age when there were far less laws regulating business? Why were workers essentially enslaved to their employers? Do you really think that the market back then was so much more efficient without all the regulation we have now preventing these problems?
Certainly not, and as I said, I'm no empiricist, because deeply into empiricism, lies a-priori motives to reject or accept the theories anyway. That is why I prefer talking a-priori. If there's any agreement with a set of premises, something can always be built. The problem is with the people that have absurd premises like "man is stupid so it needs another man to rule it", or "man has incomplete knowledge so it needs another man with even more incomplete knowledge to rule it". I mean... such failure... at least argue something that makes sense. I'd prefer an appeal to tradition anytime TBH. Or empiricist claims...
The government can't fix your problems without creating more, because for anything the government does, it is already being paid for by coercive measures. It's not a solution. It's like saying, "I can make your pain go away by killing you", or "I can make your sadness go away by giving you this pill that inhibits all emotions". There's always more externalities when the government interrupts a natural process. It's always better if you don't shoot people. I hope you don't disagree.
I've addressed collusion repeatedly, and externalities too. Guilded age...? Lol, I wikipedia'd it and it says "n American history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States" LOL empiricist fail? Workers can't logically be said to be enslaved if they chose to work for the employer he chose; it means he values that work better than any other work available to him at the time. Not something bad at all. Catallactics please.
The market back them was as efficient as people could manage it to be. I'm sure of that. You ask if it's more efficient than it could have been if the magical all-knowing central planner had even better ideas and forced people into complying for their own good? Well, I don't believe in miracles, so no.
On August 29 2010 19:10 alexanderzero wrote: This point has probably been made already, but anarchy can't really exist for long. People will eventually realize that by banding together to gain power they will be more benefited, and groups of people will form and exert control over others.
Anarchy as a transition, yes. Anarchism as an understanding of economics, no. People have been born into a system where all they know is that they have a ruler, and that's how it's always been. It's not unnatural for those same people to band and form a new ruling class once the previous has fallen. Yet that's not the same type of transition that would happen if an-cap were to rise. It has to come from an understanding that: the need for a product or service by the part of others to youself, is not enough of a reason to coerce them to pay you or work for you. Voluntarism > coercion. Aaand private property. Which usually isn't understood too well in history either.
On August 29 2010 19:20 vetinari wrote: edit: @dvide
You are just missing one thing: a voluntarily funded defensive organisation will lose.
Because I am taxing the population of my territories, I have the funding to have a larger, better equipped and better trained army than any volunteer army.
The only way to win is to have a better army and the only way to do that is to coerce your people into supporting the army. This is also called "taxation" and "conscription".
This is a decent argument. And you may win; Even with superior market efficiency, a foreign state could be more efficacious by drawing from a much larger pool of slaves, er, taxpayers.
But then what has the statist to gain? Will he just kill everyone? Well, not much to gain from that, apart from natural resources that he could have spent much less than billions of dollars invading them for. Well, t's a possibility, the state is stupid anyway, but a bit unlikely. Will they expropriate all the ancaps capital, and bring it back to his state? Okay, but that's quite a short term thought. The ancaps are going to be pissed and retaliation is possible. Will they enslave the ancaps and become their new state? Well, seeing that the ancaps must have overthrown the previous government, I think they would be much smarter than allow a state back; there would be constant terrorism and retaliation against the occupancy, costing the statist proportionally as much as it costs the US to stay in Iraq, if not more, because Iraq doesn't rebel for nearly as big of a reason as fighting coercion period; they fight the coercion they don't like, but don't mind coercion that much. They were ruled by a dictator after all. Not downplaying Iraqis, but just trying to compare. Anyway, ancap would turn into a quagmire, and at worst, just return back to a state.
Then, I feel that there aren't enough profits to be done for the statist to invade ancap apart from perhaps taking over natural resources and creating artificial scarcity over it (similar as it was done to Iraq - the oil isn't being extracted, wells were destroyed, oil was burnt, still are? I don't know. But point is, prices of oil go up, and they eliminated competitors. Well, from all my talk of collusion and barriers of entry, you should understand what happens when you kill off the competition, that is literally, kill the competition.)
Would be very circumstantial and unlikely, and if you want to elaborate what better incentives a statist might have do so.
Even then; the worst that happens is ancap going back to statism, which isn't that that that bad. It's bad, but yeah.
On August 29 2010 15:24 Thereisnosaurus wrote: TL,DR: works in theory, if certain assumptions are made, and there are definite ways to reach a place where they can be made, but at this time, in this environment, any attempt to switch to an AC system would fail to improve anything, if not make things worse.
Methodological individualism is an incredibly terrible assumption because people aren't even born that way. Such an assumption literally ignores all the empirical evidence in social science for the sake of philosophy.
Okay, now shit just got personal. Are you serious? Really? The individual's preferences and actions are irrelevant for you? All it matters is macro? And I'm the one who's assuming too much? I think you're the one completely abstracting a concept that you don't understand at it's most basic levels. You're trying to tell how planets will behave in a solar system without understanding how the atom behaves. Trying to build a house with no bricks. Trying to tell what a forest without the trees. Aaaaabsurd.
Meh I really don't care what you say anymore, and you don't care what I say. Can you shut up or do I have to shut up first? I really don't care at this point.
Right now your argument for anarcho-capitalism is like arguing that a 6-pool zergling build is optimal economic behaviour, when it is clearly not. Sure it is "possible", but it's not exactly smart, efficient, or equitable.
It's totally more like team-melee.
More like team-melee, 7v1 against the statist. Except the statist uses cheat codes. And hacks people's computers to make their mice not work, screens turn off.
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose?
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
I don't know what's up in those cases. I will investigate with my leet google and mises searching skills. But a few questions arise. 1-Who owns the diamond mines, 2- who owns the ivory coast, 3- who owns the 'people working in the foxconn fact.' and do you mean they suicided or "got suicided"? In the former, what's wrong with that, in the latter, wow what really? I'm using a foxconn motherboard right now, so cheap LOL
On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote: because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
Oh, so there are more apples in government than in the whole society? I did not know that! thanks for the... ooooh you just wait right there. You tried to fool me huh? Saying that the government has less people in it... haaaahahaha, good one. Almost got me.
On August 29 2010 17:23 DrainX wrote: Pure capitalism is a joke. It only leads to corruption, monopolies and stagnation. The biggest obstacle for peoples freedom and prosperity are large corporations, not government. Anarcho-capitalism would just take the power that is now in the hands of a somewhat accountable government and place it in the hands of Coprorations that are in no way accountable.
It wouldn't really be Anarchism since we would still have leaders except now they were leaders of our large corporations. When monopolies are formed then there is no chance at all for us to vote for them. Before they have been formed our only chance to change who are in control of us is in how we use our money. i.e. the rich have more votes. The media would still be owned by the same corporations that we are voting for and the average Joe wouldn't have time to understand all the issues with all the corporations in the world. He would just buy what is cheapest for him.
The majority would be driven into poverty and would essentially be wage-slave-labor for the upper class. Society would slowly drift towards something closer to an absolute dictatorship than anything else. The economy would crumble and crime, poverty, income inequality and bad health would skyrocket
Well I think you could learn a bit about monopolies, but I'm so tired of debating that point already... Just... try to picture how monopolies arise, and what keeps a new one from arising to compete with it. There's nothing. Unless the state raises barriers of entry, or imprisons anyone trying to compete, the monopoly isn't really a monopoly. As soon as it raises prices to any considerable degree, it becomes second best to any entrepreneur that can come in and undercut it. Either what the monopoly does is so efficient and inovative that it doesn't matter how much it charges - it deserves it. An inventor is a monopolist of his invention, does it mean he has an obligation to sell it for cheap? No, he sells it for whatever price he wants, and he has full rights to. If he did not have such rights, then no invention would be made that he can't profit off (at least the first batch yo). Or then if what it does it so trivial, anyone can come in and compete with it. In the former, you can't blame it, in the latter, you can overcome it. Non-coercive monopolies are a non-issue...
Government is the greatest monop... aw fuck it why do I care
Right, because mom-and-pop shops can compete with Walmart, even if Walmart forces suppliers to sell them at the lowest possible price by the bulk and puts all the other stores in the city out of business!
These mom-and-pop shops just need to be more entrepreneurial, but right now they're just too stupid and can't ever be capitalist enough to compete with Walmart. And if people keep buying from Walmart, it's clearly because Walmart is so innovative and efficient, not big bullies!!! They're not abusing subsidies and cheap Chinese exports and unequal contracts at all!!!
Seriously, just look at Rockefeller for an example of how to drive all competition into the ground and not let anyone get a leg up because you control every possible means of getting a leg up in the business. People don't give enough credit to the effects of volume and size in a free market. Walmart can afford to take a loss in some areas in order to come up ahead in other areas. Smaller businesses don't have that luxury.
Rockefeller was an excellent businessman that built his empire by introducing efficient business methods into the oil industry. So long as a monopoly is producing more for less, we don't mind!
Rockefeller did try to cut prices to force out competitors, and soon learned that a big monopoly that cuts prices below the market level is losing money 100 times as fast as the competitor he's trying to force out.
I don't understand what people's deal is. Complaining that rich guys are selling stuff at a loss, below market price? Really? What's next, you're going to complain that people donate money to charity too? Such a disregard for property rights...
On August 29 2010 21:20 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: capitalism is doomed to failure because capitalism requires continual growth yet there is a set amount of resources on earth
Capitalism doesn't require continual growth, it is driven by profit, at which case there exists concepts such as diseconomies of scale and marginal utility that limit how much one can profit from producing too much.
In the case of monetary policy, ancap suffers no problem, as it isn't bound to any one policy; money is free, people will choose which banks to trust and which policy is best for them. It is likely time deposits and demand deposits would be much more transparent, and fractional reserve banking inexistant as it is a contract breach due to the promise of immediate withdraw anytime by the bank. Unless it's a time deposit, in which case you should be fine with it.
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose?
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
I don't know what's up in those cases. I will investigate with my leet google and mises searching skills. But a few questions arise. 1-Who owns the diamond mines, 2- who owns the ivory coast, 3- who owns the 'people working in the foxconn fact.' and do you mean they suicided or "got suicided"? In the former, what's wrong with that, in the latter, wow what really? I'm using a foxconn motherboard right now, so cheap LOL
Hint: it's not the government that owns Foxconn or blood diamonds
It's those capitalists that you love in the name of your bullshit Austrian "theory" pseudoscience with things like "praxeology".
I love how Yurebis finds nothing wrong with buying things like blood diamonds. I hope in your next life that you're born into a poor Sub-Saharan African family that's starving and continue talking about "bootstraps."
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription.
Do you honestly believe I said that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because IT was a peaceful ancap society? Of course not. I know you don't actually think that's what I said, so come on man. Forcing people to into armies and to forcing people to keep guns is not the only reason that people will have guns. I'm sure most people would keep guns voluntarily in an ancap society. So the same point still applies.
Well thanks for that, saves me the trouble of writing half a dozen paragraphs myself
On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote: because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
On August 29 2010 22:35 makopluxx wrote: OP's point about cops being men and therefore as likely to be violent are flawed. Police officers are motivated by salaries which are paid by governing bodies. You can't simply discount violence. That's absurd.
I didn't say they're likely. I didn't even say they are more likely (even though I could say it, np), I said that whatever argument that is made against man in general, is just as applicable to men in the state. So human nature is violent -> therefore we can't have ancap, applies just as equally to human nature is violent -> therefore we can't give absolute power to a few men
Ancap solves the "who watches the watchmen" by giving everyone an equal opportunity of solving that issue to the best of their ability. If the current watchmen can't be trusted, they can be replaced immediately, or a third party hired immediately, as opposed to depending on a central planner to solve those issues. He cannot - solve as better as thousands of others. And even if he could, I believe he should be contracted voluntarily, not coerce everyone into giving him money. If he's really good, then he'll be voluntarily and mutually accepted.
Meh I went a bit too far to answer such a short objection.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
There can be such a thing as market law, and there has been such a thing in the past. International trade laws, even from the middle ages. I've explained a bit on page 1 even though I didn't even cover the basics. Read this for an introduction http://mises.org/daily/4147
I believe that someone signing some document hundreds of years ago doesn't account for me accepting such system. I didn't sign the constitution, nor did you. The idea that someone could sign for you a document hundreds of years in the past, let alone that they're not even your direct relatives (probably), is laughable. I could sign a document here right now that says you have to give me $100. Is that a "social contract"
It's a joke of an excuse. It just goes on because people don't see it for what it is. It won't go on forever.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
On August 29 2010 22:35 makopluxx wrote: OP's point about cops being men and therefore as likely to be violent are flawed. Police officers are motivated by salaries which are paid by governing bodies. You can't simply discount violence. That's absurd.
I didn't say they're likely. I didn't even say they are more likely (even though I could say it, np), I said that whatever argument that is made against man in general, is just as applicable to men in the state. So human nature is violent -> therefore we can't have ancap, applies just as equally to human nature is violent -> therefore we can't give absolute power to a few men
Ancap solves the "who watches the watchmen" by giving everyone an equal opportunity of solving that issue to the best of their ability. If the current watchmen can't be trusted, they can be replaced immediately, or a third party hired immediately, as opposed to depending on a central planner to solve those issues. He cannot - solve as better as thousands of others. And even if he could, I believe he should be contracted voluntarily, not coerce everyone into giving him money. If he's really good, then he'll be voluntarily and mutually accepted.
Meh I went a bit too far to answer such a short objection.
And who watches the watchers of the watchmen? And the watchers of those ad infinitum?
(this is a central problem of anarcho-capitalism)
It becomes so inefficient to police that government arises simply from the utility of public goods -- this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan. He assumes methodological individualism but concludes that its in mutual self-interest to create government, because the alternative -- anarchy -- is not optimal behaviour, and economically costly.
The Swiss militia is funded by taxation and maintains its numbers via conscription.
Do you honestly believe I said that Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because IT was a peaceful ancap society? Of course not. I know you don't actually think that's what I said, so come on man. Forcing people to into armies and to forcing people to keep guns is not the only reason that people will have guns. I'm sure most people would keep guns voluntarily in an ancap society. So the same point still applies.
Of course not. Hitler didn't invade Switzerland because its like invading afghanistan before 9/11. There was nothing there that Hitler wanted (basically, it wasn't on the road to anywhere and had no oil) and the mountains make it a pain in the ass to conquer and hold. I don't think people really appreciate how much of a difference terrain makes to the difficulty of holding a place after the standing army is defeated.
I'm just making the point and I believe it to be the correct one, that a "peaceful ancap society" has absolutely no chance against the army of a state (or quasi-state). The state can simply direct resources towards war much, much better than an ancap society and generally, if you will pardon the pun, better resourced armies win.
As a result, ancap cannot exist as anything other than a transitory period between one state and another.
On August 29 2010 22:55 ghrur wrote: OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
I did not agree to it. Did you?
You did, by not renouncing your citizenship and emigrating when you reached age of majority.
Yeah, but remember, there is no such thing as a free lunch. The US can invade iraq easily too, but at what cost? It's expropriating additional billions of dollars, and again, Iraq wasn't even ancap, ancaps would be revolting and terrorizing the occupants much more. It would cost much more to maintain the quagmire than ancap would turn into. So the state has to oppress both his own servants and the colony, more than before. It's risky for himself too, I mean, he's fighting resistance twice as much. I think you overestimate the ability of the state to contain constant rebellion, not superfluous rebellion, but of the individualistic kind. Not the "I want my medicare!", but the "Get the fuck out, scum" kind.
Oh yeah, and by the same token, you renounce your wallet to the thug every weekend at that backalley when you don't move out of town? Nope. Coercion is coercion, stop giving excuses ty.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
There can be such a thing as market law, and there has been such a thing in the past. International trade laws, even from the middle ages. I've explained a bit on page 1 even though I didn't even cover the basics. Read this for an introduction http://mises.org/daily/4147
I believe that someone signing some document hundreds of years ago doesn't account for me accepting such system. I didn't sign the constitution, nor did you. The idea that someone could sign for you a document hundreds of years in the past, let alone that they're not even your direct relatives (probably), is laughable. I could sign a document here right now that says you have to give me $100. Is that a "social contract"
It's a joke of an excuse. It just goes on because people don't see it for what it is. It won't go on forever.
I think you should stop driving on the roads, using electricity, and using the internet because these are things that you did not "contract" to and a product of government "monopoly".
On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism.
Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
Anarchism is more than simply "no government."
Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism.
As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions.
"Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?"
By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism.
Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
Anarchism is more than simply "no government."
Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism.
As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions.
"Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?"
By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. I have respect for anarchists because their philosophical arguments are cogent.
Anarcho-capitalists are a bunch of babies that hate government, but think capitalism and big business are acceptable. They like to glorify entrepreneurship and how efficient capitalism is. In reality, both government and business are oppressive forces, and in many places, there is no difference between big business and government -- politicians are frequently bought out by the interests of the private sector.
Anarcho-capitalists like to view business and individualism as a solution to the oppressive government, when really, it ignores how organized "business" itself is a form of oppression. The very concept of a monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour is problematic for them, because they don't have any coherent explanations for it, other than 'monopolies are fine, they must be fine because that is why they are monopolies to begin with' or some other circular logic.
I didn't say they won't. I said you don't know that they will. They will tend to buy those services that best satisfy their ends. Not I nor you can tell what the specifics are, without background or context, and without the government in reality allowing such a thing to occur. We'll only know for sure how it works when it's go-time. I'm presenting you ideas on how it could work, but it is not my obligation to predict how it will, nor even that it will "work" in some arbitrary standard. The slave didn't have to show the whitey where would he be working at to be freed. The founding father didn't have to tell everyone how a minarchy would work as opposed to a monarchy. No, the first step is to recognize what now exists is coercion. It doesn't matter what is done next, if you know that what's going on now is absolutely wrong and subpar to what people themselves want to do.
In fact, if I could show to you every single answer, it would be more of an argument in favor of a flavor of statism, as I the ultimate central planner, was able to devise the exact plans in which society can best be ran. The truth of the matter is that I don't, the central planners don't either. The ones who know best is Everyone, free to chase their own ends. And it just so happens that humans are empathetic enough to cooperate without the need of coercion. It is unnecessary at this point; and that's my point.
Yes, I do know they will, because human history has shown people with common interests settle together in EVERY SINGLE TIME WITH EXCEPTION.
Can you find a reason why this precedent would stop in ancap?
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
You don't know that they inevitably conflict, as for the rest, so what?
By conflict I don't mean (necessarily) physical confrontation. By conflict I mean that these values are inherently going to be incompatible with each other.
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on? I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Strawman, and again, lack of perspective. Even with different laws, people can still respect each other to the degree that conflict is unnecessary. You have your house and I have mine, as long as you leave me alone, what evil can you do to me? You talk like different people living to each other necessarily makes them incompatible and want to force one another to do things. That's ridiculous, be more specific on the incentives there are for one to do so, and we can actually debate something useful like arbitrage, property contracts, dispute resolutions, etc.
All I'm saying is if you have 12 houses on a block, and their are two sets of drastically different governing rules on each, 6 for one and 6 for the other, humans would inherently gravitate towards each side of the block having one rules. On a large scale this leads to the formation of states within an ancap.
Also the lack of perspective again, is not comparing your scenario in a statist world vis-a-vis. What's there stopping people wanting to kill one another in the state? Public Police? Laws? And why do you feel those things don't exist in ancap...?
Thats not what I'm saying at all lol.
[quite] Dissidents are marginalized. Okay. What kind of dissidents do you picture in ancap, as opposed to statism? Tax avoiders? well, there are no taxes in ancap, so that's one less. Black marketeers? no such thing in the free market. Drug dealers and users? drugs aren't illegal as much as rat poison isn't. Victimless crime offenders? there is no dispute to settle in a victimless crime, so no crime is committed. Prostitutes and pimps? Consensual sex isn't illegal.
So I say, if you're worried about people being picked at by PDAs, I'd say you should be more worried about the people that are unjustly jailed TODAY all over the world. If you wanted to be any consistent that is. If you just want to cling to your believes and arguments from ignorance, then that's fine too, but at least be honest that you have no clue.
Except laws DO exist in an Ancap. They're just private. I mean, ok, you can call them "rules" if you want, but they're functionally just private applied sets of laws. And as private property holders organize and make macrostates or microstates, certain common values are going to marginalize people who do not hold them.
You seemed to have missed the gist of my argument.
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
On August 30 2010 00:29 Half wrote:
When you put two groups of people with opposing values together...they may not fight...they may not physically conflict. But you can bet that these people will self segregate so they hang with people with similar values. On a large scale, this is what makes communities, and eventually, this is what makes states.
For example.
Your not going to have cities where you have 6 "no Muslim" properties interspersed within 6 "muslim allowed" properties. No, these six properties will be close to each other. Maybe not with no exception, there are always anomalies, but in a city of millions, people with common values will seek to cooperate with each other.
Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government.
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
On August 29 2010 20:10 Jameser wrote: because it only takes 1 instance for an apple to turn bad, while it takes many bad apples for a government body to do wrong
if the risk of an apple going bad is less than 50% (it is much less) and you need a majority to make decisions, then most (all) decisions made by 2 or more people will be good, and the freedom for bad apples to do what they want is removed from them, which (you can argue) is wrong.
anarcho-capitalism alternative: each apple decides whether it wants to go bad or not, which (you can argue) is their right, however, the decisions made by those bad apples affect the other apples (to their detriment)
in the end the power balance lies with the majority. and they don't want to be affected by bad apples
Market institutions follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. People trying to act in the best interest of themselves and their loved ones, and voluntarily associating with others that are trying to do the same, are usually able to create a decently attractive society. The reason for that has to do with supply and demand, price theory, and all kinds of mechanisms that get people to act efficiently.
the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government)
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
So you mean, people are going to be stupid enough to keep funding an organization that's openly raping them in the ass? And somehow, security is such an specialized service that people can't open a new police force or defend against it themselves?
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote: why anarcho-capitalism does not work
However, I don't think it's true that the government necessarily produces an attractive result. Government institutions, just like market institutions, follow the logic of rational entities trying to act in their own best interest. A government institution might completely waste a part of its budget that it doesn't need, because it worries that if it doesn't spend all of its budget, it won't get as much money next year, when it does need it. This is one of the reasons government spending rarely, if ever, shrinks, and instead increases every year.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
So they can get REELECTED, but that is a subpar incentive, and it only happens every few years. You can't possibly think theres' a better incentive for a subsidized, COERCIVE MONOPOLY, to work as good as a free market competitor would. They're not competing, they're just working enough to save face, get reelected, and prevent revolution! PROFITS GOOD COERCION BAD I should change my signature to that someday.
There is a bigger problem with democracy. Even if governments were to efficiently act out the preferences expressed by the majority through their votes, people might not vote in their best interest. My friends and colleagues generally do not spend much time and effort deciding their vote. They tend to vote for the most charismatic politician, or vote for the party they have been voting for all their lives. From what I can see, a completely insignificant percentage of people actually makes an in-depth decision weighing pros and cons of voting for various politicians.
You might say that this is not democracy's fault but a fault of the population. I think that's a cop-out. With perfect people, it doesn't matter if we choose anarcho-capitalism, government institutions, or whatever institutions. Perfect people will make perfect choices and we'll have a perfect society.
It is more useful trying to figure out WHY people don't put as much effort into their votes as they do into other decisions. I think it's because people have learned that who you vote for doesn't really matter. If you choose to buy a different house, or a different car, that decision has a lot of effect on your life. If you choose to vote democratic instead of republican, how much really improves for you? You are just one vote out of millions.
that the voter base in many democracies is becoming near-apathetic in regard to politics is in my opinion (and as you point out) due to the fact that their vote counts for so little in the mass of votes.
Well duh. The expected value of a vote is probably something like $10 for voters themselves, if I am allowed to guess. It's valued more for those who drink the democracy coolaid of course, but as in direct, monetary returns, I think $10 is about right.
But it's much more worth it for the Lobbyist, for the interest group, who can get votes like it's no big deal with massive campaigns, millions of dollars in ads, and get that key regulatory legislation passed which will raise bariers of entry by the tens of thousands, and allow him to profit in the long run many times as much as they contributed to the candidate's campaign.
Welp, that probably'll go over your head...
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote: you see much more involvement from voters in smaller population countries (like my own) while you see disinterest in larger countries (like the US) and this is a known problem I think. in the states they have tried to solve it by dividing the country into smaller states, the only problem with this is that the purpouse of these states seems to have been denied as the federal government piece by piece has claimed greater and greater power, making the state-elections uninteresting to the voters (media and press also has blame in this; they hype presidential elections to bolster national identity and patriotism/pride while drawing attention away form the elctions that have most impact on the individual voter)
I think it's an issue that there is such a thing as a vote in the first place. It's a failed idea at emulating market demand, precariously. And they forgot to include price signals too. Fail. Well, it would be sub-par still.
On August 30 2010 01:10 Jameser wrote: the prerequisite for these people to associate freely with like-minded individuals is that there has not formed another rogue government (otherwise known as the maffia), employing 'divide and conquer' for example, for their own personal gains and interests; this can only be achieved with a police force, with a police force comes the need to regulate and establish what laws and rules need to be enforced, which has to be decided by someone (the government)
In anarcho-capitalism, multiple, competing private private agencies negotiate law amongst themselves. It's unreasonable to think that an agency stealing from its customers (as the Mafia does) would have very many customers: those it had would soon flee to other protection agencies, which would not allow the thieves to continue. The protection agencies will compete on how well they protect you, price, and the deals they have negotiated with other protection agencies. The last one is important because that's effectively the law you live under.
if this were true, how do you explain the existance of maffias? obviously the maffia would not conduct itself in a way that short-circuits it's operation, that would be defeating the purpose of forming the crime syndicate in the first place...
Mafias are actually protected by the government. It's a symbiotic relationship, both are coercers, and both profit off other people's proportional losses. The mafia lives in black markets which are disallowed to compete freely in the open market, due to regular legislation. Both the state and the mafia work to crush the efficient entrepreneur, and steer him away of these dangerous business. Prostitution, drugs, gambling, these OUTLAWED practices are the exact businesses mafias THRIVE.
Consider this analogy. There is a street where sidewalk vendors sell stuff at. Imagine that the government owns all street lights, and forbids people from raising their own lamp posts on the street. This is analogous to the law system. The law system serves to illuminate human interaction. However, for a particular street where people sell, say marijuana, the government chose to shut down the lights. Thats right, the vendors are now fucked. People can steal their shit, they can shoot them dead, and customers don't even feel safe going there anymore. But you know who feels safe? The thugs. Which thugs LOL? Well, both thugs, the state and the mafia. Because they have guns, coercion is their business, stealing is their deal. That dark street is now filled only with thugs and reluctant consumers who are willing to pay the increased price and risks of going at such a venue. Mafias sell their shit, and bribe the state to keep the dark barriers of entry up. Symbiotic I say.
Sure, mafias do fight with the government sometimes. But as long as the mafia doesn't get too cocky, and keeps paying it's dues, it's all sunshine and flowers. And as you can see, if only vendors were allowed to shed light into their practices, they'd be less aggressed against, the business wouldn't be so risky, and they'd outperform the mafias with lower prices. The moral sentiment against dangerous drugs is just a pretext to keep this dark business going. YOU HAVE BEEN LIBERATED FROM THE LIIIIES OF THE STATE.
in an anarcho-capitalistic society a 'mercenary police force' would have it in their best interest for there to exist a reason for their continued operation (crime) which in turn leads to problems of corruption etc etc. so a body of interests (a government) is needed that can agree to pay the police force a fix sum each payday.
That's like saying a baker has it in his best interest for people to be hungry, so he will make bread that doesn't feed people properly. It doesn't work that way in the market for food, and there is no reason to expect things to work that way in the market for protection. Competition will make protection agencies offer high quality protection or make them lose their customers to agencies that do.
the difference being the service delivered, a corrupt police that is already in place would obviously not allow another organization to form and compete with them, this applies to the first point aswell; you can't have matters of security and healthcare be solved by the free market principles because if there is ever an imbalance there is no mechanism to self-correct the market.
So you mean the thugs wouldn't allow people not to pay them? Coercion comes at a cost to themselves. They can't keep busting down doors and stealing people's wallets. They're just one group. The rest of the population can and will eventually organize to take it down, AS LONG AS IT'S SEEN AS ILLEGITIMATE. The government does what you fear already - it steals from the population and keeps competition out, literally. But they can keep going because only a few percentage of the population, perhaps even less than there are government employees, see it as illegitimate.
Coercion comes at a price and risk for the coercer! You can't 6 pool people forever.
On August 30 2010 03:52 Jameser wrote: the only reason this model works in respect to security firms today is because there are governmental bodies keeping track of them to make sure they behave, in short there is always a more powerful entity that can beat them down if they misbehave that is under the will of the representatives of the people.
Nope, if they misbehaved, even without cops, they'd be sued against, they'd lose popularity, then clientele, then profits. If there's one thing about capitalism, is that to profit, you have to serve customer demand best, and people don't pay body guards to aggress, they pay guards to defend. If a guard wastes a single bullet on something he wasn't paid to do, that's one bullet out of his pocket. That's one bullet that can risk retaliation against him, and infer more costs. That's one bullet that will hurt his reputation. Etc. Try to think a bit more like an entrepreneur when you criticize the market pretty please.
I would like to see reported instances of this and I don't know how this would even work in practice, I don't know how things work in other countries but in my country the budget of the government is open for review by the opposition and other agencies, 'filling out' empty room like this would clearly leave a vulnerability in a debate imagine an electorial debate where one side says "well you spent half your budget on icecream trucks this entire year, we can promise to cut taxes in favour of buying icecream trucks if we get elected" the example is ridiculous but you get my drift it is in the government's best interest to spend the tax money wisely so that they can justify their tax rates to the public
There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
Republicans are dirty lying rats. There is no consistency in government, there can't be, because there is no consistency in the base premise of "I will steal from you to give back what you want". If you're giving me back what I want, then you don't need to steal from me. I can pay you, like any other normal transaction. But no, with coercion, there is no obligation. Politicians can break promises and not be sued, lol. They won't get reelected, *maybe*, but then so what? By the time he's out he's probably done some sweet deals with lobbyists enough to make up for it. In fact, that's the only market price he responds to - the price lobbyists are willing to pay, how much he needs for a campaign, how much can subsidies or monopolist market inteventions he can legislate for the lobbyists, etc. Thinking about the people? Not as much.
It's those capitalists that you love in the name of your bullshit Austrian "theory" pseudoscience with things like "praxeology".
Go back to George Mason University you troll.
Mmh, since mainstream economists failed pretty miserably to prevent the last few economic crises ( most of them didnt even see them coming ) and the austrians on the other hand did exceptionally well predicting it I would prefer to give this "pseudoscience" a chance.
On August 30 2010 05:22 Mindcrime wrote: If the state were to wither away, what would you propose be done about existing unjust ownership? i.e. the kind of ownership the that comes about through partnering or colluding with the state?
Auctioned off, money distributed to the taxpayers who funded it. Can't be done perfectly, as the original taxpayers may have moved, died, etc. but it can be done to the extent that no one's unhappy or objecting.
On August 30 2010 05:22 Mindcrime wrote: Does Lockheed Martin just get to keep the massive amounts of wealth accumulated at the expense of others through cooperation with governments?
Good question. Really good question. I don't know what to do about private companies that profited heavily off the state. A private entity who buys off stolen material is obliged to return the material as soon as possible, as it would be no better than stealing himself, but it's exempt from retribution if it did not know the material was stolen. It still has to restitute though.
The problem with restitution is that the figures of how much money the company owns are hard to get, but if they're available and all, yeah I think I would support demanding from them the money back after it's been shown in court and publically agreed on, physically if needs be (I'm not as pacifistic as other ancaps but that's how I feel). On retribution... it's very much debatable.. I really don't know if you can retaliate on a government contractor, anymore than you could a former government employee. I think people would just forgive and forget most occasions, but if it's something like blackwater and shit, then yeah, I think it would be forcibly shut down, dissolved, dividends paid to whoever has a non-coercive claim over it (taxpayers again I would think)
History is not on your side. Plenty of companies have used negative externalities to their benefit while leaving those who are at the receiving end of those externalities to suffer. An anarcho-capitalistic society would be absolutely riddled with negative externalities. History has shown us that free markets cannot correct for externalities on their own.
Again let's discuss a concrete example and the circumstances behind it, and how government could (or did) solve the problem (or how they may have actually contributed to it). Use your best example because I'm open to being convinced.
As much as you'd like to believe that in your perfect world people would be altruistic and care about where their products come from, the truth is that doesn't often happen in real life. Do you know where all your products come from? I certainly don't know where all of mine come from. And it's not like the people being affected by something can always stand up for themselves. If the company is making enough money off of their products, they can afford to boss around those who are being negatively affected by their actions.
Do you care? Everybody I talk to would claim to care, I'm sure. Where are all these people who wouldn't give a shit that a company is literally killing the people down river? And the company would have enough to be able to wage a war on people, without losing profit at all? What about their competitors who don't put their profits into funding their own aggressive armies, but use it to sell cheaper goods, raise wages for their employees and innovate their products, etc? Would that company not drive the stupid evil killing company out of business? Or would the evil killing company wage war on them too I suppose?
People don't really care about people they don't even know the names of. De Beers funded African wars by buying conflict diamonds, did the wealthy care enough to stop buying their shiny status symbols? Trafigura was responsible for dumping toxic waste in the Ivory Coast, western outrage seemed oddly muted. Do you care about the high suicide rate of people working in the Foxconn factory or are you more interested in cheap electronics?
I don't know what's up in those cases. I will investigate with my leet google and mises searching skills. But a few questions arise. 1-Who owns the diamond mines, 2- who owns the ivory coast, 3- who owns the 'people working in the foxconn fact.' and do you mean they suicided or "got suicided"? In the former, what's wrong with that, in the latter, wow what really? I'm using a foxconn motherboard right now, so cheap LOL
Hint: it's not the government that owns Foxconn or blood diamonds
It's those capitalists that you love in the name of your bullshit Austrian "theory" pseudoscience with things like "praxeology".
I love how Yurebis finds nothing wrong with buying things like blood diamonds. I hope in your next life that you're born into a poor Sub-Saharan African family that's starving and continue talking about "bootstraps."
I didn't say I found nothing wrong, I'm haven't even started studying the case because I've been answering previous posts until now. When I get to the end (I think I'm there already), I'll see what I think and answer.
Obviously there can be a private coercive agency, but it's just that usually, they're supported by the government. I don't know this specific case yet so please wait for my verdict. Also I'll read that critique asap.
On August 30 2010 06:12 Jameser wrote: wow yurebis, 9 posts back-to-back in the same thread
On August 29 2010 22:35 makopluxx wrote: OP's point about cops being men and therefore as likely to be violent are flawed. Police officers are motivated by salaries which are paid by governing bodies. You can't simply discount violence. That's absurd.
I didn't say they're likely. I didn't even say they are more likely (even though I could say it, np), I said that whatever argument that is made against man in general, is just as applicable to men in the state. So human nature is violent -> therefore we can't have ancap, applies just as equally to human nature is violent -> therefore we can't give absolute power to a few men
Ancap solves the "who watches the watchmen" by giving everyone an equal opportunity of solving that issue to the best of their ability. If the current watchmen can't be trusted, they can be replaced immediately, or a third party hired immediately, as opposed to depending on a central planner to solve those issues. He cannot - solve as better as thousands of others. And even if he could, I believe he should be contracted voluntarily, not coerce everyone into giving him money. If he's really good, then he'll be voluntarily and mutually accepted.
Meh I went a bit too far to answer such a short objection.
And who watches the watchers of the watchmen? And the watchers of those ad infinitum?
(this is a central problem of anarcho-capitalism)
It becomes so inefficient to police that government arises simply from the utility of public goods -- this is why Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan. He assumes methodological individualism but concludes that its in mutual self-interest to create government, because the alternative -- anarchy -- is not optimal behaviour, and economically costly.
Well and if you know anything about austrian economics, is that you can't know what the market optimum is when you coerce. So, you can't prove that I wanted to die by shooting me. You can't prove that your plan is the best one by forcing upon me. That's not methodological individualism at all. If it were, he'd respect each assembling individual's preferences, not establish some outer criteria to which judge efficiency from.
Also, the "who watches the watchmen" is a question for every single individual to think about. It's about thinking how can a system can be most efficient. It's a process everyone is able to think about, and if enough people agree on, then things can optimally be done. Even if they don't agree, then it's optimal that they're not done. Forcing upon people the number of watchers is stepping over everyone's evaluations but yours, the central planner.
In the end, it's not an answerable question, as much as "how should one live one's life" is.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
Evidence that government contributes to market inefficiency does not mean that it is worse than a purely free market. Sure, the government creates its fair share of market inefficiencies. The point is that the government can fix all of those problems I listed much more efficiently and easily than the free market can. If the free market is so perfect, why were things like collusion and externalities a much bigger problem during the gilded age when there were far less laws regulating business? Why were workers essentially enslaved to their employers? Do you really think that the market back then was so much more efficient without all the regulation we have now preventing these problems?
Certainly not, and as I said, I'm no empiricist, because deeply into empiricism, lies a-priori motives to reject or accept the theories anyway. That is why I prefer talking a-priori. If there's any agreement with a set of premises, something can always be built. The problem is with the people that have absurd premises like "man is stupid so it needs another man to rule it", or "man has incomplete knowledge so it needs another man with even more incomplete knowledge to rule it". I mean... such failure... at least argue something that makes sense. I'd prefer an appeal to tradition anytime TBH. Or empiricist claims...
The government can't fix your problems without creating more, because for anything the government does, it is already being paid for by coercive measures. It's not a solution. It's like saying, "I can make your pain go away by killing you", or "I can make your sadness go away by giving you this pill that inhibits all emotions". There's always more externalities when the government interrupts a natural process. It's always better if you don't shoot people. I hope you don't disagree.
I've addressed collusion repeatedly, and externalities too. Guilded age...? Lol, I wikipedia'd it and it says "n American history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States" LOL empiricist fail? Workers can't logically be said to be enslaved if they chose to work for the employer he chose; it means he values that work better than any other work available to him at the time. Not something bad at all. Catallactics please.
The market back them was as efficient as people could manage it to be. I'm sure of that. You ask if it's more efficient than it could have been if the magical all-knowing central planner had even better ideas and forced people into complying for their own good? Well, I don't believe in miracles, so no.
See, this is the entire problem with your position. You say you're not an empiricist, and so there's no way that I can argue that your perfect world isn't perfect. If you set all the terms for how people will act in your perfect world, I really can't argue with that. All I can argue with is what I can observe will likely happen if you try to implement your perfect world.
It's also such a stupid tactic to blame all problems on the government. Since no anarcho-capitalist economies currently exist (thankfully) there's nothing to compare it to. So whenever I bring up a problem with a market system, you can blame it on the government. It's just a cheap cop out for actually addressing any of these actual problems with a free market.
I don't think you have a good understanding of what is meant by a government fixing externalities. If a large company is poisoning a small town with pollution, the government can easily correct this externality by limiting the pollution. Now, the market is balanced, with all effects of a transaction being accounted for, including externalities. The free market does not correct easily for externalities, if it did, we would not have problems with things like pollution or systemic risk. This is basic economics.
Your understanding of the gilded age is incredibly flawed. While it was a time of extreme economic growth, much of the lower class were effectively enslaved by their employers. That's part of the reason why the economy grew so fast. It's a lot easier to turn a profit if you don't have to pay a fair wage to your workers. You can read more about the system they used to effectively enslave their workers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
Oh, your post just reminded me of a huge flaw in some of the OP's retorts up until now. He often mentioned the idea of "suing" in AC... but how does this come about? Aren't courts of law governing bodies? OP also mentions how we're "coerced" by the government into giving taxes and such... but didn't we agree to such a system in the first place when we created governments and allowed payments for defenses and such back in the middle ages?
There can be such a thing as market law, and there has been such a thing in the past. International trade laws, even from the middle ages. I've explained a bit on page 1 even though I didn't even cover the basics. Read this for an introduction http://mises.org/daily/4147
I believe that someone signing some document hundreds of years ago doesn't account for me accepting such system. I didn't sign the constitution, nor did you. The idea that someone could sign for you a document hundreds of years in the past, let alone that they're not even your direct relatives (probably), is laughable. I could sign a document here right now that says you have to give me $100. Is that a "social contract"
It's a joke of an excuse. It just goes on because people don't see it for what it is. It won't go on forever.
I think you should stop driving on the roads, using electricity, and using the internet because these are things that you did not "contract" to and a product of government "monopoly".
I would, if there were alternatives. I'm a bit of an egoist I admit. I see ancap merely as the best means that society could be organized at, to best maximize my satisfaction, and as a bonus, everyone else's too, to the extent it doesn't minimize anyone's else.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
Y'know, after reading these types of statements I really do understand why Marxism failed. You say things are going to be said briefly and they end up being extremely congested, incoherent and just plain out wrong. No wonder communists have to use violence to force their opinions on others; there's no way in hell any layman is going to understand what you're trying to say.
On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote: There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism.
Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
Anarchism is more than simply "no government."
Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism.
As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions.
"Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?"
By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
No, it's not against hierarchy at all. There's nothing wrong with voluntary hierarchy, and it naturally happens no matter the interaction. When I speak, you know it's time to hear, and you voluntarily become a listener. Then when I finish speaking, I let you rise in the hierarchy of speaker.
The problem are rulers; imposed hierarchies, where the statesmen can steal, kill, and enslave to the extent that it doesn't provoke a revolution; while the citizens can't do any of that.
One could argue that private property establishes an imposed hierarchy, yeah, and I agree. I completely understand that point. But I can make a much, much better case as to why that's desirable to the communist, than the statist can make he case that his state is desirable to me.
The difference between property and possession is use. Property concerns with the creator, possession concerns with the user. There's theories of control to either side. And I don't feel that anarcho-capitalism is necessarily the most "proprietary" of them all. I think there's still a lot of leeway in ancap to counter absolute property, because the functions of the market law are still based on "popularism", as I heard statists say, and they're kind of right. If everyone agrees to a court's ruling that a factory owner has killed babies and I don't know, "exploited" the workers, I think the case can be made that his property should be sold out and he incarcerated out of society. You can still do statist stuff, just that it would be less frequent and it would require more public support. As well as being compatible with the spontaneous code of law.
Annd more specifically addressing your factory issue, the case of the factory owner not contributing to production is a fallacious one. He already has contributed to production by making the factory exist in the first place. If he had done nothing, and you were able to produce those products out of thin air, then you could do it yourself. Start your own labor group. Make it as syndicalist as you want. The issue here is of course, that the communist simply doesn't recognize the work that the entrepreneur has done. It starts down low the structure of production, at the last stop in the assembly line and says "hey, I'm the one painting the car, these other guys behind me aren't doing shit! Proletariat, unite!". It's ridiculous. Either the factory owner hasn't done anything, in which case it requires the workers nothing to start their own business, or he has in fact done something, like, I don't know, creating the business model? raised financing and attracted investors? Managed the capital structure and accounting? Marketing, research and development? Contacting and negotiating deals to get the best prices? There is so, so much work that is required to start a business, and communists just say "pfff, fuck that, we do everything." No you don't.
And if you do go ahead and take over that factory you know what happens? Congrats, you just blew the fabric of private property, and denied any potential entrepreneur the opportunity of making a new factory; to enter the market and compete, to inovate and profit, yes, profit, because profit is a good thing if you were to understand what it is. But you don't. You fucked up. No more factories will be built when no factories can be kept.
On August 29 2010 18:27 iNfuNdiBuLuM wrote: Anarcho-capitalism is a misnomer. Capitalism is antithetical to Anarchism.
Good point. So can I enter your house and sleep in your bed anytime I want, because you consider private property oppression? Or is that your personal belongings, and private property is also a misnomer? Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?
Anarchism is more than simply "no government."
Anarchist political theory at its core is opposition to forced hierarchy - specifically, political, social, and economic hierarchies. Capitalism is economic hierarchy in practice, and out of economic hierarchy develops social hierarchy of classes. I find that An-cap wants to associate itself with real Anarchism because they think Anarchism is merely opposition to government and the State, when in fact Anarchism is opposed to hierarchy and coercion in all its forms. Anarcho-capitalism, because it supports capitalism and its exploitative economic hierarchy, is not Anarchism.
As for private property - there is a subtle yet important difference between property and your possessions.
"Why do you have exclusive control over your personal belongings, your house, but a capitalist can't have exclusive control over his factory?"
By controlling his factory he controls the workers, while not directly producing any goods himself. By this the freedom of the capitalist conflicts with the freedom of his employees. This is not Anarchism.
Anarcho-capitalists are not anarchists. I have respect for anarchists because their philosophical arguments are cogent.
Anarcho-capitalists are a bunch of babies that hate government, but think capitalism and big business are acceptable. They like to glorify entrepreneurship and how efficient capitalism is. In reality, both government and business are oppressive forces, and in many places, there is no difference between big business and government -- politicians are frequently bought out by the interests of the private sector.
Anarcho-capitalists like to view business and individualism as a solution to the oppressive government, when really, it ignores how organized "business" itself is a form of oppression. The very concept of a monopoly and anti-competitive behaviour is problematic for them, because they don't have any coherent explanations for it, other than 'monopolies are fine, they must be fine because that is why they are monopolies to begin with' or some other circular logic.
Oh you were a communist all along and I didn't know... damn. Sorry to hear that
Read my last post if you want. Anti-competitive behavior isn't a problem if it's not coercive, as much as it isn't a problem if you want to monopolize your house, your bed, your personal belongings. You can't both hate monopoly and be a monopolist of your own stuff. You're the one being contradictory. Everything that has been cited in here would be an easy case for a market court to raise a verdict. I'm even getting bored having to repeat myself.
There is a difference between big business and government that you still don't understand. One is coercive. Steals, kills, enslaves. The other is voluntary. It has raised capital voluntarily, assembled voluntarily, and is efficient exactly because everyone at every steps agree to work with it. The state, not so much
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
On August 29 2010 16:51 Kishkumen wrote: Go talk to a non-crazy economist about your "theories" and report back with your findings. Even the Austrian school thinks you need some sort of government supporting an economy.
Any actual arguments or just empty appeals to authority and sanity?
You caught me being lazy. I just didn't want to write a long post arguing with something that few people who know much about economics would support. There are so many problems with not having a government to regulate an economy. Lack of information, collusion, externalities, public goods, human irrationality, fraud, lack of a judicial system to arbitrate disputes, intellectual property, etc. are all major issues that non-regulated economies do a terrible job of compensating for. Any one of those is reason enough to relegate anarcho-capitalism to the intellectual garbage bin.
- Lack of information, check, the government is the BEST at that no problem. - Collusion, check, government facilitates it by raising barriers of entry and punishing "cut-throat competition", brought to you by the more inefficient competitors' lobby - Externalities, check, taxation, subsidies, monopolies of his own, leases, environmental hazards on their property, tragedy of the commons on every public property... - Public goods, check, the shittiest public goods you can ever get, the worst roads you can ever find, hospitals people will die on, and schools that children will spend twelve years and not learn a single thing that's useful. That's the service that I like. Yep. - Human irrationality, check, at it's best, courtesy of Washington D.C. - Fraud, check, trillions of dollars in debt, unfunded liabilities, social security a clear ponzy scheme, coercing the population for their own good, lies in foreign policy and internal policy as well, no transparency at all, federal reserve. Pretty good at fraud I'd say. - Lack of a judicial system, check, shit is so useless that firms and business don't even rely on it anymore; people that are threatened to go to court are more worried about the costs than the actual lawsuit. - IP, check, it's a great thing to force people to pay you tribute for something you created ten years ago. Coercively controlling their material private property on the claim of infinitely reproducible patterns, yep, artificial scarcity is a pretty nifty idea.
Any one of those is enough of a reason to be infuriated against the state I'd say, let alone debating the prospect of having a working system in place otherwise.
Evidence that government contributes to market inefficiency does not mean that it is worse than a purely free market. Sure, the government creates its fair share of market inefficiencies. The point is that the government can fix all of those problems I listed much more efficiently and easily than the free market can. If the free market is so perfect, why were things like collusion and externalities a much bigger problem during the gilded age when there were far less laws regulating business? Why were workers essentially enslaved to their employers? Do you really think that the market back then was so much more efficient without all the regulation we have now preventing these problems?
Certainly not, and as I said, I'm no empiricist, because deeply into empiricism, lies a-priori motives to reject or accept the theories anyway. That is why I prefer talking a-priori. If there's any agreement with a set of premises, something can always be built. The problem is with the people that have absurd premises like "man is stupid so it needs another man to rule it", or "man has incomplete knowledge so it needs another man with even more incomplete knowledge to rule it". I mean... such failure... at least argue something that makes sense. I'd prefer an appeal to tradition anytime TBH. Or empiricist claims...
The government can't fix your problems without creating more, because for anything the government does, it is already being paid for by coercive measures. It's not a solution. It's like saying, "I can make your pain go away by killing you", or "I can make your sadness go away by giving you this pill that inhibits all emotions". There's always more externalities when the government interrupts a natural process. It's always better if you don't shoot people. I hope you don't disagree.
I've addressed collusion repeatedly, and externalities too. Guilded age...? Lol, I wikipedia'd it and it says "n American history, the Gilded Age refers to the era of rapid economic and population growth in the United States" LOL empiricist fail? Workers can't logically be said to be enslaved if they chose to work for the employer he chose; it means he values that work better than any other work available to him at the time. Not something bad at all. Catallactics please.
The market back them was as efficient as people could manage it to be. I'm sure of that. You ask if it's more efficient than it could have been if the magical all-knowing central planner had even better ideas and forced people into complying for their own good? Well, I don't believe in miracles, so no.
See, this is the entire problem with your position. You say you're not an empiricist, and so there's no way that I can argue that your perfect world isn't perfect. If you set all the terms for how people will act in your perfect world, I really can't argue with that. All I can argue with is what I can observe will likely happen if you try to implement your perfect world.
You can certainly argue empirically, and I will do my best to answer, but I'm just saying that I prefer a-priori discussions, so I might not be the best person to argue that with.
On August 30 2010 07:28 Kishkumen wrote: It's also such a stupid tactic to blame all problems on the government. Since no anarcho-capitalist economies currently exist (thankfully) there's nothing to compare it to. So whenever I bring up a problem with a market system, you can blame it on the government. It's just a cheap cop out for actually addressing any of these actual problems with a free market.
Yeah well, you should easily be able to point out it's not the government's fault then, if it isn't. I think this says more about the problems of empiricism than anything. You can prove anything empirically, heh.
On August 30 2010 07:28 Kishkumen wrote: I don't think you have a good understanding of what is meant by a government fixing externalities. If a large company is poisoning a small town with pollution, the government can easily correct this externality by limiting the pollution. Now, the market is balanced, with all effects of a transaction being accounted for, including externalities. The free market does not correct easily for externalities, if it did, we would not have problems with things like pollution or systemic risk. This is basic economics.
Oh, so I suppose restricting the company's use of their own capital isn't an externality? What do you think the company will do if it's restricted from producing as much as it wants? You'll raise prices for that product, you'll restrict other companies' abilities to enter the market (barriers of entry) as they'll have to comply with those regulations, and that's added bureaucracy, added cost... Seriously, you can't coerce and pretend nothing bad has happened. Nothing goes for free. The right way to go about that is public pressure, and lawsuits as needed. Or buy the factory. Or buy the river. I don't know. Be creative. There's tons of ways to deal with that.
At any rate, the river IS the state's as is, so, sure, the state should be able to regulate it's own property. The externality being that, probably no one can own their own rivers because the state won't allow them, so everyone everywhere has to deal with the state's one-size-fits-all regulations, not maximizing people's preferences as much as it would be possible to.
On August 30 2010 07:28 Kishkumen wrote: Your understanding of the gilded age is incredibly flawed. While it was a time of extreme economic growth, much of the lower class were effectively enslaved by their employers. That's part of the reason why the economy grew so fast. It's a lot easier to turn a profit if you don't have to pay a fair wage to your workers. You can read more about the system they used to effectively enslave their workers here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Company_store
Well, why don't you put yourself in the mind of a factory worker in the industrial revolution to imagine what went on? The worker was previously either farming, or working at some small town in some type of manufacturing. It wasn't a pretty deal either, people hard to work really hard to have just clothing and food. That they chose to go to cities (well, thats a lie, some of them were forced to by the central planners of the era) and work for factories, shows an investment on their part on something that they believe it was better, it had more prospects.
And it did have better prospects, because in a few decades the standards of living were raised significantly thanks to the machines. It was not a bad time at all. I don't know why people make such a big deal of "poverty". Poverty is always relative, and even when man is considerably richer today, it still considers himself to be poor of other things that they see they could have. Okay, it's human nature, but it's not enough to call out a company or any individual for not giving everyone free cakes and strawberries. There will always be someone with more, and there will always be people jealous of him, and then blaming him for not giving what they want. But that's complete ignorance of private property and how things come about. Capital accumulation doesn't come out of jealousy, out of coercion, it comes out of voluntary, efficient action, among cooperative individuals. Anything other than that has to detract from someone else to give you what you want, and create moral hazards wherein cooperation is riskier, less profitable, or impossible.
Again I wish people would just listen to these series, it has some empiricism as well... although non-english speakers may have issues listening to the old voice and old recording of robert lefevre... http://mises.org/media/1160
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
Y'know, after reading these types of statements I really do understand why Marxism failed. You say things are going to be said briefly and they end up being extremely congested, incoherent and just plain out wrong. No wonder communists have to use violence to force their opinions on others; there's no way in hell any layman is going to understand what you're trying to say.
Don't be mean. Statists can say the same about libertarianism. Ad-hominem.
On August 30 2010 07:49 adrenaline.CA wrote: lol you labelled me a communist, lol
i dont think you know what communism is
Okay sorry, but that's an argument that usually comes from communists. I'm really sorry, I retract it, and will reread your post... though everything else I said probably stays
Okay, you're not a communist, but you don't believe private property is a legitimate right, so everything I said concerning communism is indeed relevant to you. I'd like to know what else do you believe in or else what would you label yourself at just to know where you're coming from. It helps be make better comparisons and analogies addressing your concerns.
It's the first time I've reached the end of the thread. I've answered every post I found relevant. I hope I was of use so far for either the repliers themselves or third parties reading them.
The question is why isn't it working already. One can only hope that competitive gaming awakens people's critical reasoning. Compare how many read Mises' works or at least memorize build orders and how many watch tv. If men strive for what's best for them, why is capitalism so unpopular? Are men sheep and what they really need is a king to lead them, preatorian guard to fear and elite to aspire to? How come Mises advocated democracy? How come democracy lead to socialism? Can zerg counter reapers? So many questions, so little time. I guess there's only so much a man can hope to figure out in a lifetime. You're mind is above average? Win MSL, play poker, get the girl, land on mars, be happy. Maybe optimal resource allocation ain't so important after all, especially that these days, in the west production exceeds demand many many times and every halfwit can make a decent living if he/she wishes to. Power corrupts. Power feeds starving kids and saves lives. Heck, power can do whatever it pleases, thats why its called power. By the way, I only wish Yu Re Bis (once would be enough) to my first question.
On August 30 2010 08:28 Keyon!!! wrote: The question is why isn't it working already. One can only hope that competitive gaming awakens people's critical reasoning. Compare how many read Mises' works or at least memorize build orders and how many watch tv. If men strive for what's best for them, why is capitalism so unpopular? Are men sheep and what they really need is a king to lead them, preatorian guard to fear and elite to aspire to? How come Mises advocated democracy? How come democracy lead to socialism? Can zerg counter reapers? So many questions, so little time. I guess there's only so much a man can hope to figure out in a lifetime. You're mind is above average? Win MSL, play poker, get the girl, land on mars, be happy. Maybe optimal resource allocation ain't so important after all, especially that these days, in the west production exceeds demand many many times and every halfwit can make a decent living if he/she wishes to. Power corrupts. Power feeds starving kids and saves lives. Heck, power can do whatever it pleases, thats why its called power. By the way, I only wish Yu Re Bis (once would be enough) to my first question.
I heard that Mises was more of a panarchist, which I don't remember what it means, but it's either having as many competing governments as possible, or being able to subscribe into governments independently of your geographical location.
And yes, I think not necessarily due to capitalism, but, living standards are rising so much that people feel more satisfied and don't try too hard at life past their work and all. Which is completely compatible with praxeology by the way - if man doesn't want anything more, then he doesn't do anything more. But I don't blame the satisfied man for not going with me where I want to go, and I have to admit, I'm quite the satisfied man myself, so... I don't see it's fair to blame the population for not doing what you want; it would be equivalent to communists blaming capitalists for not giving them more money, or statists blaming citizens for not giving them more power. If you're a consistent individualist, you ultimately only have yourself to blame for your state. Well, besides blaming nature, but that's as silly.
edit: the whole blame game is silly anyway. I shouldn't have went there.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs. Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
Y'know, after reading these types of statements I really do understand why Marxism failed. You say things are going to be said briefly and they end up being extremely congested, incoherent and just plain out wrong. No wonder communists have to use violence to force their opinions on others; there's no way in hell any layman is going to understand what you're trying to say.
I am sorry your skill at reading comprehension is so lacking. English is not my first language, but I do believe what I wrote should be understandable. If there is anything in particular you would like help with, feel free to point it out. I did put things "extremely briefly", and as such had to simplify things. ((For example, of course, labor is not the only form of capital.))
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs.
I'm not sure there will always be; technology could come to a stage where people aren't willing to work anymore and would rather have their auto-recharging machines feed them and entertain them. But that's irrelevant on my part, yeah.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital? A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
Y'know, after reading these types of statements I really do understand why Marxism failed. You say things are going to be said briefly and they end up being extremely congested, incoherent and just plain out wrong. No wonder communists have to use violence to force their opinions on others; there's no way in hell any layman is going to understand what you're trying to say.
I am sorry your skill at reading comprehension is so lacking. English is not my first language, but I do believe what I wrote should be understandable. If there is anything in particular you would like help with, feel free to point it out. I did put things "extremely briefly", and as such had to simplify things. ((For example, of course, labor is not the only form of capital.))
It was not bad at all, ignore the ad-hominems. I only address them if it's to ad-hominem myself, tee hee. Well thats a lie, sometimes I cry too.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs.
I'm not sure there will always be; technology could come to a stage where people aren't willing to work anymore and would rather have their auto-recharging machines feed them and entertain them. But that's irrelevant on my part, yeah.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital? A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I'm sorry, but despite all your words, I don't believe you have answered the fallacy he posed. Which is, in your version of AC, you say that people can leave their job and find a new employer if they don't believe they're being paid enough. I, too, believe this is false because simply put, that's not how it works. Most people have families to support, and there is often friction in the market place between unemployment and employment. There's a lag time where if one quits their job, they get NO income, zero. Most people can't simply quit because of this friction, and I doubt it'd be any different in AC.
OMG what a thread - anarchy is the absence of "Law", and capitalism requires a number of laws and regulations to even exist. It's like so selv-evident that I'm thinking "wtf?!!" /facepalm.
Congrats on a highly successful troll, OP. (With the pretense that I only read your title and not the wall of text, a bit sleepy right now). In any case - 10/10 for just bringing it up :D
On August 30 2010 11:33 Zoroth wrote: OMG what a thread - anarchy is the absence of "Law", and capitalism requires a number of laws and regulations to even exist. It's like so selv-evident that I'm thinking "wtf?!!" /facepalm.
Congrats on a highly successful troll, OP. (With the pretense that I only read your title and not the wall of text, a bit sleepy right now). In any case - 10/10 for just bringing it up :D
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs. Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
In arguments like these, you can always pick out the people who understand economics from those who don't.
Fact: Left-wing governments, minimum wages, labour movements and unions fix the wages in certain industries at levels higher than "the going wage," which is what corporations would offer baesd on traditional supply and demand style economics.
Fact: When there is a wage floor above the going wage, companies that are interested in profit-maximization and who experience diminishing returns on labour will opt to hire less labour, because labour is less efficient.
The result is that the more power labourers have over wage bargaining and the higher the minumum wage, the higher the unemployment rate. If the minimum wage lowers, the power of unions decreases, or the productivity of labour increases, it becomes profitable for firms to hire more labour and reduce unemployment.
What you're doing is viewing a natural process in economics as exploitation. No matter how up-in-arms anyone chooses to get, the power to employ rests with the owners of capital. When the price of labour is fixed at a level that makes it impossible for the profits generated by a unit of labour to "rent" the capital used to attain those profits, labour will not be hired, and in addition to this, the accumulation of capital will be discouraged, which simply works to perpetuate the situation. EG: Factory for one worker costs $1000 to rent every year, one worker at the factory generates $2000 yearly, then that worker should be paid $1000 yearly. If minimum wage is $1500 yearly or if the union in charge of that sector is able to force $1500 yearly, that worker will go unemployed because the corporation would lose money by hiring them.
Either way, I won't disagree that corporations have a lot of political power, but you're disagreeing with a simple economic principle and providing no backing for it.
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
On August 29 2010 18:04 Yurebis wrote: Well of course you can't prevent everyone from doing what is deemed as undesirable activities (coercion!), but I think you're being a tad too demanding and a bit too pessimistic. When I say it has overcome, I mean it has overcome to the extent I'm fine with it. 1% of sociopaths doesn't hurt all that much by themselves. What hurts more is the system in place enabling those sociopaths to get the most power, IMO.
You're correct in that the problem is not the 1% of utter basket cases that fit through the cracks. We can deal with that. The real problem is that we're all just a little bit sociopathic. Given a choice between us and them, we pick us, and in so many cases 'us' boils down to 'me'. Very few people can make the leap of considering themselves as part of a greater structure and measuring their own health by the health of that structure when it comes to making decisions- they understand the concept, but they don't apply it. Subjective rationality is a very powerful concept that you should understand, as it's vital to working with Acap. Formal, traditional rationality does not factor in a whole weave of things as economic values. Subjective rationality does. Once you understand subjective rationality, you can begin to construct a model that does not 'hope for the best' as far as human nature and society goes. It can hold every variable, from mad irrational hatred to cold mathematical logic, and give you valid output data
On August 29 2010 18:04 Yurebis wrote: Well it is relevant, I'm just saying, I'm not going to be answering "how we get there" before most people are like "wtf is that place". I'd rather answer them first. But basically, you don't pay the state tribute, state goes bankrupt. That entails morally bankrupt concurrently too of course. Hm in fact I have not much else to say besides that, so consider it the full response LOL. Was it practical enough for you? I hope so, and sorry for not having THE MEANING OF LIFE figured out for you... I tried my best.
What I want is for people to get along ;_;
I read you dude, same here. But we have to be careful not to believe in something because we want it to be true. If we want something to be, and it is not, we have to figure out why it isn't properly, and the 'oh woe government' argument doesn't do that very well. The state exists because people made it, and we have a tendency to make states and collectives, which naturally vest in authorities and become the great nation-states we have today. If you destroy one state, another will arise unless there are deliberate and organised steps taken to prevent it- which in itself is a state of sorts. The economics are simple and, like the dilemma, so long as the assumptions hold true (division of labour increases efficiency, human problem solving is synergistic etc) it's not something we can fight- people will form states, and those states will involve many people delegating authority to fewer people so they can produce more efficiently without having to worry about it. We can look to make a better system, assuredly, but we can't just say it's horrible and bad and it shouldn't exist. That don't help any.
The trouble with the way you're arguing is exactly that you're trying to explain a perfect place FIRST without considering and lining up how to get there- and so people will always question your assumptions, since you haven't outlined them all. Historically, the most effect method of convincing a group or person of a novel argument is as follows
advocate: I have this great idea, what if XYZ? critic: it won't work. advocate: I see. Very well, do you agree that If A is true, B is true and C is true, then XYZ is plausible? critic: but A B and C *aren't* true advocate: I know, but if they *were* true, do you agree it would work? critic: I guess so... advocate: My challenge, then, is to demonstrate that A B and C are possible to make true simultaneously. critic:: B will never happen advocate: very well, again we must make some assumptions. If D E and F are true, we agree B could follow? critic: ugh, ok, yes. advocate: Right, then, my challenge becomes to make A, D, E, F and C simultaneously true.
And so on. Now, this might sound a little arcane, but it's quite elegant. It rests on the principle of getting your critic to agree with you each step of the way. You work your way down through the abstract, proving elements as you go using unestablished assumptions. Then, once you have reached a point where once these unestablished assumptions can no longer be challenged, you can begin working from the point closest to reality that your critic understands, instead of trying to sell them something ten, fifty or a hundred steps down the line- each one of which they can challenge out of any semblance of order or coherency.
So instead of trying to convince people of things they will never accept, don't try and convince them yet. Simply convince them of things that make sense. State that you are assuming in abstract that X and Y and Z. If someone challenges one, think about what would have to be true for their argument to be false, and break it down again.
I must add, of course, that if you fail, you must man up and change your scenario or abandon it. If you cannot establish that you truly could make an assumption, then you've based your reasoning on false premises and have to modify it. Sometimes this can be easy enough (I assumed that humans natively do X. It has been established that this is not the case, but I *can* assume that in Y scenario, they will do X, so Y scenario must be true for this assumption to hold). Sometimes it can be impossible ( I have discovered that I can never assume that reapers will *always* be OP).
This is a formulation of argument that is easy to do structurally, but puts a lot of intellectual work back in your camp. However, if you DO pull it off, you will be the next Darwin or Newton, concepts proved in such a manner are almost impossible to argue with.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs.
I'm not sure there will always be; technology could come to a stage where people aren't willing to work anymore and would rather have their auto-recharging machines feed them and entertain them. But that's irrelevant on my part, yeah.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital? A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I'm sorry, but despite all your words, I don't believe you have answered the fallacy he posed. Which is, in your version of AC, you say that people can leave their job and find a new employer if they don't believe they're being paid enough. I, too, believe this is false because simply put, that's not how it works. Most people have families to support, and there is often friction in the market place between unemployment and employment. There's a lag time where if one quits their job, they get NO income, zero. Most people can't simply quit because of this friction, and I doubt it'd be any different in AC.
It's not false, man always choose the best option to achieve his ends. To say otherwise is to imply that either man has no control over what he does, or that man does retarded things on purpose, this second option being contradictory, for if something was done with the intent of being retarded, then it's not really retarded, or even, it was exactly that choice which he wanted anyway.
When you say "most people can't quit", I'm pretty sure you mean "most people could leave but they choose not to because the dead time would hurt them more than another job would compensate". Regardless, consider an even worse scenario; when there IS no other employer. Say an exploited worker is living in the city. Water pipes are old and rusty, sewage is non-existant, there is no electricity, etc. etc. The only way he can stay in town with his family is to work in the only factory that will take him. The pay is horrible, he can barely pay for food and water alone. Is he being exploited, because he has no where else to go? Absolutely not, I refuse such an idea.
I would even go ahead and say the worker should be THANKFUL that such entrepreneur decided to open a factory where he could work at, because if it wasn't for him, then there would be NO job, and he'd have to look for charity, or move and try his luck elsewhere.
The worker has no claim to the factory, he didn't help to build it. He didn't assemble those water pipes, even if they're awful. We can assume he bought the small apartment he lives with his wife and two kids, but besides that, he doesn't own anything but his clothes. It would absolutely be wrong of him to take over the factory, an object to wish he contributed 0 in its creation. It would be extremely unfair to the factory owner, who paid for it all, and organized it all.
If you expect people to respect your claims to the things you buy, you necessarily have to respect people's claims over their bought stuff (as long as the capital chain is voluntary, of course. Buying a stolen car doesn't make it yours). If you claim that the factory owner shouldn't be respected in the exclusive use of the factory that he bought, you are estopped from claiming that you have the exclusive control over your bought clothes, bed, house, whatever else you may have.
And I've asked twice what is the explicit difference between a possession and property. I am still waiting for an answer. Because I don't think there is any. It's your own arbitrary notions that a house on sale is property, yet the house you live in is your possession. It's completely ridiculous and disregarding of the people who built or paid for the house to be built. A factory is property, unless it's occupied by the kind of organization that you approve of - then it's a possession. Clothing on a stand is property, and clothing that you're wearing is a possession. Ridiculous double standards.
Now, on the transition of jobs. It is not the employer's fault that you have to spend time looking for another willing employer, but rather the market conditions of the era the person is in. It would be great if we could quit and find a job the very next day, the very next hour, minute, second. But there are restraints to human interaction that don't allow such contracts to even mutually be made.
There needs to be time for the employee to find the right employer through adds and word of mouth, and there needs time for the employer to find the right employee through an interview meeting. Contracts have to be signed to formalize the position, for the benefit of both. would be great if such a thing could be made faster and easier, and to the extend that it's cost-beneficial, they do try to make it as fast and painless as possible. But anymore faster isn't mutually feasible. It isn't the employer's fault that such process exists, as much as it isn't his fault that his factory can only produce so much before marginal utility by the part of consumers determine he's making more products than people want to buy; or that nature has provided man a limited amount of ores, trees, oil.
There are however things that make this process worse and that should be gotten rid of - it is government regulation. Government regulation always adds a layer of action necessary for employers to hire workers, adding the cost and time it takes for him to hire someone new, aside from the costs added to the business in general. Think of how many forms does the entrepreneur has to submit to government, for every new employee. Think of how many added lines in other forms owed to the government does the employer have to add the new employee's name to. It's horrible, and it helps no one. The government says it's to keep an eye on business practice, and protect both the employee and consumer. But who's to decide such practice is cost efficient to do so? I'd say it would be much more cost efficient for unions to be made, for example, or each employee can pay for their own legal representatives in case of "exploitation". Surely the government who already supervise the companies now are being paid either by the entrepreneur or the general taxpayer, creating more externalities should I add, then it can't possibly be such an expensive service that people themselves could afford to pay for voluntarily.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I think this paragraph shows one of the major weak points in your stance. Let's say I start by saying that human nature is pretty bad, overall, but I accept that it applies to anarcho-capitalism and any democratic state at the same time. I might then argue that there is no state that exists in an entirely democratic sense. Constitutions are written by particular people, who may be above-average in terms of how "good" they are. These constitutions provide a bulwark against democracy and anyone appointed by democratic means. So, if I argue that a perfect democracy with no laws that cannot be overturned by a majority does not form a "good" society, then the same arguments could apply to anarcho-capitalism without necessarily applying to any state. This could be extended to argue that a state founded on "good" principles would persist while one founded on "not good" principles would fall, leading to a sort of "survival of the fittest" among constitutions. For a current example of how the use of constitutional laws can (maybe) prevent the inherently evil majority from making bad decisions, take a look at California. Here's an example of a majority attempting to remove a constitutional right from a minority. (If you disagree with me about this particular case, you'll have to forgive me, because I'd imagine it would be impossible to find a case in which a constitution has opposed a majority that isn't politically charged.) If you prefer theoretical examples, consider a theoretical country that has 101 male residents and 99 female residents. In anarcho-capitalism or pure democracy, 101 males, if "evil" enough, could vote that females no longer retain the right to vote, but a constitution may prevent this by guaranteeing all males and females the right to vote.
Either way, I think that this provides a sufficient challenge to your assumption that all arguments concerning human nature that would apply to anarcho-capitalism apply equally to states.
On August 30 2010 11:33 Zoroth wrote: OMG what a thread - anarchy is the absence of "Law", and capitalism requires a number of laws and regulations to even exist. It's like so selv-evident that I'm thinking "wtf?!!" /facepalm.
Congrats on a highly successful troll, OP. (With the pretense that I only read your title and not the wall of text, a bit sleepy right now). In any case - 10/10 for just bringing it up :D
I would recommend not throwing around the word troll so much, and even if it was a troll, I spent four times the amount of typing more than any single replier. Not the most efficient troll I'd say.
On August 30 2010 11:46 SharkSpider wrote: [Facts]
ty. Point being, corporations would have near 0 coercive power without a subsidized, monopoly of coercion, to pay off and externalize the risks of ostracism, retaliation.
More simply said, corporations Use the government because it's a cheap way to coerce people into doing or not doing the stuff they want. I.e. giving them money (subsidies), killing competition (monopoly laws, yes, monopoly laws, you read it right. Monopoly laws give rise to oligarchies), denying competition (coercive monopoly aka legal monopoly also exclusive leases of stolen aka tax-funded infrastructure), preventing competition (regulatory barriers of entry)
For a corporation to take up arms and do all that shit by itself would cost hundreds of millions in lawsuits against it alone. To lobby the government to do it for them costs less than a million at the very very most. So you see, government is the enabler of violence, not the disabler.
because government and law is unavoidable. A business is just a mini-government or government is just a really big business.
you can see the obvious parallels between a business' organizational structure and the governments'. A company decides within itself the rules regarding how to divide resources, relationships with co-workers, security measures, how to handle the buildings and property.
imagine getting dropped off with your fellow anarcho-capitalist buddies in a new world. The first thing people do is come up with a scheme for leadership and decision making. They can call it a "business," but they just created a government.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
Short answer: market decides. Long answer: Man, Economy, and the State by Murray Rothbard Real answer: only knowable when it happens My answer: Law does not come from the ruler. Law comes from the people's sentiment and ethical constructions, culturally, instinctively, naturally, theologically, however you may believe. The law is whatever most people consider fair. Law codes can be freely written just as biology books are written, or medical books. They describe problems, issues, rights, and guidelines on how to best solve disputes in a way most people agree.
Market courts have verdicts just as today; but they aren't monopolistic nor coercive of course, and their rulings are more like opinions. However, the many courts seeking to settle disputes have a direct profit interest in being popular - the better they settle issues, the more people their hear, the more money they make. So you can see there's a profit incentive to use decent law codes and be fair to the extent a court's customers pay them to be so.
Fraud is a problem of dispute. Goes into the above.
How it can be punished. There are many ways. In ancap, all the land that is used is owned. A criminal could be denied going to malls, stores, parks, across the street, or even just leaving his home. People would require him to go to court when he's called on a serious issue. If he doesn't, he hurts his reputation and that's one thing that can happen.
I personally endorse getting rid of violent sociopaths if they're proven in court to be a menace to society, either killing or sending them for rehab somewhere. PDAs aka private defense agencies are hired by people to enforce court rullings, but they're mainly defensive - they can't risk agressing or they can be sued just like anyone else. Every bullet comes to a cost, and again, like the courts are paid to solve disputes, the PDAs are paid to defend the customer's due property. They are as popular and profitable as they are deemed reliable in doing so. Agressive pdas.. risk losing popularity, hence profit, and can particularly be retaliated against seeing that they're a greater menace to society than old guys with wigs sitting on some weird pedestal.
Currencies... more of the same... banks would be the most able to issue exchangeable notes out of people's deposits, and the most popular banks would be those that are the most reliable and have the best exchangeable notes.
PDAs are just like your cops today, minus the thuggery, because a cop being rude with its customers cuts into his own paycheck and possibly risks his employment status at the company. Unlike public police, there isn't just one, there is as many as the localities are interested in. And unlike government jobs, cops don't have the huge amount of insurances, securities against termination, benefits, great pay... a cop today could kill someone and only be suspended for a month no problem. I don't think such absurd, popularity-shrinking, profit-losing, criminal behavior from any employee would be legally forgivable, let alone allowed to keep one's job. At least as much as a cellphone store would keep an employee who constantly breaks people's phones and harasses them.
I don't know what you mean by reproduction of labor, but if you think government jobs are real jobs, I don't think I can help you that much on that. Forcing people to pay for anything, isn't a job. It's theft. If the job is desirable for a customer, he can and will pay for it. Why steal from him to give back to him the services that you assume he wants? Again, sorry if that ain't it.
Yurebis: What evidence do you have that the partnership formed by A and B, multiplied trillions of times over history, will never coerce C (exploit, fuck over, whatever your term)? Some naieve concept of business ethics? And how can you say anyone at any part of the system can leave it at anytime? Ever heard of slavery? A great business idea, that one! The myth of the free market has already played itself out in imperialism-> today. You are right about the Fed and fractional reserve banking though. You also need to realize, corporations will never have the foresight to stop themselves from making a profit before the point of no return, at which resources become limited and people start dying. The only efficiencies they really contain are precisely because of this singular goal - the acquisition of prophet, which, even you would agree, the free market absolutely demands. Our market is not too regulated - its too free. Thats what makes it suck. Thats why the only thing really happening right now is that as people grow and contribute to our economy, making and producing and innovating, every so often the "free" market advocates like the large banks, large corporations, and the fed contract the economy, ruining millions of peoples lives and consolidation money at the top, eliminating the middle class. See current economic status for examples. As long as their are enough retards to call Obama a muslim and wave their guns at rallies, they will continue to vote against the simple leveling of the playing field against people who take advantage of them "coercion" constantly, and they will continue to vote against their own interests. And sweden is not fucking anarcho capitalist. Thats ridiculous on its face.
Our government is incompetent and stupid. The solution is not no government. The solution is a better one.
The whole presmise of anachro-capitalism is self-contradictory. Capitalism can only exist if there is an agreed system of ownership. The problem is that this "ownership" is not natural, and must be enforced by an entity (ie government).
If there is no entity to enforce private property rules, there is no ownership; the strong takes what they can and the weak has to bear what they must. In such violent environment, a market cannot prosper. As a result, the system of capitalism breaks down. Anarchy means no market. No market means no capitalism.
Let's say that you accept the smallest government to enforce these rules. Is this enough? No, because the simple ownership system is flawed. Who owns the air? Who owns the river? We have to use this resource but the market cannot allocate them through private ownership, so it's overused and polluted-leading to the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want to put up with the pollution level of early 19th century London?
The thing is free-market and free-enterprise system, even with their tremendous efficiency, are not without flaws. You can make a more valid point in arguing for freer market through less regluation. However, it is very hard to actually support Anachro-Capitalism.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital?
I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.
A few questions arise:
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely. Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?
Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job? Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?
So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical? Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners? Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).
So the government takes role of being a watch dog over the corporate state. What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.
The results are as such: 1. People need a means for survive. 2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors A) Skill set of any given person B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources). C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc). 3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation. 4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power" 5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position. A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy. B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc) 6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder. A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position. B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level. 7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.
The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.
You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.
You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
On August 29 2010 18:04 Yurebis wrote: Well of course you can't prevent everyone from doing what is deemed as undesirable activities (coercion!), but I think you're being a tad too demanding and a bit too pessimistic. When I say it has overcome, I mean it has overcome to the extent I'm fine with it. 1% of sociopaths doesn't hurt all that much by themselves. What hurts more is the system in place enabling those sociopaths to get the most power, IMO.
You're correct in that the problem is not the 1% of utter basket cases that fit through the cracks. We can deal with that. The real problem is that we're all just a little bit sociopathic. Given a choice between us and them, we pick us, and in so many cases 'us' boils down to 'me'. Very few people can make the leap of considering themselves as part of a greater structure and measuring their own health by the health of that structure when it comes to making decisions- they understand the concept, but they don't apply it. Subjective rationality is a very powerful concept that you should understand, as it's vital to working with Acap. Formal, traditional rationality does not factor in a whole weave of things as economic values. Subjective rationality does. Once you understand subjective rationality, you can begin to construct a model that does not 'hope for the best' as far as human nature and society goes. It can hold every variable, from mad irrational hatred to cold mathematical logic, and give you valid output data
On August 29 2010 18:04 Yurebis wrote: Well it is relevant, I'm just saying, I'm not going to be answering "how we get there" before most people are like "wtf is that place". I'd rather answer them first. But basically, you don't pay the state tribute, state goes bankrupt. That entails morally bankrupt concurrently too of course. Hm in fact I have not much else to say besides that, so consider it the full response LOL. Was it practical enough for you? I hope so, and sorry for not having THE MEANING OF LIFE figured out for you... I tried my best.
What I want is for people to get along ;_;
I read you dude, same here. But we have to be careful not to believe in something because we want it to be true. If we want something to be, and it is not, we have to figure out why it isn't properly, and the 'oh woe government' argument doesn't do that very well. The state exists because people made it, and we have a tendency to make states and collectives, which naturally vest in authorities and become the great nation-states we have today. If you destroy one state, another will arise unless there are deliberate and organised steps taken to prevent it- which in itself is a state of sorts. The economics are simple and, like the dilemma, so long as the assumptions hold true (division of labour increases efficiency, human problem solving is synergistic etc) it's not something we can fight- people will form states, and those states will involve many people delegating authority to fewer people so they can produce more efficiently without having to worry about it. We can look to make a better system, assuredly, but we can't just say it's horrible and bad and it shouldn't exist. That don't help any.
Uh... what? People are sympathetic, therefore, they will want to form a coercive monopoly of power? I don't see the link here. Humans are cooperative beings, the reason why only 1% are sociopathic is because they're generally WORSE at life; they don't feel other people's emotions even though they can pretend they do. It is like not having sensory pain. Feeling other people's emotions is extremely useful in knowing when to smile, when to laugh, when to frown, when to pinch someone, when to hug, when to kiss, when to punch them in the dick, etc. They're socially handicapped, even though it is extremely USEFUL for the purposes of coercion; they can do it without sentimental, moral, or instinctual blockage. Aiming the gun better, sending the troops at the right place, blowing the right targets, they can kill rob and rape like no other.
But that is NOT generally something that rises you up. It is very circumstantial. And as much as I like to say that the sociopaths flock the state, it is not like 50%, or even 10% of the state is filled with sociopaths. Most presidents do feel like they're doing the right thing, generals, advisors, secretaries. If they didn't believe, not even a little, it would indeed take a sociopath to live and work like that.
And it doesn't follow that from any description of human nature, that the state is inevitable. There just isn't such a thing. It's not like there's a state gene. I'm a human too, am I craving for some whipping on my butt right now? No... that's silly. State is a means, and it has been consistently chosen as the best means for a while now. But I reject it still, just as someone in colonial america could have rejected slavery, or a serf in a feud, or a servant in a monarchy.
On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: The trouble with the way you're arguing is exactly that you're trying to explain a perfect place FIRST without considering and lining up how to get there- and so people will always question your assumptions, since you haven't outlined them all. Historically, the most effect method of convincing a group or person of a novel argument is as follows
advocate: I have this great idea, what if XYZ? critic: it won't work. advocate: I see. Very well, do you agree that If A is true, B is true and C is true, then XYZ is plausible? critic: but A B and C *aren't* true advocate: I know, but if they *were* true, do you agree it would work? critic: I guess so... advocate: My challenge, then, is to demonstrate that A B and C are possible to make true simultaneously. critic:: B will never happen advocate: very well, again we must make some assumptions. If D E and F are true, we agree B could follow? critic: ugh, ok, yes. advocate: Right, then, my challenge becomes to make A, D, E, F and C simultaneously true.
And so on. Now, this might sound a little arcane, but it's quite elegant. It rests on the principle of getting your critic to agree with you each step of the way. You work your way down through the abstract, proving elements as you go using unestablished assumptions. Then, once you have reached a point where once these unestablished assumptions can no longer be challenged, you can begin working from the point closest to reality that your critic understands, instead of trying to sell them something ten, fifty or a hundred steps down the line- each one of which they can challenge out of any semblance of order or coherency.
Okay, I hadn't thought of it this way directly, but yes, the purpose of the thread was to both collect what premises do people find necessary for ancap to work, and to teach to those that are interested what it even means.
On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: So instead of trying to convince people of things they will never accept, don't try and convince them yet. Simply convince them of things that make sense. State that you are assuming in abstract that X and Y and Z. If someone challenges one, think about what would have to be true for their argument to be false, and break it down again.
On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: I must add, of course, that if you fail, you must man up and change your scenario or abandon it. If you cannot establish that you truly could make an assumption, then you've based your reasoning on false premises and have to modify it. Sometimes this can be easy enough (I assumed that humans natively do X. It has been established that this is not the case, but I *can* assume that in Y scenario, they will do X, so Y scenario must be true for this assumption to hold). Sometimes it can be impossible ( I have discovered that I can never assume that reapers will *always* be OP).
I knew this myself. But there's also the possibility that the state has brainwashed them so hard that they won't listen to reaon. Obviously I don't argue that route as it is meaningless as an argument, but just saying, that it may be true even if the whole society decides to incinerate me for merely saying it (hint hint)
On August 30 2010 12:15 Thereisnosaurus wrote: This is a formulation of argument that is easy to do structurally, but puts a lot of intellectual work back in your camp. However, if you DO pull it off, you will be the next Darwin or Newton, concepts proved in such a manner are almost impossible to argue with.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I think this paragraph shows one of the major weak points in your stance. Let's say I start by saying that human nature is pretty bad, overall, but I accept that it applies to anarcho-capitalism and any democratic state at the same time. I might then argue that there is no state that exists in an entirely democratic sense. Constitutions are written by particular people, who may be above-average in terms of how "good" they are. These constitutions provide a bulwark against democracy and anyone appointed by democratic means. So, if I argue that a perfect democracy with no laws that cannot be overturned by a majority does not form a "good" society, then the same arguments could apply to anarcho-capitalism without necessarily applying to any state. This could be extended to argue that a state founded on "good" principles would persist while one founded on "not good" principles would fall, leading to a sort of "survival of the fittest" among constitutions. For a current example of how the use of constitutional laws can (maybe) prevent the inherently evil majority from making bad decisions, take a look at California. Here's an example of a majority attempting to remove a constitutional right from a minority. (If you disagree with me about this particular case, you'll have to forgive me, because I'd imagine it would be impossible to find a case in which a constitution has opposed a majority that isn't politically charged.) If you prefer theoretical examples, consider a theoretical country that has 101 male residents and 99 female residents. In anarcho-capitalism or pure democracy, 101 males, if "evil" enough, could vote that females no longer retain the right to vote, but a constitution may prevent this by guaranteeing all males and females the right to vote.
Either way, I think that this provides a sufficient challenge to your assumption that all arguments concerning human nature that would apply to anarcho-capitalism apply equally to states.
Okay, so, because both ancap and democracies are somewhat populists, if one is bad, the other one is just as bad? Is that a good sum-up? I'm gonna write assuming it is.
Okay well, I'm not going to repeat myself thoroughly but you don't seem to agree with me on what laws are. Laws don't come from some ancient paper written by guys with wigs and beards, they come from people's moral cognitions, which in turn, come from the culture, god, genetics, yadda yadda yadda.
Second, yeah, a democracy isn't really all that bad if they respected private property rights. But they don't. By definition, property rights isn't the highest priority, populism is. So the difference between anarcho-capitalim and democracy in the law sense, is first of all, property rights comes first in ancap, populism second. Populism is first in a democracy, property second.
Third. The system is designed differently. Democracies, as good as they can get, aren't decentralized. They are one and only, and all the people in a huge area have to compromise their laws. Ancap suffers no such restriction. People assemble as they want, and laws are secondary to conflict resolution. Welp, perhaps I could put it this way. Ancap - conflict resolution comes first, laws are a tools for that. Democracy - tries to establish an ultimate law code first, then the rest of the system next. I think it's much better to start bottom up eh. And there's austrian economics reasons for that which I've explained ad nauseum in this thread... market... incentives, ... price signals... competition... uuuhh I'm going to throw up.
On August 30 2010 06:36 Dystisis wrote: To put it briefly: Capitalism is about the ownership of labor, profit is the capitalist's extracted value from that labor, wages is the payment to the laborer. Profit will always surpass the payment. So, if what the laborer creates monthly is worth X, and what the capitalist pays to the laborer each month is Y, then X > Y. This is necessarily so, or else the capitalist would cease to make profit. In other words, capitalism is an arrangement of a capitalist effectively stealing from a laborer. If you look at it from the perspective of a whole society, this is what leads value upwards into the hands of a capitalist class -- it is why roughly 95% of the worlds resources are in the hands of 5% of the population.
Freedom, per the capitalist misuse of the word, is the limited ability to choose who shall exploit you. If you fail to make the choice, you do not receive the means to life. This is why capitalism is inherently negative, and all amount of capitalist policy leads to an increase in poverty which is necessary for the capitalist system to survive. Capitalism necessitates poverty, which leads to rebellion, which leads to control. Capitalism leads to the state itself: The state is a mechanism for capitalists to regulate the masses. Through it, the masses have over the years managed to fight and claim some rights. But these rights were not granted because the state is on the side of workers and ordinary people, they were granted out of the capitalist's necessity.
"Anarcho-capitalism" could obviously not work, because the state authority is required for the capitalists to properly hold on to their privilege. The state as we know it came to exist together with capitalism; it is a political mode that goes hand in hand. True alternative could never be seen until both capitalism and its state is gone.
My god, so many communists.
Capitalism is about the ownership of capital, and yes if you want to consider labor the only type of capital that exists, be my guest, but that's not the case. The "profit from labor" type of deal is an incomplete equation. You're not considering how the laborer is working; how the laborer is getting paid; and how the capitalist is getting paid even more. The capitalist is not stealing from the laborer in two counts: 1- Catallactics proves he can't be. The worker is being paid. If he felt he's not being paid enough he can leave his job and go work for someone else. But that he evaluates his own job over the market price is his own fault. There is nothing saying that his work is worth more than he's paid, because there are no objective values in reality. All values are subjective. 2- The salary < salary+profit type of deal completely ignores what the profit means, what the profit is paying for. The profit is coming from the customer - the customer has evaluated that price Y is good enough for the product he's getting. He's not paying the worker, he's paying everyone that helped put that product on the shelves. That includes the entrepreneur. To say that only the worker helped not just make THAT product, but also organize the business model in which the customer can retrieve it at the convenience of a store close by, is to ignore part of the deal. The customer is not paying for the product PERIOD, he's paying for the whole structure.
A simple proof of #2 is electronic equipment. Silicon and plastics is dirty cheap. If you were to think about the price of the materials that compose the electronic, and add only the cost of assembly, you'd be forgetting a ton, a ton of other work that went into making that product not only exist, but be transported to every other factory it's been to, and then to you. It's complete ignorance to say the product is only worth what it costs to make it at the production stage, period; and it's complete ignorance to say that the consumer is paying the workers for the product; No, the consumer is paying for the ability to put that product in his shopping cart, and that includes everything, everything, that went into making that business model financially sustainable.
I'd go on but that should be enough to make you think, I HOPE.
Bolded one particular statement to point out a fallacy. There will always be more potential employees and job seekers than there are jobs. Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
In arguments like these, you can always pick out the people who understand economics from those who don't.
Fact: Left-wing governments, minimum wages, labour movements and unions fix the wages in certain industries at levels higher than "the going wage," which is what corporations would offer baesd on traditional supply and demand style economics.
Fact: When there is a wage floor above the going wage, companies that are interested in profit-maximization and who experience diminishing returns on labour will opt to hire less labour, because labour is less efficient.
The result is that the more power labourers have over wage bargaining and the higher the minumum wage, the higher the unemployment rate. If the minimum wage lowers, the power of unions decreases, or the productivity of labour increases, it becomes profitable for firms to hire more labour and reduce unemployment.
What you're doing is viewing a natural process in economics as exploitation. No matter how up-in-arms anyone chooses to get, the power to employ rests with the owners of capital. When the price of labour is fixed at a level that makes it impossible for the profits generated by a unit of labour to "rent" the capital used to attain those profits, labour will not be hired, and in addition to this, the accumulation of capital will be discouraged, which simply works to perpetuate the situation. EG: Factory for one worker costs $1000 to rent every year, one worker at the factory generates $2000 yearly, then that worker should be paid $1000 yearly. If minimum wage is $1500 yearly or if the union in charge of that sector is able to force $1500 yearly, that worker will go unemployed because the corporation would lose money by hiring them.
Either way, I won't disagree that corporations have a lot of political power, but you're disagreeing with a simple economic principle and providing no backing for it.
I chose to take a moral and ethical viewpoint instead of a strictly economic one because someone's well-being should not have a dollar sign associated with it. I also think it's pretty hilarious how hard you're over analyzing my points, and how many deductions you make about my opinions when, as a matter of fact, I agree with many of your viewpoints.
The government may make mistakes and overcompensate for things to try to win over the common worker. This doesn't mean that the government shouldn't be watching over corporations to check for corruption or at least be given the option to check a companies book keeping if needed.
Watch as I point out all your deductions...
Left-wing governments, minimum wages, labour movements and unions fix
One generalized term and two other terms in which I mentioned NOTHING about.
When there is a wage floor above the going wage
So the same as fact #1 except instead of minimum wage you used an elaborated explanation. Never mentioned anything about minimum wage dude. Just because you can point out that min. wage causes lay offs doesn't mean anarcho-capitalism is the end-all argument to all economic theories. Like I said, I agreed with a lot of your points, but you were too busy being pretentious with your deductions to see that just because I don't agree that anarcho-capitalism is the way, doesn't mean I think our current system is perfect.
On August 30 2010 12:49 geometryb wrote: because government and law is unavoidable. A business is just a mini-government or government is just a really big business.
you can see the obvious parallels between a business' organizational structure and the governments'. A company decides within itself the rules regarding how to divide resources, relationships with co-workers, security measures, how to handle the buildings and property.
Law can be both written and enforced spontaneously. Governments and companies are nothing alike if you know the calculation problem
On August 30 2010 12:52 geometryb wrote: imagine getting dropped off with your fellow anarcho-capitalist buddies in a new world. The first thing people do is come up with a scheme for leadership and decision making. They can call it a "business," but they just created a government.
They'd only go after you if you fucked with them though. No taxes or positive obligations... hardly a government.
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.
On August 30 2010 12:49 geometryb wrote: because government and law is unavoidable. A business is just a mini-government or government is just a really big business.
you can see the obvious parallels between a business' organizational structure and the governments'. A company decides within itself the rules regarding how to divide resources, relationships with co-workers, security measures, how to handle the buildings and property.
Law can be both written and enforced spontaneously. Governments and companies are nothing alike if you know the calculation problem
On August 30 2010 12:52 geometryb wrote: imagine getting dropped off with your fellow anarcho-capitalist buddies in a new world. The first thing people do is come up with a scheme for leadership and decision making. They can call it a "business," but they just created a government.
They'd only go after you if you fucked with them though. No taxes or positive obligations... hardly a government.
for the first thing, government - direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants. That sure sounds like what a business does.
for the second thing you said, you dont have to pay taxes, but you're obligated to follow the direction if you want to belong in the business/tribe/community. maybe when the community starts creating currency, then you would have to pay taxes.
businesses can financially/economically plan. they can issue their own currency if they wanted to. make their own bonds. you even mention private banks coming up with their own currencies.
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.
This is another good point. Despite the biggest financial crisis, people seem to forget that humans are still far from Homo Economicus.
if you create a company in the absence of government, the company is going to be the government. because the company is making up all the rules/laws for its employees. it will decide how it deals with other companies/countries. etc etc.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.
See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.
On August 30 2010 13:15 nashface wrote: Yurebis: What evidence do you have that the partnership formed by A and B, multiplied trillions of times over history, will never coerce C (exploit, fuck over, whatever your term)? Some naieve concept of business ethics? And how can you say anyone at any part of the system can leave it at anytime? Ever heard of slavery? A great business idea, that one! The myth of the free market has already played itself out in imperialism-> today. You are right about the Fed and fractional reserve banking though. You also need to realize, corporations will never have the foresight to stop themselves from making a profit before the point of no return, at which resources become limited and people start dying. The only efficiencies they really contain are precisely because of this singular goal - the acquisition of prophet, which, even you would agree, the free market absolutely demands. Our market is not too regulated - its too free. Thats what makes it suck. Thats why the only thing really happening right now is that as people grow and contribute to our economy, making and producing and innovating, every so often the "free" market advocates like the large banks, large corporations, and the fed contract the economy, ruining millions of peoples lives and consolidation money at the top, eliminating the middle class. See current economic status for examples. As long as their are enough retards to call Obama a muslim and wave their guns at rallies, they will continue to vote against the simple leveling of the playing field against people who take advantage of them "coercion" constantly, and they will continue to vote against their own interests. And sweden is not fucking anarcho capitalist. Thats ridiculous on its face.
Our government is incompetent and stupid. The solution is not no government. The solution is a better one.
Whenever I said that the won't, it had a context. It won't - if they want to keep popularity up. It won't - if they don't want to risk retaliation. It won't- if they don't want to lose profits long term. And if I did let go once twice or thrice that they won't, period, then I mean generally. Of course I don't know how the fuck some certain individual in a remote time that I don't know and that was raised in a culture that I don't know will ever do anything. Hell, I don't even know what I will do, much less someone else who I don't have access to the consciousness of.
The private company will tend to coerce LESS, because it doesn't have a monopoly, because it's profits depend on popularity, because people can retaliate better when they're not being robbed of 30%,40%,50% of their income.
Slavery wasn't that profitable. If you don't believe me fine, it's a shitty argument of yours anyway. It comes at a greater cost for you to babysit and take care of the slave like he's an animal, than letting him take care of himself, then voluntarily work to you. Because it takes "mental work" to figure what the slave needs - food, clothing, housing, and instead of working that yourself, you can just pay him the due amount you think it would cost him to get that, and he does it himself. Boom. The slave-owner-now-entrepreneur just saved a bunch of money by switching to GEICO.
How is imperialism -> today an example that free market works...? wtf.
And Lol, you're saying entrepreneurs will constantly go broke because they can't manage their resources? LOL. And I assume you're saying that STATISTS CAN MANAGE RESOURCES BETTER? DOUBLE LOL. No. All the government owns is obtained coercively. THEY lack the market mechanisms to know if tomorrow they'll have enough money. THEY lack the price signals to know at which price to sell their products, or by how much should they tax its servants er slaves er taxpayers. THEY lack the most basic market incentives of supply and demand to know when to stop RAPING EVERYONE. Entrepreneurs that are allowed to own their own property have not only the best intelligence over how to use their own capital (as opposed to a no-liability bureaucrat sitting in D.C. miles away and unconcerned with the financial stability of anyone but his lobbyists, and as much worried about his voter as it costs him to prop up his campaign next year and get more voters back to >50%). They know best when to stop because contrary to popular thought they do care if their property will be worth less. They only do no care when GOVERNMENT LEASES TO THEM STOLEN SHIT. Then they can deforest, overmine, do whatever the fuck they want. Hell it's private property, if they don't do it, some other company will come around, pay off the state pimp, and slap that bitch before they do. OUCH.
Goddamnit I didn't go through half the post yet. Prematurely posted. GOING ON. The central banks are FREE? WHAT? Did you ever try to figure out what one needs to start a FED-approved BANK (entitles you with <1% interest rate loans)? It's like initiating into the mafia. You need in total hundreds of thousands of dollars just to get started. The banks are in a whole league of their own it's not free AT ALL. It's a cartel, a legal cartel. And it's a no-brainer why they're so big and fucked up. Because you're not allowed to compete. They have the backing of Washington, you don't. Government of the people? YEAH RIGHT LOL. Some guy who sold liberty dollars, wasn't even a note intended for trade, just redemption into silver, was raided by the feds and got all the silver taken. Read stories of people getting raided for gold in the past, idk, 70 years. It's ridiculous. It's too free? You got to be shitting me.
I never even once wrote the word "sweden" in this thread, and taxation is coercion, yes, you may not consider it, and be a good citizen. Good for you. But it's a fact. You don't pay, you go to jail. You resist, you get shot and Die. Simple.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.
See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.
Hmmm, I don't know about you but I really want that big stupid externality badly. One of them is called national security. Do you have any bright idea on how to prevent free-rider problem that will be more cost efficient than the current system for national security?
I really hope you don't suggest me to arm myself with F-22. . . . That shit is expensive.
On August 30 2010 13:22 keynest wrote: The whole presmise of anachro-capitalism is self-contradictory. Capitalism can only exist if there is an agreed system of ownership. The problem is that this "ownership" is not natural, and must be enforced by an entity (ie government).
If there is no entity to enforce private property rules, there is no ownership; the strong takes what they can and the weak has to bear what they must. In such violent environment, a market cannot prosper. As a result, the system of capitalism breaks down. Anarchy means no market. No market means no capitalism.
Let's say that you accept the smallest government to enforce these rules. Is this enough? No, because the simple ownership system is flawed. Who owns the air? Who owns the river? We have to use this resource but the market cannot allocate them through private ownership, so it's overused and polluted-leading to the tragedy of the commons. Do you really want to put up with the pollution level of early 19th century London?
The thing is free-market and free-enterprise system, even with their tremendous efficiency, are not without flaws. You can make a more valid point in arguing for freer market through less regluation. However, it is very hard to actually support Anachro-Capitalism.
It is natural. Ever heard kids saying "it's mine"? Property may be a "social relation", but irregardless, it's not something we need the government to be constantly reminding of us how it works, and not to steal, not to kill. Hell, don't even need the government to enforce.
Who said the air has to be owned? And then even if it has to, then why can't it? The river could certainly be owned just like land is, what's the problem with that? And even if it's not owned, and people form a community around it and use it, they can ostracize and sue people who misuse it or pollute it, therefore giving them health problems.
I mean.. there's no single dispute that can't be resolved in court. Everything can be worked out. To jump for the gun to resolve such silly and simple problems is throwing out the baby with the BATHTUB OUT THE WINDOW.
Tragedy of the commons is a public issue, and just guess what the best solution is.
You seem to imply government saved london. Who owns london, and why couldn't he save it himself? Oh wait, I guess it was state owned to start with? So you're saying the government manned up and cleaned up their own property? Well grats to them fuckers. How long did it take?
It is natural. Ever heard kids saying "it's mine"? Property may be a "social relation", but irregardless, it's not something we need the government to be constantly reminding of us how it works, and not to steal, not to kill. Hell, don't even need the government to enforce.
Have you seen them proclaiming "ownership"? They hit the other kid and take whatever they decide is "mine." When a government breaks down, one of the first things that break out is theft. Have you seen Louisiana after the hurricane? Enforcement is essential for an ownership system to exist.
Who said the air has to be owned? And then even if it has to, then why can't it? The river could certainly be owned just like land is, what's the problem with that? And even if it's not owned, and people form a community around it and use it, they can ostracize and sue people who misuse it or pollute it, therefore giving them health problems.
If there is an efficient way to privatize air, I am all ears.
Really? you are gonna sue the people who pollute the river? who is going to maintain the neutral court system and set up the law that the court will be based on. What entity will pay the judge, security personnels, and clerks?
I mean.. there's no single dispute that can't be resolved in court. Everything can be worked out. To jump for the gun to resolve such silly and simple problems is throwing out the baby with the BATHTUB OUT THE WINDOW.
Not everything can be worked out by the market. It sometimes fails. I don't know how put so much blind faith into the market.
You seem to imply government saved london. Who owns london, and why couldn't he save it himself? Oh wait, I guess it was state owned to start with? So you're saying the government manned up and cleaned up their own property? Well grats to them fuckers. How long did it take?
Wow, you are now just proving you are debating for the sake of debating. London was not owned by the government. Most of its land was private property, but shit happened. Private businesses did not regulate themselves because cost was too great for a single business to have a cleaner facility but the benefit would be dispersed to the entire city--An externality problem. and the air pollution killed thousands of people.
The pollution was problem and had to be dealt with one way or the other. Regulation, though not most efficient, was one way to go about it, and it worked. Air pollution killed 4000 people even in 1952 London, for nearly 2 centuries, the market failed, and finally the government had to step in with a regulation.
All I gotta say is that Capitalism and the market cannot solve everything. When they do fail, you cannot turn blind eyes. Even if the solution might not be efficient, sometimes you gotta step in.
Anarcho-capitalism recommanded by Austrian School is an interesting idea, but is built on researches and essays with shaky scientific vigor or fragile evidence to back up.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital?
I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.
Tell me how can there be an unfair business practice that is not coercive. And by coercive, I mean that it crosses the bounds of another's private property without their authorization.
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.
Exploitation as you defined it is irrelevant. Nature is exploiting me because food doesn't fall from the sky. Physics is exploiting me because I can't fly. There are no violations in your inability to do anything, it's just your current economical state of being, your current choices. You're not forced to work, you can choose to die too, yo. Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice. Coercion is exactly threatening to inflict upon you death, or another very low-priority choice, if you don't choose to do what the coercer wants.
But the current state of choices you have, and how deplorable they are, is no one's fault but yours. If you are going to die of hunger, your fault. If you are going to die of hunger, and another human being is in front of you yet chooses not to give you food, it's still your own damn fault. No one is obliged to give you anything.
It's a complete misnomer to call the inaction of others as POWER over you. God. Bill Gates has power over you by choosing not to give you a billion dollars? That's not what power means, what the fuck. Power means control. Bill Gates has no control over you. For him to do anything against you, you have to interact with him first. And if he does do something to you, then it's coercion, duh. And at that point he does have power over you, because he's exerting control over you - but it's called coercion, because it's considered overstepping your rights.
Please use definitions more closely to their popular meaning. (lol who am I to say that lol)
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.
You hold power my friend. You hold power aka control over your possessions. Should you be kept in check so that you don't EXPLOIT A BUM IN THE STREET for not letting him sleep over? Jesus. Your checks and balances are completely arbitrary. There's always going to be a hierarchy somewhere. Again, an example that I gave, is, when I talk, you shut up. That happens naturally. And then I give you voluntarily the command by letting you talk when I finish. SHOULD THAT TREACHEROUS CHAIN OF COMMAND BE REGULATED BECAUSE YOU CANT TRUST THAT I WILL LET YOU TALK? And then what? You have a hierarchy over a hierarchy. And then a hierarchy is needed to be on top of the second one. And on, and on, and on.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes? The question is a long one, and can't be answered completely, it can only be approximated to the optimal structure. And the optimal structure may be any series of complicated hierarchies and separations of powers. But the best way to approach it is by going for the least common denominator. Let each and every individual voluntarily assemble, and they will figure out what works best for everyone to the degree that everyone cares. Any other coercive solution, will twist the structure further away from the optimal structure, because you're denying people the ability to chose, because you as a central planner can't know what's up better than the sum of everyone else. Because you lack the market incentives, price mechanisms... oh fuck it.
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely.
WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU A CAPITALIST? YOU GO THROUGH ALL THIS COMMUNIST BULLSHIT AND THEN AGREES WITH ME? WHAT?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?
They most likely won't, but they'll ask that you give something back. If not money, labor. Something. at which point, THEYRE USING THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL AND THEYRE BEING GREEDY CAPITALISTS FUCK THE BOURGEOIS PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD UNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
Yes, most cost-efficient tbh.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?
That's their choice, not mine. If the best business turn out to be those that do what you say, then they'll be more popular, and will profit more, and others will soon copy them. Voluntarily, you see how it works now?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical?
Investors, stock holders.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners?
To the degree that capital is invested in them, we can assume that the aggregation of every stockholders and investors watching the business closely are very prudent, yeah. Much more than any single central planner can wave a pen and put some jackals of some agency on them yeah. Most most most definitely. And as soon as you understand that, the sooner will my fingers stop hurting.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).
Not the same type of power, and then, even if they do become corrupt over the power that they exert OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY, they're going to fuck up their own business.
Government has total power OVER EVERYONES PROPERTY. That my friend, is absolute power.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: So the government takes role of being a watch dog over the corporate state.
More like RABID DOG AMIRITE
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: The results are as such: 1. People need a means for survive.
You don't know which means. You cannot know, unless people are free to choose what they want or need. Everything else is second best. Last best. Worst best. Worst. Everything else is the woooorst. Central planning fails, at the very first premise...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors
You can't make such distinction. Tell me, is a worker who retains stock share of the company he works in a worker or an entrepreneur? OH MY GOD HES BOTH
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Skill set of any given person B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources). C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc).
This is kind of irrelevant.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation.
You don't know that all of them need workers. There is such a thing as one-man-businesses. And he can use contractors, third party employees, nothing quite fixed as their own. But okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power"
I don't mind such illustration, only noting that the workers VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED the entrepreneurs to ride on their backs, because it was THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. If it wasn't...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position.
Uh.. companies work to become more efficient? Okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy.
The worker has to earn his pay. So?
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc)
They're in power to do what they want with the capital that is properly theirs. I thought you conceded that already. What is wrong with exerting power over your own property, your own house, your own body? Jesus. And LoL@greed.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder.
Not really, people choose to elect officials for a variety of dumb reasons. But I assume you just want to focus on that oversight aspect. Welp, I think you forgot to consider the constitutional republic of the US at least specifically doesn't oversees just for overseeing, the purpose of it was to withhold individual rights, property, etc. etc. Not overseeing people to make sure they're angels. It's to make sure they don't overstep other people's boundaries. (and they do so by taxing everyone but yeah)
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position. B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level.
This is competely wrong as I said above. The scope outside of government, besides the separation of powers stuff, is to protect both individual liberty and private property, mainly by the part of the judiciary. Not to impose your flavor of ethics, which is arbitrary as hell.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.
That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has. Actually, even if you added every corporate property and pretended they were all under a secret cabal of capitalist interest (LOL I BELIEVE THAT TOO), it STILL doesn't come close to the power of the state. Probably not even 1% still.
You don't seem to understand. Corporations come and go. As quickly as they've been raised, they can fall as fast. Sure there are hundreds of notable corporations today, but think how much time it's needed to amount what they have? It's a matter of less than a century on average. Governments last more than a century, and they own much much more. In one century, many corporations may have solved, merged, remade. But most states will still be there. Because they're like the plague, these fuckers.
Also, why do you give a fuck about a corporation's finance? And why do you think it's a good thing that the government can knock down any door, read any book? I think that's awful. If they can do it to the corporation, they can do it to you to, duh. How's that good? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The extent that one will go, to justify the state... it's scary. Scarier than Christians saying that God watches me masturbate and will send me to hell. Okay no one actually told me that. I'm getting sleepy already.
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.
What the fuck. Libertarian Socialist? They're polar opposites. You both respect private property but doesn't respect private property? Arbitrary and inconsistent much?
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.
The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.
Are you implying that because I have the demand to eat, the bakery across the street only exists because OF ME? WHAT? AND THEREFORE, THEYRE EXPLOITING ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I have the desire to fly, therefore planes were made, therefore I am entitled to those planes? I have the desire to x, x is made, therefore x is mine? Stop. Please. Seriously. Stop and think what you're saying, and what are the implications of your moral theory. Making shit up is fine and all, but this is garbage. If I come up with a theory that comes to the conclusion it's fine to rape-murder-genocide, I know there's got to be something wrong with it.
You don't own, nor are entitled, in any shape way or form, to stuff that other people made themselves. It doesn't matter if you asked them to. It doesn't even matter if you gave them the idea (keyword, gave). They're not obligated to give you shit, if you didn't help make it, or if they're not contractually bound to.
To say that you can claim that you deserve to use shit just because you have, had, or will have a demand for it, is completely inane. Anyone could claim entitlement for anything. What will that do? It doesn't settle any disputes, it doesn't stop conflicts over resources, nor capital. What the fuck? I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out. Sorry. But I am.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.
Oh, so I don't have power over myself, because I don't have power over a jacuzzi, a BMW, and the playboy mansion with all the chicks included? OH, these aren't necessary for life you say? SAYS WHO? I NEED THOSE THINGS TO LIVE. If you go past food, it's already arbitrary bro. It's your own value judgments on what you think people should be entitled to rob others for.
I Am a slave to HUNGER, as I am a slave to physics, nature, biology... again, meaningless distinctions and definitions. Perverting the word power? Check. Perverting the word slavery? check. Perverting the world exploitation? check. What's next, property? "Property is whatever the fuck you can grab" LOL. I'm sorry, I need to laugh a bit.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not. And once you feel it's justified to steal one single thing from someone else - you're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You're a hypocrite because you, yourself, feels that you're entitled to what you produce and buy, yet others, are only entitled to theirs as long as you let them. That's bullshit.
If you stole that cure and used it, you'd be required to restitute the doctor or face consequences. I really wouldn't give a shit to defend you. If it wasn't for the doctor, you'd be dead anyways. You own him your life. I personally would be very glad to pay him whatever he wanted, to the extent I could pay it. Finance it, ask help from charities, open a fund yourself, make loans, there are SO MANY DAMN THINGS you can do before you say "I deserve to live and I will step over anyone to do so". Be a man, quit playing the victim game. Thanks.
On August 30 2010 13:41 geometryb wrote: i still dont see any real difference between a business and a government in anarcho-capitalism, which makes this entire discussion pointless.
On August 30 2010 13:49 Drowsy wrote: Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.
But for the scope of this thread, human nature isn't that relevant, and I said no such assumption is needed. The structure itself should only has to be better than statism, to be deemed workable. That human is not always rational, is a debatable question, but even if it were the case that humans are retarded and choose to go to the right when they wanted to go left (wat), there's nothing stopping these types of men in getting elected or being cabinet members. You have to argue vis-a-vis...
On August 30 2010 12:49 geometryb wrote: because government and law is unavoidable. A business is just a mini-government or government is just a really big business.
you can see the obvious parallels between a business' organizational structure and the governments'. A company decides within itself the rules regarding how to divide resources, relationships with co-workers, security measures, how to handle the buildings and property.
Law can be both written and enforced spontaneously. Governments and companies are nothing alike if you know the calculation problem
On August 30 2010 12:52 geometryb wrote: imagine getting dropped off with your fellow anarcho-capitalist buddies in a new world. The first thing people do is come up with a scheme for leadership and decision making. They can call it a "business," but they just created a government.
They'd only go after you if you fucked with them though. No taxes or positive obligations... hardly a government.
for the first thing, government - direction and control exercised over the actions of the members, citizens, or inhabitants. That sure sounds like what a business does.
Except that government does it coercively and doesn't follow market demand. Voter demand if anything, but it's sub-par to the market. Socialized Law. Lol never thought about it that way. Socialized Law : As bad as socialized education, healthcare...
On August 30 2010 13:57 geometryb wrote: for the second thing you said, you dont have to pay taxes, but you're obligated to follow the direction if you want to belong in the business/tribe/community. maybe when the community starts creating currency, then you would have to pay taxes.
businesses can financially/economically plan. they can issue their own currency if they wanted to. make their own bonds. you even mention private banks coming up with their own currencies.
The key is that there are no positive obligation. Sure, if you didn't interact much with the society, in turn no one would give you anything. But that's not bad at all. You pay only for the services you want, and you gain exactly that which you were paid, instead of, you pay for a multitude of services that you may not even know of, and you gain only that which I allow you to keep.
The state, owner of all land, requires of its citizens positive obligations towards it. There wouldn't be any positive obligation in ancap, besides not being a direct menace to your neighbors perhaps. Serial killers, yeah, poor guys, they'd be oppressed against (after they've oppressed other of course...poor poor fellas). But it's still better than serial killers+tax avoiders+drug dealers+drug users+whores and pimps+people who bang hoe's+victimless crime offenders+the list goes on.
Anarcho-capitalism rests on the assumption of rational decision making from it's participants just as communism rests on the assumption of benevolent altruism from it's participants. These things aren't true though, humans are not perfectly rational automatons with formulaic and perfect decision making skills.
This is another good point. Despite the biggest financial crisis, people seem to forget that humans are still far from Homo Economicus.
Therefore, we need Homo Retardus to guide us? The free market isn't perfect to the extent that it doesn't provide people with everything they could ever wish for (like superpowers, infinite food, flying cars, lightsabers - not yet anyway). But it is the lowest common denominator, because it best uses everyone's intelligences, and doesn't rely on any central authority to magically both: determine demand, and meet supply. They can't do it, they will never ever be able to do it, it's as much as a physical impossibility as Idra being in the GSL and the MLG Raleigh at the same time and win both tournaments. Heck, every single tournament, at the same time. No one can do it. It's too much for a single human mind, for even a thousand minds. Ten thousand minds. One hundred thousand minds... well maybe if they're all geniuses. Okay, no, not even then tbh.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Let's say I'm a manufacturer of various industrial chemicals. I dump my untreated runoff directly into the river, because that's the cheapest way to get rid of it. The river gets severely polluted, which causes all kinds of issues downstream, including problems for the fishing and tourism sectors. Without a state to prevent me from doing this (or to force me to pay for the cleanup), I can make a profit for myself and push my costs onto others, and no one can stop me.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
You don't understand the problem. Suppose we live in a community on the coast. It would be to all of our benefit to have a lighthouse to help direct shipping traffic into our harbor at night. But you can't target the benefits of a lighthouse the way you can other products - once it's built, any ships can use it and any merchants in town receive the benefits. So who's going to pay for it? Not me - I'll wait for someone else to pay and reap the benefits. Hence, the free rider problem - nobody does the project at all. Everybody sits around waiting for somebody else to do it. The state solves this problem by taxing everyone and doing the project, forcing buy-in and spreading the cost equitably.
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street..
There is no one down the street, it's a monopoly.
You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street.
There is no one down the street, it's a monopoly. Is this really so hard to grasp?
You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice.
Or, like food, water, shelter, medical treatment, etc., etc., you need it to live and don't have a choice.
If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist.
Not true. Often monopolies exist in fields with very little innovation. A classic example is Standard Oil in the United States. Do you think they invented oil, or the methods of acquiring, refining, and distributing it? No. They acquired a sufficient market share to be able to wage regional price wars against prospective competitors and thus drive them out of business. And then, of course, once you're the only player, you can charge whatever you want.
Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
Certainly not, but it's not really an issue of property rights, is it? It's an issue of efficiency. Monopolies lead to inefficient markets - they're bad for everyone except the monopolist. And even then, the more monopolies in different markets there are, the worse off each individual monopolist is.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Can't work, it's a 2-year-old. The whole point is that the child is helpless - that's what makes this a difficult problem. I'm not talking about child labor, I'm talking about the willingness to deny people the means of survival when they lack it through no fault of their own. So, again - if a child, no, an infant, has no means of support, is it ethical to let it starve when the required resources are readily available and plentiful?
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.
See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.
Hmmm, I don't know about you but I really want that big stupid externality badly. One of them is called national security. Do you have any bright idea on how to prevent free-rider problem that will be more cost efficient than the current system for national security?
I really hope you don't suggest me to arm myself with F-22. . . . That shit is expensive.
No, of course you yourself can't, but that's what funds, investment firms, and stock markets are for. CAPITALISTS OF THE WORLD, UNITE!
If the market demand for a national army doesn't allow anyone to afford F-22's, then no F-22's should be made. But market demand can change. I'm sure that if ancapland were to be threatened by a foreign state, such demand would rise, then militias and weaponry can be made on-demand. Or just make a nuke. Much cheaper.
The free rider problem is mainly a problem of public utility. It's the governments incapability of entrepreneurial activity and screwing up supply. Classic.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.
See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.
There are no other choices in monopsony, and sometimes in monopoly as well, (e.g, monopoly is so large and has an effective monopsony within your ability to travel to a job). With a monopoly, the choices of one firm vastly affect your ability to make transactions. As regards "voluntary" work, it's as "voluntary" as choosing not to feed yourself, especially when the monopsonist is the only supplier of jobs. Denying that there are "hostage customers" defies logic. Speaking of emotional appeals, haven't you just stated, and quite loudly, that "bureaucrats are dumb, private interests always know better," without a shred of evidence? Private enterprise can certainly restrict one's quality of life and choices quite effectively with no interference from your boogie-man style "ivory tower bureaucrat." I'd also like to note that in the real world, many of the same business leaders who posit themselves as "market fundamentalists" are generally the same ones who can buy themselves economic protection through lobbying in ways that are far more vast and sweeping than any union could hope to acquire.
Without going into it too much further, it seems that "Acap" is a rather utopian idea, where all participants are rational agents who act perfectly in the interests of their clients and the world obeys the market's "natural" laws.
It is natural. Ever heard kids saying "it's mine"? Property may be a "social relation", but irregardless, it's not something we need the government to be constantly reminding of us how it works, and not to steal, not to kill. Hell, don't even need the government to enforce.
Have you seen them proclaiming "ownership"? They hit the other kid and take whatever they decide is "mine."
Okay, well maybe it's not all there, but still there is a little bit of it, and boundaries can be established as people figure out what's the best compromise they find. (hint hint capitalism) I do believe that law is an art. Forgive me for implying there are natural rights, if you even know what I mean. ..but the most trivial things are empirically "proven" to be genetic, repulsion to killing your own species at least.
On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote: When a government breaks down, one of the first things that break out is theft. Have you seen Louisiana after the hurricane? Enforcement is essential for an ownership system to exist.
Well, there wasn't enough time for people to establish their own private defenses in less than a month, was there? So obviously, if the state is supplying everyone with bread, then they shut down, a lot of people are going to die. Does that mean they wouldn't be able to feed themselves otherwise? Absolutely not.
Who said the air has to be owned? And then even if it has to, then why can't it? The river could certainly be owned just like land is, what's the problem with that? And even if it's not owned, and people form a community around it and use it, they can ostracize and sue people who misuse it or pollute it, therefore giving them health problems.
If there is an efficient way to privatize air, I am all ears.
I don't know. Can you think how that would become a problem? And if it becomes a problem between two parties (for there to be a problem, there has to be at least one plaintiff and a defendant... no such thing as victimless crimes in ancap), can you think why they wouldn't be able to talk it over? (and not jump for the gun?.... and kill all humanity?)
"A-ha! Now we can't have ancap because the government has to own the air.... so we can... breathe... yeah!"
On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote: Really? you are gonna sue the people who pollute the river? who is going to maintain the neutral court system and set up the law that the court will be based on. What entity will pay the judge, security personnels, and clerks?
I mean.. there's no single dispute that can't be resolved in court. Everything can be worked out. To jump for the gun to resolve such silly and simple problems is throwing out the baby with the BATHTUB OUT THE WINDOW.
Not everything can be worked out by the market. It sometimes fails. I don't know how put so much blind faith into the market.
You seem to imply government saved london. Who owns london, and why couldn't he save it himself? Oh wait, I guess it was state owned to start with? So you're saying the government manned up and cleaned up their own property? Well grats to them fuckers. How long did it take?
Wow, you are now just proving you are debating for the sake of debating. London was not owned by the government. Most of its land was private property, but shit happened. Private businesses did not regulate themselves because cost was too great for a single business to have a cleaner facility but the benefit would be dispersed to the entire city--An externality problem. and the air pollution killed thousands of people.
You mean, businesses soiled themselves and couldn't clean up? And government bravely came to the rescue with diapers? What the fuck?
Businesses deteriorated their own property, meaning, lowered the value of their own establishment, so hard that, that they needed the government to: 1- steal from them 2- pay themselves (the state) the bureaucracy overhead 3- pay cleaning companies 4- everyone's happy? Why didn't business simply pay the company directly if it was so bad?
What this smells like, is that either 1- you're misinformed and the streets were not privately owned, or 2- the streets were dirty, not to the extent that anyone cared, but the government forced them to pay for cleanup because *they* thought it was too dirty.
On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote: The pollution was problem and had to be dealt with one way or the other. Regulation, though not most efficient, was one way to go about it, and it worked. Air pollution killed 4000 people even in 1952 London, for nearly 2 centuries, the market failed, and finally the government had to step in with a regulation.
Out of those 4000 people, none of them could sue? Perhaps it's the government courts to blame then? BLAME GAME BLAME GAME BLAME GAME BLAME GAME You can blame the market, I can blame the state Neither of us can prove shit, but we can play all day! YAY
On August 30 2010 15:16 keynest wrote: All I gotta say is that Capitalism and the market cannot solve everything. When they do fail, you cannot turn blind eyes. Even if the solution might not be efficient, sometimes you gotta step in.
When someone fails, you got to explain who failed. Market is an agglomerate of human interaction. So whenever someone fails in it, by your own arbitrary standards, you're entitled to say we should coerce everyone to do x? Why? If people died, obviously there's a case of invasion of property there. I don't vouch for that, and I don't think people in England did either. A man or group killed 4000 people, okay. He or they went uncharged for a hundred years. How? And why was the state the only one who noticed, and could do anything about it?
If it's demonstrable in court that some firm killed 4000 people, sure sure sure as hell, they would not get away with it, not even for a week. Courts would be up to the job because they'd be listening so many people and getting so much attention and publicity if they were to solve the case. Only because you live in a world where most problems are solved by the barrel of a gun, doesn't mean things like this will go on in a world organized a different way.
Basically, prove to me the state wasn't a hindrance itself in the solution of the problem, before you call it the savior. That's the right way to do it. Not. "Oh snap, the communists gave me bread, when the free market had failed to give me a job. Thank you Stalin!" Well duh.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good?
I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail. BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE BANG
On August 30 2010 15:35 keynest wrote: It seems most of views are based on scholars who are from Ludwig von Mises Institute. Therefore, I suggest you tryhttp://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm this essay.
Anarcho-capitalism recommanded by Austrian School is an interesting idea, but is built on researches and essays with shaky scientific vigor or fragile evidence to back up.
Well, some empiricist just finally realized what a-priorism is. Grats! Quick question: Is the scientific method a-priori? OH SNAP. I really have to sleep lol
On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote: I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.
Valid point, but democracy doesn't solve this problem. If the majority of the people are really dumb, then they'll vote in really dumb politicians that make disastrous decisions.
Also, I think people tend to make smarter decisions if the decision has a real and tangible effect on their lives, which is not so in democracy.
The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.
On August 30 2010 17:15 MiraMax wrote: The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.
I think there's a big factor of luck. If you think about it, it's as ridiculous to think that a democracy could be stable as it is to think ancap would be. What is to stop the army from taking over the government? Theoretically, nothing prevents the army from taking over the government. In practice, that doesn't happen.
In ancap, theoretically nothing stops a group of people getting together and trying to create a state, but there are a few things that make that unlikely to happen.
As a protection agency, you have to deal with A) your customers, B) customers of other protection agencies, and C) other protection agencies. Treating A) badly will lose you customers. Losing customers means you lose money. So you can expect protection agencies to at least take good care of their customers.
Treating B) or C) badly will set bad blood with other protection agencies. Disputes with other protection agencies are costly, especially violent ones, so harassing people other protection agencies have a contractual obligation to protect can't be good for business. You will have to raise your rates an inordinate amount if you want to keep fighting, and doing so will lose you your customers and your money.
Peaceful resolution of conflict is the most sustainable business model for protection agencies. So if we can assume people under ancap will have freedom to choose among multiple protection agencies, the equilibrium would be multiple protection agencies (police forces) doing peaceful resolution of conflict through third party arbitrators (courts). Rogue protection agencies will have a hard time to survive.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Let's say I'm a manufacturer of various industrial chemicals. I dump my untreated runoff directly into the river, because that's the cheapest way to get rid of it. The river gets severely polluted, which causes all kinds of issues downstream, including problems for the fishing and tourism sectors. Without a state to prevent me from doing this (or to force me to pay for the cleanup), I can make a profit for myself and push my costs onto others, and no one can stop me.
You forgot to determine who owns the river, and this is very relevant. I'm going to assume the fisherman were there first, and have therefore the highest claim of property over it. The fishers can therefore sue you, and so could the tourism agency even thought they'd have a lesser claim to make. At that point on, it would be resolved in court, much like it would be resolved in court today, with the caveat that the court ruling is not exactly a mandate, but not following it would constitute your company be seen by the rest of the population as a non-compliant entity. As a non-compliant entity, you have a 0 credit score, investors don't trust you, stock market is going to avoid you, and you pretty much have to rely on the capital you have right now and foreign markets to keep doing what you doing. Also, the court could have been nice the first time as it was a muddy situation, but that point on, the river would probably be rules either yours, the fishermen's, or a third party's property from then on to avoid further issues. So any further dumping would be considered a clear invasion of property and the fishermen's PDA are free to stop you by force.
Well, it did come down on who owns the river! Wow, it's like I didn't even know that was going to happen! Fantastic.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
You don't understand the problem. Suppose we live in a community on the coast. It would be to all of our benefit to have a lighthouse to help direct shipping traffic into our harbor at night. But you can't target the benefits of a lighthouse the way you can other products - once it's built, any ships can use it and any merchants in town receive the benefits. So who's going to pay for it? Not me - I'll wait for someone else to pay and reap the benefits. Hence, the free rider problem - nobody does the project at all. Everybody sits around waiting for somebody else to do it. The state solves this problem by taxing everyone and doing the project, forcing buy-in and spreading the cost equitably.
The light house problem... you know it's been solved right? The docks own it, and they charge the ships that dock in for it.
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street..
There is no one down the street, it's a monopoly.
Then you should be thankful there's at least that one to choose from, IMO. Because if it wasn't for it, then it would be a ZEROPOLY.
You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice.
Or, like food, water, shelter, medical treatment, etc., etc., you need it to live and don't have a choice.
It doesn't matter what it is, or why you need it. If it's not sold to you, or given to you, it's theft, period. You may think it's justified. Well, do try to steal then go to court then. Justify it in front of a judge, the plaintiff, and be ready to be in the news. That's doable in ancap. You just better have a god damn good reason, like 10 orphans were going to die if you didn't steal. Stealing because you're hungry? Get the fuck out and pay for your food - is what the judge would say.
If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist.
Not true. Often monopolies exist in fields with very little innovation. A classic example is Standard Oil in the United States. Do you think they invented oil, or the methods of acquiring, refining, and distributing it? No. They acquired a sufficient market share to be able to wage regional price wars against prospective competitors and thus drive them out of business. And then, of course, once you're the only player, you can charge whatever you want.
If they got driven out of business, does that mean Standard Oil provided a more cost-efficient product, and the competitor couldn't keep up? How's that 1-bad, 2-coercion 3- stopping them from coming back if they hike prices up. It's not. Standard Oil is deeply entrenched with government. May not been so in the beginning, at which point grats to them, but then, lobbylobbylobby to keep competition out.
A leader (what I call a non-coercive "monopoly"), can only raise prices up as much as it isn't cost-efficient for other companies to enter the market. They can only raise so much as the second best choice charges, not necessarily the one that is already competing, but one that may come to exist. If they charge any higher, then boom, profit opportunity. People will love the new brand, that saaaaved us from the backstabing, pricehicking "monopolists" (unless they go back to lower prices again, then they're forgiven, lol)
Analogy time. You're telling me there's this one build that destroys everything TvP, but when it comes down to it, the market is a progressing game, entrepreneurs learn how to profit, and there's no escaping that purpose. If you learn a way to outdo your competitors and be more efficient, you earned it. You're the best there is, best prices, best profits. There is no one magic build that "if you do this this and this, you can become FLASH", it's bullshit, there is no such thing. There is no free lunch, everything you know how to do, there can be someone else who can do better. Because market efficiency IS the goal, companies will always be outdoing one another to get the highest spot. And if someone becomes a BONJWA, it's an even greater thing. Means that he is fantastically efficient. Cheaper products, better quality than everyone else. Raises the standards of living of everyone by allowing them to buy more for less, expanding people's wealth.
What you call a monopoly, I'll call a BONJWA from now on LOL.
Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
Certainly not, but it's not really an issue of property rights, is it? It's an issue of efficiency. Monopolies lead to inefficient markets - they're bad for everyone except the monopolist. And even then, the more monopolies in different markets there are, the worse off each individual monopolist is.
No they don't, and if theyre' inefficient, then prove it. Compete with them, should be easy to outdo. You're calling the BONJWA a noob. You're saying he's a cheesy bastard that has no game, and makes everyone watch boring 6 min matches. LOL. Then why don't people play safe and beat him? There's no excuse. You want to call kespa and take away Flash's license, so you and mediocre players like... fantasy, can have an easier time. THATS RIGHT. I CALLED FANTASY MEDIOCRE. Ok enough of that.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Can't work, it's a 2-year-old. The whole point is that the child is helpless - that's what makes this a difficult problem. I'm not talking about child labor, I'm talking about the willingness to deny people the means of survival when they lack it through no fault of their own. So, again - if a child, no, an infant, has no means of support, is it ethical to let it starve when the required resources are readily available and plentiful?
Oh sorry I completely misread that. Is it ethical to allow a juvenile to die... uh, sure it is. Lots of children die in the subsistence world, and lots have died before that. Lots die today, lots die tomorrow... you have no obligation to feed any child, not even your own. Who's the plaintiff for a child's death? The parent? Against the parent? Because it's his own fault, if he wanted the child to live, but couldn't feed him, there's no one to blame but himself. No one has an obligation to feed him nor his children.
Ancap can best prevent such a type of death however by allowing people to decide 100% what to do with their capital, as opposed to 80, 70, 60, 50%. Charities aren't outlawed you know, well, except the kind of charity that involves stealing from everyone to give back to a few. The standards of living have only increased in history when man is allowed to keep what he earns - capital accumulation gives rise to savings, then investment into higher order goods, which in turn enables more goods to be produced, all in the best form that entrepreneurs can figure out there's profit opportunities for.
Apart from general economical growth.. welp, I've heard ideas about there being insurance companies for all sorts of deals. I guess one of them could be child insurance. You pay some to insure that your children and everyone else's children don't die of hunger. It could add reputation points (lol just made that up), guide you on the proper way to raise a child (lowers premium), and shit like that. It could be required as a package for something health related. Or even with protection services, hell I don't care. The market can create all sorts of retarded crap like that. Like, adopt a child in africa. LOL. Amazing.
On August 30 2010 17:15 MiraMax wrote: The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.
I think there's a big factor of luck. If you think about it, it's as ridiculous to think that a democracy could be stable as it is to think ancap would be. What is to stop the army from taking over the government? Theoretically, nothing prevents the army from taking over the government. In practice, that doesn't happen.
Actually, it does happen in practice ... it is usually referred to as "war", if it is the army of another country and "coup d'etat" (is this really the english word!?), if it is the army of the same country. My point was, that the former political system is always replaced by another non-anarchic political system. Now, why is that so? That's exactly what I was adressing in my post.
On August 30 2010 17:30 Phrujbaz wrote: In ancap, theoretically nothing stops a group of people getting together and trying to create a state, but there are a few things that make that unlikely to happen.
As a protection agency, you have to deal with A) your customers, B) customers of other protection agencies, and C) other protection agencies. Treating A) badly will lose you customers. Losing customers means you lose money. So you can expect protection agencies to at least take good care of their customers.
Treating B) or C) badly will set bad blood with other protection agencies. Disputes with other protection agencies are costly, especially violent ones, so harassing people other protection agencies have a contractual obligation to protect can't be good for business. You will have to raise your rates an inordinate amount if you want to keep fighting, and doing so will lose you your customers and your money.
Peaceful resolution of conflict is the most sustainable business model for protection agencies. So if we can assume people under ancap will have freedom to choose among multiple protection agencies, the equilibrium would be multiple protection agencies (police forces) doing peaceful resolution of conflict through third party arbitrators (courts). Rogue protection agencies will have a hard time to survive.
The "problem" here is to assume that any "enforcement agency" would remain neutral with regard to the incountable decisions a society has to take and the needs and interests of its members and simply see itself as a service agency. Historical evidence (and psychological studies) indicate that humans usually don't act like that. Power corrupts, in the sense that even if your motives are good, as soon as power is granted to you, you will use it to influence others and enact what you deem right. And if you don't, your neighbour will. In other words, while any government agency has a clear incentive to maintain its power and authority, an institution/person with any form of power in an "ancap" society has no incentive to maintain the status quo, but rather to change it to their advantage. It is the "monopoly of power" claimed by governing institutions which stabilizes the system. By definition an anarchic system lacks this stabilizing factor.
On August 30 2010 12:12 Tuneful wrote: Re: anarcho-capitalism
How is fraud punished in such a system? How are contracts enforced? How is a currency created and maintained? What entity creates and maintains peace so that market operations can happen with relative frequency and low risk? How does such a system guarantee the reproduction of labor?
I'd like to see answers to these questions, plus a few more of my own:
How are externalities dealt with? How do large-scale infrastructure improvements occur without a state to resolve the inherent free rider problem in such an undertaking? How does anarcho-capitalism deal with monopoly/monopsony problems? Is it ethical to allow a juvenile (unable to work due to youth) to die for want of resources when such resources are plentiful and available but merely owned by someone else? If so, why? If not, how does anarcho-capitalism avoid this outcome?
-Externalities are dealt with, number one and foremost, stopping the most lecherous organization that steals half the country's GDP and creates the most externalities of all. The.... mafia.
Large scale infrastructure that can't deal with free riders are retarded and should go bankrupt. The free-riding issue you see today over public property aka state property is an issue of the state. They're dumb and don't know how to make users pay. Even with all the technology today, they're just too dumb to figure it out. Not like they care anyway. It's not like they paid the property to be built, it's the taxpayer that's paying for it, and he can't not-pay for it. So, good luck next election? LOL
I probably made like five posts on monopolies all saying the same thing. Monopoly is a misnomer. You are a monopolist of your own body. You're a monopolist of your property. Companies are always monopolies of their capital, products and services. To sue someone from being a monopolist is as retarded as suing some chick who didn't give you the time, because SHES MONOPOLIZING HER ASS, NO FAIR. Cry more. You think a service is overpriced? Go to the next one down the street.. You think companies are colluding? go to the next one down the street. You're dumb and pays for an overpriced product, because there's no other? Then it's your own damn choice. If it wasn't for the monopoly, the product wouldn't even exist. Understand that if you think you own your shit because you bought it and made it, then every firm has the same exact right over the stuff that they bought, they produced. There are no hostage customers, because the customer is not entitled to buy whatever the fuck they want for the price they want.
If you want a more moderate and pacific explanation search monopoly around some pages. You'll find something in no time.
It is ethical to let the boy work if he wants to. You have no issues sending kids to school to do stupid chores and learn nothing. Forcing parents to pay for that trash and this time INDEED cornering them with a subsidized service that they CANT afford to pay an alternative to, because they were STOLEN from that opportunity. That is much, MUCH cruel to me than a subsistance farmer sending a kid to work because otherwise he would DIE or go to PROSTITUTION. Meh, I won't even go there.
Economics is a matter of choice. No one does dumb shit and works for 16 hours a day VOLUNTARILY because they're retarded. No parent wishes that his kid would start working when they're 4. If they send them, I trust their judgment more than any fucking bureaucrat in an ivory building that wants to RESTRICT the threshold of human options that people have. YOU DONT MAKE THOSE KIDS ANY BETTER BY RESTRICTING WHAT THEY CAN DO. ONE DOES NOT IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE BY HAVING APPEALS TO EMOTION AND RESTRICTING VOLUNTARY HUMAN INTERACTIONS. K ty.
See my other posts of monopoly, listen to this for a thorough explanation http://mises.org/media/1160, the whole series.
There are no other choices in monopsony, and sometimes in monopoly as well, (e.g, monopoly is so large and has an effective monopsony within your ability to travel to a job). With a monopoly, the choices of one firm vastly affect your ability to make transactions. As regards "voluntary" work, it's as "voluntary" as choosing not to feed yourself, especially when the monopsonist is the only supplier of jobs. Denying that there are "hostage customers" defies logic. Speaking of emotional appeals, haven't you just stated, and quite loudly, that "bureaucrats are dumb, private interests always know better," without a shred of evidence? Private enterprise can certainly restrict one's quality of life and choices quite effectively with no interference from your boogie-man style "ivory tower bureaucrat." I'd also like to note that in the real world, many of the same business leaders who posit themselves as "market fundamentalists" are generally the same ones who can buy themselves economic protection through lobbying in ways that are far more vast and sweeping than any union could hope to acquire.
Without going into it too much further, it seems that "Acap" is a rather utopian idea, where all participants are rational agents who act perfectly in the interests of their clients and the world obeys the market's "natural" laws.
Okay, if the monopolist is the only one who can feed you, like, you're on a desert island with some guy who has the ability to create food out of thin air, and you can't do nothing on your own, then I'd say you should be very very glad to have such an amazing individual that has such a power. Because if it wasn't for him, you'd be dead for sure. So again, no, the monopolist doesn't have to feed you because you're going to die, if you're going to die, it's your own fault idiot. That you need to steal to stay alive says more about your inability of doing anything even remotely productive enough that people could give you a piece of bread. I'm sorry but it's true.
I mean, not even that. There's charity even today, and for the social services and help for the homeless that exist coercively today, there is some market demand for them, there had to be some at least for the government to convince people into stealing from everyone to pay for it. I mean, if absolutely no one could even pretend to want to donate, then I doubt the government could implement such massive payoffs to the poor. There IS market demand for charity. There ARE and there have been private charities that are not subsidized or would keep going even if they weren't. Why there is such demand? I don't know well, maybe people don't like seeing people dying indeed, and would rather donate out of good will. Yeah, sometimes I forget there is such a thing as human empathy even though I so very hard vouch for it. Maybe it's because I should have been sleeping 2 hours ago.
Anyway, you on a desert island with another man who can save your life doesn't make you a hostage. You're not his hostage because he didn't inflict upon you the state of being you are right now. It's not his fault you need him to survive. He didn't coerce, force, fool you into going into that island, say, you both fell from a plane. No different than the poor miserable bums you so imply to defend (by stealing from everyone with the monopolist state). It's not particularly anyone's fault that they're poor. Man was raised in the mud. He had to climb up and work to get any capital accumulation going. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Claiming that you have control over that which you didn't create nor buy is stealing. So is what the bureaucrats do. Plain stealing. And I've said what kind of problems arise from a failed private property scheme. People invest less. People build less, because they can't keep what they make. They can't keep higher order capital goods, so those aren't created either. You will have to rely entirely on central planners to make things happen, and to even think for a second that a bureaucrat, with the best intentions of the world, can even remotely be more inovative, reactive, adaptive, than free assembling people in a market, is a sad joke. They can't. They don't have the brainpower, the price inputs, the incentive inputs, the coordination necessary to make a complex economy like today happen. They would be stuck at making nails, or making a single chip that would be outdated in a month. Higher order capital that can't be used, too much or too few. It's plain and simple impossible for the central planner figure out something that the market can't do better.
Read the 3 first pages and it was basicly: "it wont work because people will kill each other" countered by "No, they wont" or "they already do" or "just pay some guy to take care of security".
Maybe I should read the other 16 pages, but CBA right now. There is no reason why anarcho-capitalism can't WORK, hell fascism and stalinism WORKED, they just didn't work in a nice way. And that really is the main problem with anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism is a system that inherently puts profit above people, and therefor it has an inbuilt tendency towards oppression on the weakest. However in our current system the state can be democraticly controlled to counteract the worst symptoms of this disease. It can for example require employers to treat their workers with some kind of respect, minimum wages and so on.
If you look at the beginnings of capitalism where the states were generally weaker you see horrible things going on in the factories. Ford, for example had his won police force, that enforced HIS law in the factories. The workers can of course strike their way out of that if they organize themselves really well, but if there is no state to transform their victories into laws, then they will need to be on constant strike, which could and probably would lead to either one of the following scenarios: 1) The workers victory = communism or some other form of worker controlled community (which would never be capitalistic), 2) The capitalists victory = total and violent oppression of the working class (basicly fascism) 3) Or if by some strange reason neither of them won it would just be constant and ever growing class conflict, probably ending in civil wars.
TL.DR.: Anarcho-Capitalism can work, but unless you are a rich bastard you wouldn't want to live in that kind of society. And if you are a rich selfish bastard then stop talking about social-reform, the current society is already spoon-feeding you with wealth.
Basicly anarcho-capitalism is just social-darwinism which really is a stupid and heartless way to organize a society
On August 30 2010 17:15 MiraMax wrote: The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.
I think there's a big factor of luck. If you think about it, it's as ridiculous to think that a democracy could be stable as it is to think ancap would be. What is to stop the army from taking over the government? Theoretically, nothing prevents the army from taking over the government. In practice, that doesn't happen.
Actually, it does happen in practice ... it is usually referred to as "war", if it is the army of another country and "coup d'etat" (is this really the english word!?), if it is the army of the same country. My point was, that the former political system is always replaced by another non-anarchic political system. Now, why is that so? That's exactly what I was adressing in my post.
Defense from foreign nations is a massive issue for anarchism, and it's true that a stable anarchist society could experience a "hostile takeover" from an imperialist nation. In history, it's almost always this that broke up an anarchist society, not internal pressures. There are some things that may be done to mitigate the problem, but as you say ancap would also unstable without foreign pressures, let's focus on that first.
On August 30 2010 17:30 Phrujbaz wrote: In ancap, theoretically nothing stops a group of people getting together and trying to create a state, but there are a few things that make that unlikely to happen.
As a protection agency, you have to deal with A) your customers, B) customers of other protection agencies, and C) other protection agencies. Treating A) badly will lose you customers. Losing customers means you lose money. So you can expect protection agencies to at least take good care of their customers.
Treating B) or C) badly will set bad blood with other protection agencies. Disputes with other protection agencies are costly, especially violent ones, so harassing people other protection agencies have a contractual obligation to protect can't be good for business. You will have to raise your rates an inordinate amount if you want to keep fighting, and doing so will lose you your customers and your money.
Peaceful resolution of conflict is the most sustainable business model for protection agencies. So if we can assume people under ancap will have freedom to choose among multiple protection agencies, the equilibrium would be multiple protection agencies (police forces) doing peaceful resolution of conflict through third party arbitrators (courts). Rogue protection agencies will have a hard time to survive.
The "problem" here is to assume that any "enforcement agency" would remain neutral with regard to the incountable decisions a society has to take and the needs and interests of its members and simply see itself as a service agency.
Historical evidence (and psychological studies) indicate that humans usually don't act like that. Power corrupts, in the sense that even if your motives are good, as soon as power is granted to you, you will use it to influence others and enact what you deem right. And if you don't, your neighbour will.
I agree that not all people are goody two-shoes, and greed and power is a big factor in this. If you assume that protection agencies will go after profit, and I think that is a reasonable assumption to make, then there will be market pressures keeping them in check. Power corrupts, just like money corrupts, and the agencies being after power and money is exactly what will cause them to offer the highest quality service and negotiate peacefully with other protection agencies. That is exactly what brings you money and power in that environment.
In other words, while any government agency has a clear incentive to maintain its power and authority, an institution/person with any form of power in an "ancap" society has no incentive to maintain the status quo, but rather to change it to their advantage. It is the "monopoly of power" claimed by governing institutions which stabilizes the system. By definition an anarchic system lacks this stabilizing factor.
If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
I agree that not all people are goody two-shoes, and greed and power is a big factor in this. If you assume that protection agencies will go after profit, and I think that is a reasonable assumption to make, then there will be market pressures keeping them in check. Power corrupts, just like money corrupts, and the agencies being after power and money is exactly what will cause them to offer the highest quality service and negotiate peacefully with other protection agencies. That is exactly what brings you money and power in that environment.
If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Go read up on the mercenary armies of the 17th century and their role in what actually became a semi worldwar in Europe. They didn't accept status quo, they didn't just sit idlely by and wait. They fought for the guy who paid them most, and when he didn't pay they ravaged his country. It was actually the peace negotiations after the 30-years war that established the states as the cornerstone of international politics.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good?
I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail. BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE BANG
What kind of argument is that?
If you don't have a good reason to expect ancap to create a more attractive society then we shouldn't be arguing in favor of it.
Most people don't care that much about paying taxes. In one way or another, you're going to be paying anyway.
Tell me how governing bodies being unable to confiscate anything by force is going to create a more attractive society.
Oh really, they care about saving $300 on car insurance a semester, getting one or two thousand dollars tax refund a year, but wouldn't care if their wages went up 20%, income tax went away, state taxes went away? Sure you'd have to pay certain services anyway, but they would be at the market price, not the coercive monopolist price (where are the anti-monopoly people at, when it comes to true, government monopolies?... such hypocrites), so it would be considerably cheaper. Perhaps the reason why you think most people don't care about taxes is because you and most people haven't stopped to think how much money you would save. Because you take slavery for granted. But that is, would, and will be, a major reason when people stop paying taxes someday.
Do you own society? Are you entitled to society? What is society? IMO society is the market, the interactions of people. The state at this current age feeds of society and has no more reason in existing as information isn't as scarce as it was in the middle ages. Man isn't afraid of its own kind, the wilderness, religion superstitions, nor anything else in this world anymore. The state could have served a function in times where the choice was between the least coercive ruler, but this trend will someday end at no ruler at all. Because that way, each man is fully entitled to it's earnings, not obliged to pay anyone tribute, and can best utilize his capital however it wants (as long as you don't make too much noise because my neighbors are sleeping).
In ancap, you've got 100%, not 70% or less of your capital to engage in your desired aesthetic pursuit (that best be what you mean by "attractive society"), and you can turn society as pretty as others share equivalent goals, and cooperate with you... but that's probably not what you mean by attractive...
On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote: I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.
If the majority of the people are dumb, then the majority of leaders are dumb Or the majority of people will choose dumb leaders And be dumbly enslaved dumbly dumb dumb dumb
On August 30 2010 17:15 MiraMax wrote: The main "problem" with anarchic systems is their instability whenever there are agents which can plan ahead sufficiently. They don't "work" (or only temporarily) because there will always be substantial incentive for individuals to unite in order to enforce their ideas/needs on others or simply take advantage over others. In order to retain this control this minority will establish a set of rules (laws) and enforcement agencies (police), which finally means that the state of anarchy is left. So even if it would be the most efficient system, there is simply no way to stabilize it.
That's transitional anarchy. The anarchy or rather anarchism I talk of is purposefully installed. Or rather, the state is purposefully gotten rid of. Transitional anarchy is unstable because the government was gotten rid off without people having a solid understanding of private property and private law yet. They are waiting for some new ruler to pick it up where the last left off. I can blame social conditioning. Culture. Yeah.
On August 30 2010 17:20 Tuneful wrote: I really don't know why I keep F5'ing this thread when the op is one of the most dedicated trolls I've seen. (Speaking of humans as rational actors)
On August 30 2010 18:09 Hasudk wrote: Read the 3 first pages and it was basicly: "it wont work because people will kill each other" countered by "No, they wont" or "they already do" or "just pay some guy to take care of security".
Maybe I should read the other 16 pages, but CBA right now. There is no reason why anarcho-capitalism can't WORK, hell fascism and stalinism WORKED, they just didn't work in a nice way. And that really is the main problem with anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism is a system that inherently puts profit above people, and therefor it has an inbuilt tendency towards oppression on the weakest. However in our current system the state can be democraticly controlled to counteract the worst symptoms of this disease. It can for example require employers to treat their workers with some kind of respect, minimum wages and so on.
If you look at the beginnings of capitalism where the states were generally weaker you see horrible things going on in the factories. Ford, for example had his won police force, that enforced HIS law in the factories. The workers can of course strike their way out of that if they organize themselves really well, but if there is no state to transform their victories into laws, then they will need to be on constant strike, which could and probably would lead to either one of the following scenarios: 1) The workers victory = communism or some other form of worker controlled community (which would never be capitalistic), 2) The capitalists victory = total and violent oppression of the working class (basicly fascism) 3) Or if by some strange reason neither of them won it would just be constant and ever growing class conflict, probably ending in civil wars.
TL.DR.: Anarcho-Capitalism can work, but unless you are a rich bastard you wouldn't want to live in that kind of society. And if you are a rich selfish bastard then stop talking about social-reform, the current society is already spoon-feeding you with wealth.
Basicly anarcho-capitalism is just social-darwinism which really is a stupid and heartless way to organize a society
What is profit, and how does one profit?
A few questions. And I don't know about that story. But anyway:
Did the workers go in every day voluntarily to such horrible horrible damage working conditions? What was the second best choice? Why did they move close to the factory, or did they move exactly to work in it? What happened to the other businesses if here were any?
I'm a rich mofo. If the current system is already spoon-feeding me with wealth, why would it be more profitable for me to be in a free market? I'd have to raise my own oppressive police force as opposed to bribing the one that already is, and risk competition as it wouldn't be monopolistic anymore; I'd have to recruit my own soldiers if I wanted to invade other countries, and risk retaliation against my own person. I'd have to make my own federal reserve from the bottom up, and can't count on the legal monopoly of coin issuance; I'd have to do away with the subsidies, barriers of entry, exclusive leases of infrastructure, every other legal monopoly, and have to deal with competition in every field that I've lobbied the government to shelter me. Why the fuck I would do that, and how the fuck would that be more profitable to me?
Anyway, you on a desert island with another man who can save your life doesn't make you a hostage. You're not his hostage because he didn't inflict upon you the state of being you are right now. It's not his fault you need him to survive. He didn't coerce, force, fool you into going into that island, say, you both fell from a plane. No different than the poor miserable bums you so imply to defend (by stealing from everyone with the monopolist state). It's not particularly anyone's fault that they're poor. Man was raised in the mud. He had to climb up and work to get any capital accumulation going. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Claiming that you have control over that which you didn't create nor buy is stealing. So is what the bureaucrats do. Plain stealing. And I've said what kind of problems arise from a failed private property scheme. People invest less. People build less, because they can't keep what they make. They can't keep higher order capital goods, so those aren't created either. You will have to rely entirely on central planners to make things happen, and to even think for a second that a bureaucrat, with the best intentions of the world, can even remotely be more inovative, reactive, adaptive, than free assembling people in a market, is a sad joke. They can't. They don't have the brainpower, the price inputs, the incentive inputs, the coordination necessary to make a complex economy like today happen. They would be stuck at making nails, or making a single chip that would be outdated in a month. Higher order capital that can't be used, too much or too few. It's plain and simple impossible for the central planner figure out something that the market can't do better.
So this is basicly just the standard discussion of wether all men are born equal or not. I really didn't think anyone bought into this anymore, how can you claim that Einstein was born as the equal of some mentally handicapped child. Einstein didn't just sit down one day and decided to be a geniuses he was BORN with a better brain then 99,9 % of other people. Therefor when some guy is poor it's NOT his own fault, its: 1) the society around him, 2) his upbringing, his entire history 3) and his genes (or what ever term you want to use for the advantages or disadvantages that is was natuarlly born with) All of these factors help to explain why the guy you walk past is poor. If everyone could be as rich as Donald Trump if only they really wanted to, then why aren't there like 100% rich people in this world? And finally do really honestly believe that people would rather die from hunger than "man-up" and get some work? Of course, you don't think so. =) But then lazyness just doens't work as an explanation for poverty and hunger does it?
I agree that not all people are goody two-shoes, and greed and power is a big factor in this. If you assume that protection agencies will go after profit, and I think that is a reasonable assumption to make, then there will be market pressures keeping them in check. Power corrupts, just like money corrupts, and the agencies being after power and money is exactly what will cause them to offer the highest quality service and negotiate peacefully with other protection agencies. That is exactly what brings you money and power in that environment.
If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Go read up on the mercenary armies of the 17th century and their role in what actually became a semi worldwar in Europe. They didn't accept status quo, they didn't just sit idlely by and wait. They fought for the guy who paid them most, and when he didn't pay they ravaged his country. It was actually the peace negotiations after the 30-years war that established the states as the cornerstone of international politics.
Anyway, you on a desert island with another man who can save your life doesn't make you a hostage. You're not his hostage because he didn't inflict upon you the state of being you are right now. It's not his fault you need him to survive. He didn't coerce, force, fool you into going into that island, say, you both fell from a plane. No different than the poor miserable bums you so imply to defend (by stealing from everyone with the monopolist state). It's not particularly anyone's fault that they're poor. Man was raised in the mud. He had to climb up and work to get any capital accumulation going. You have no one to blame but yourself.
Claiming that you have control over that which you didn't create nor buy is stealing. So is what the bureaucrats do. Plain stealing. And I've said what kind of problems arise from a failed private property scheme. People invest less. People build less, because they can't keep what they make. They can't keep higher order capital goods, so those aren't created either. You will have to rely entirely on central planners to make things happen, and to even think for a second that a bureaucrat, with the best intentions of the world, can even remotely be more inovative, reactive, adaptive, than free assembling people in a market, is a sad joke. They can't. They don't have the brainpower, the price inputs, the incentive inputs, the coordination necessary to make a complex economy like today happen. They would be stuck at making nails, or making a single chip that would be outdated in a month. Higher order capital that can't be used, too much or too few. It's plain and simple impossible for the central planner figure out something that the market can't do better.
So this is basicly just the standard discussion of wether all men are born equal or not. I really didn't think anyone bought into this anymore, how can you claim that Einstein was born as the equal of some mentally handicapped child. Einstein didn't just sit down one day and decided to be a geniuses he was BORN with a better brain then 99,9 % of other people. Therefor when some guy is poor it's NOT his own fault, its: 1) the society around him, 2) his upbringing, his entire history 3) and his genes (or what ever term you want to use for the advantages or disadvantages that is was natuarlly born with) All of these factors help to explain why the guy you walk past is poor. If everyone could be as rich as Donald Trump if only they really wanted to, then why aren't there like 100% rich people in this world? And finally do really honestly believe that people would rather die from hunger than "man-up" and get some work? Of course, you don't think so. =) But then lazyness just doens't work as an explanation for poverty and hunger does it?
I said you can only blame yourself. You can't blame "history", or dead people, for who you are, because they're either not rational agents, nor alive, so it's pointless to try. Semantics anyways. Apparently you're more advanced into the BLAME GAME than I am. Fuck yeah, blame your genes! those fucking ...spiral... things...
Again, mankind was raised in the mud. We're not at the point where everyone can have plenty of food, but it doesn't mean that coercion can or even does help at all.
look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
On August 30 2010 18:32 Yurebis wrote: Guess who paid them.
Nope that wont work. Guess who will pay the new mercenary armies, yep: big capitalists. There is no real difference here except that the capitalist answers to NO-one but himself, the leaders of the modern state at least has to justify what it does every 4 or so years when there is an election.
On August 30 2010 18:09 Hasudk wrote: Read the 3 first pages and it was basicly: "it wont work because people will kill each other" countered by "No, they wont" or "they already do" or "just pay some guy to take care of security".
Maybe I should read the other 16 pages, but CBA right now. There is no reason why anarcho-capitalism can't WORK, hell fascism and stalinism WORKED, they just didn't work in a nice way.
I think we should define "work" as "creates a society that is, overall, at least as attractive as the one we currently live in." Otherwise, you're right, and there isn't much use in asking the question of whether ancap would work or not.
And that really is the main problem with anarcho-capitalism. Capitalism is a system that inherently puts profit above people, and therefor it has an inbuilt tendency towards oppression on the weakest.
One property of an capitalist society is that people with more wealth have better quality of life. There are a lot of people that this property unattractive, and think a just society is a society where everybody has a similar quality of life. We run into a massive controversy here over just that single point, and I don't think we can resolve it so easily, so let's put that one on hold for a moment.
However in our current system the state can be democraticly controlled to counteract the worst symptoms of this disease. It can for example require employers to treat their workers with some kind of respect, minimum wages and so on.
It is a widely held belief that the government is helping poor people. However, there are not very many poor people any more. The enormous middle class and the upper-class vastly outnumbers poor people. In a democratically controlled society, you'd expect government programs to benefit the middle and upper class at the expense of the poor, and that's exactly what is happening. I can imagine you are skeptical about this, so if you are curious maybe we can discuss some examples of programs currently running in the US that show this trend.
If you look at the beginnings of capitalism where the states were generally weaker you see horrible things going on in the factories. Ford, for example had his won police force, that enforced HIS law in the factories.
In the beginnings of capitalism, there was just not very much wealth. If at that time, you'd take the wealth of all the richest people in society and distributed it amongst everyone equally, people would only very marginally be better off. That was a vastly different society than we live in today, where 90% of the wealth is controlled by 10% of the people.
There is not much you can do to improve the living conditions of those people in that era. You can't conjure up good clothes, good food, good houses, etc out of thin air. You need an enormously richer society to be able to give those people a decent standard of living. We got rich enough for us to be able to consider the living standards in those days inhuman largely because of unregulated capitalism in the meantime.
The workers can of course strike their way out of that if they organize themselves really well, but if there is no state to transform their victories into laws, then they will need to be on constant strike(...)
I agree with you that having the workers on constant strike would be a bad thing. But is that really the right way to go about it? Nothing is forcing my employer to pay me a salary well above the minimum wage, and my employer still does it. I didn't need to go on strike for it, I was just offered that. I think in a healthy market, people will be paid what they are worth.
In the early days of capitalism, there would be people that worked 12 hours / day for very little pay. It's a sad thought to think that a person would only be worth 1$ / hour, working his ass off for 12 hours 7 days a week to buy bread for his family. But is that person really helped if you legislate an 8 hour work day? To me, it seems the result would be that that person will have an even harder time feeding his family and would be distinctly unhappy with that law.
Similarly, when minimum wage law was first instituted, the primary effect was that a lot of unskilled laborers lost their jobs, instead of getting paid more. Those people were also very unhappy with minimum wage law. It's very tempting when you see something wrong in society, to make a law to fix it, but it's not that simple. The wealth simply wasn't there. And you can't make laws to create wealth.
When society became richer and richer, we see automatically that workers were paid better, working shorter days, able to spend more money on luxury items, etc.
I said you can only blame yourself. You can't blame "history", or dead people, for who you are, because they're either not rational agents, nor alive, so it's pointless to try. Semantics anyways. Apparently you're more advanced into the BLAME GAME than I am. Fuck yeah, blame your genes! those fucking ...spiral... things...
Again, mankind was raised in the mud. We're not at the point where everyone can have plenty of food, but it doesn't mean that coercion can or even does help at all.
Thats not a valid argument. Of course you can blame history, the genes and so on. Because then you can make a society that eliminates the "historical" factors leading to poverty and helps alleviate the genetical.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
On August 30 2010 18:32 Yurebis wrote: Guess who paid them.
Nope that wont work. Guess who will pay the new mercenary armies, yep: big capitalists. There is no real difference here except that the capitalist answers to NO-one but himself, the leaders of the modern state at least has to justify what it does every 4 or so years when there is an election.
Well, you were telling me yet another tale of great inhumane practices of wealthy man. Turned out the men were statists, huh? Paying mercenaries with taxpayer money? That still happens today... there was a time where half the military forces in Iraq were contractors paid by the U.S.
That you expect wealthy man to pay for mercenaries in ancap to do their dirty business completely ignores the fact that they do already through the state, and it's much cheaper that way. The mafia pays off the police to keep non-compliant drug-dealers down. Corporations lobby the government to acquire exclusive leases of "public" infrastructure; make them a legal, true monopoly; to subsidize themselves, to regulate the market and raising barriers of entry; price fixing so there's a legal collusion, and a limit to efficiency. So many things that can't be done in the market...
I would never claim that the current governments or even the capitalist system that we currently live under if able to abolish poverty, even if they wanted to. You need a radically different society in order to abolish poverty, and if its built on capitalism it isn't radically different, its just more of the same. You need a society controlled by the masses instead of the elite, and anarcho-capitalism WOULD be controlled by the elite.
I really disagree in the whole quality of life vs wealth idea. Im not saying that money makes you happy, but thats not the point either. You can make a system were everyone is happy, but if half of the people is happily starving to death its still not a good society. Wealth should be distributed evenly because we all NEED food, clothes and so on.
I said you can only blame yourself. You can't blame "history", or dead people, for who you are, because they're either not rational agents, nor alive, so it's pointless to try. Semantics anyways. Apparently you're more advanced into the BLAME GAME than I am. Fuck yeah, blame your genes! those fucking ...spiral... things...
Again, mankind was raised in the mud. We're not at the point where everyone can have plenty of food, but it doesn't mean that coercion can or even does help at all.
Thats not a valid argument. Of course you can blame history, the genes and so on. Because then you can make a society that eliminates the "historical" factors leading to poverty and helps alleviate the genetical.
How do you make a society by blaming dead, irrational, and abstract entities? You mean educate people instead? Whatever then, semantics. I already crowned you the blame king.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
On August 30 2010 18:10 Phrujbaz wrote: If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Any protection agency could simply improve its status by agreeing with all other protection agencies on the market and charge an unreasonable prize for its service or simply take whatever its members want. Your use of the terms "profit" and "money" are only meaningful in a stable socio-economic system. Anarchic systems are intrinsically instable, that is why money would not even be necesary.
On August 30 2010 18:54 Hasudk wrote: I would never claim that the current governments or even the capitalist system that we currently live under if able to abolish poverty, even if they wanted to. You need a radically different society in order to abolish poverty, and if its built on capitalism it isn't radically different, its just more of the same. You need a society controlled by the masses instead of the elite, and anarcho-capitalism WOULD be controlled by the elite.
I really disagree in the whole quality of life vs wealth idea. Im not saying that money makes you happy, but thats not the point either. You can make a system were everyone is happy, but if half of the people is happily starving to death its still not a good society. Wealth should be distributed evenly because we all NEED food, clothes and so on.
You can't abolish poverty... To abolish poverty would mean to get an infinite amount of goods. Or at least enough goods that man is satisfied. But we don't know if there's a limit to human satisfaction, and it is reasonable to expect there isn't one. Man can have whole planets, galaxies, universes, and want more.
Quality of life isn't contrasted with wealth... and wealth isn't necessarily money either. Wealth is accumulation of the type of capital you want. It's subjective, but also generally used to mean capital of the type that is commonly desirable. Quality of life is exactly dependent on how much wealth you have, with these definitions.
You say "you need a society x", and that's an ok way to say it. But just to formalize your argument, you mean to say "I desire a society x", and perhaps "I think most would agree with me that society x is desirable". Well. In both of these declarations you express your desire that society would ordain itself as x. And in the second, more stretched version, you expect that people agree with you. But my question is, how is the best way to find out if you're right? Because after all, most people may not want x. They may want y, or z. How do you go about bringing x?
AAnd the answer of course is, you can only know if you were right in the second sentence if you voluntarily let people assemble into x. If you force them, any number of people into x, it is admitting defeat, and breaks the purpose or theory of an ideal society. You're just forcing them, when they have done nothing to you but disagreeing. Well, unless they did do something to you, in which case I support you smacking their face.
But anyway. The elite. Yeah, those evil guys. What did they do to you again? They created capital? Made connections? Sold a ton of stuff, yeah, so? Is that evil? Those evil rich men, sure, they're deeply in bed with government, and for that I don't like them either. But I feel you're discriminating them just because they're rich. What is wrong with being rich, if he has not coerced once in his lifetime? (obviously false lol)
There's nothing bad about being rich. He has't slapped you in the face, he hasn't denied you with anything that you were entitled for. And until you're able to justify that sentiment, I will keep calling that jealousy, superstition, unwarranted discrimination.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
On August 30 2010 18:10 Phrujbaz wrote: If you run a very profitable protection agency, why would you want to change the status quo? Entering in violent conflict with other protection agencies or screwing your customers over is incredibly risky and likely to spoil a perfectly good source of profit. It will be tried at first, of course, and we'll have our share of scandals in ancap, but that's just not as profitable. And it's not sustainable as a source of profit. A greedy, money-grubbing capitalist will go for high quality protection and peaceful resolution of conflict.
Any protection agency could simply improve its status by agreeing with all other protection agencies on the market and charge an unreasonable prize for its service or simply take whatever its members want. Your use of the terms "profit" and "money" are only meaningful in a stable socio-economic system. Anarchic systems are intrinsically instable, that is why money would not even be necesary.
Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You cannot obtain wealth (except through inheritance, gifts or the lottary) in a capitalist society without oppressing a workforce. That and because they maintain the status quo (which I totally agree with you, is unacceptable, if only for slightly other reasons) is why I dont like the capitalist elite.
And yes of course you can abolish poverty, if everyone has approximately the same living standard and if that living standard is high enough that they are relieved of hunger and basic sickness, and leave room for some amount of economic freedom (like going to the zoo, or whatever) then you have abolished poverty.
Also ideal is not the same as perfect. The ideal society is the best possible society, but its probably not perfect.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
On August 30 2010 19:20 Hasudk wrote: You cannot obtain wealth (except through inheritance, gifts or the lottary) in a capitalist society without oppressing a workforce. That and because they maintain the status quo (which I totally agree with you, is unacceptable, if only for slightly other reasons) is why I dont like the capitalist elite.
And yes of course you can abolish poverty, if everyone has approximately the same living standard and if that living standard is high enough that they are relieved of hunger and basic sickness, and leave room for some amount of economic freedom (like going to the zoo, or whatever) then you have abolished poverty.
Also ideal is not the same as perfect. The ideal society is the best possible society, but its probably not perfect.
Oh really, you can't obtain wealth, huh? Because the wealth that exists is all that there ever will be? Because mankind can't possibly produce more wealth in the future than what's been produced in the past?
AND you say you can end scarcity? No, if everyone would have the same standards of living, people would just want to have it even higher. People consistently living 100 years? Fuck it, give me 200. Give me immortality. Give me planets, give me stars, give all and give me asap. Give me your wife, give me your grass, which is greener than my own.
Perfect is a meaningless practical term if it can't be achieved. Might as well not mention it. Like, getting rid of human desires. Peace.
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
"Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote:Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I have no major reasons to think anarcho-capitalism can't work, but so what? Is it good?
I think not paying taxes would be preferable to paying taxes/going to jail. BUT WE ALL GOT OUR CHOICES TO MAKE BANG
So taxes are the main problem for you? Okay, do you think anarcho-capitalism is the only other system which doesn't need taxes?
Any type of anarchism doesn't. But anarcho-capitalism is the only one that clearly respects my claim to the things I earn, and the one which I find most compatible with the NAP, non-aggression principle.
It's both a matter of morals and pragmatism, even though I don't have all that much capital myself.
On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote: I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.
If the majority of the people are dumb, then the majority of leaders are dumb Or the majority of people will choose dumb leaders And be dumbly enslaved dumbly dumb dumb dumb
that's very true and how our world runs. it's the best possible system though. because smart people abuse dumb people and get power and leadership.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths?
The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x. I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
On August 30 2010 16:53 SkytoM wrote: I think it can't work because the majority of the people are REALLY dumb and aren't able to do anything themselves and need leadership.
If the majority of the people are dumb, then the majority of leaders are dumb Or the majority of people will choose dumb leaders And be dumbly enslaved dumbly dumb dumb dumb
that's very true and how our world runs. it's the best possible system though. because smart people abuse dumb people and get power and leadership.
And you think that's good for you? Okay. So it's justifiable for smart people to take over dumb people's property then. If I can prove to you that I'm smarter than you, at your criteria and your testing specifications, can I steal $100 from you? Oh wait, I shouldn't even be asking, I should do it like the state and just take it. Yup. Can you give me your credit card number please? with security code, expiration date?
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths?
The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average.
Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all?
The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING.
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths?
The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average.
Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all?
The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING.
I think you just proved his point. Apparently anarcho-capitalists prefer letting people starve to death over taxing (omg stealing11!!!1ONe) money from rich-guys to feed them. And if they starve to death because no-one wants to help them it apparently isn't a problem either (in the eyes of anarcho-capitialists) Yep that would be a sociopath.
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism... If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
Is it just me or are proponents of ancap sociopaths?
The world would be a better place if people who thought like you were dead.
Thanks for ignoring the context and appealing to emotion. Your contributions to the thread are better than the average.
Really, I advocate zero coercion, NAP, the most pacifist ways to deal with any dispute. Then because I don't subscribe to forcing other people to give people food I'm a sociopath. Really? Have you read anything at all?
The positivists who subscribe to such policy hardly care about the poor. They're the sociopaths themselves who see no problem in stealing for ANY cause. Don't call me a sociopath because I'm consistent. Stealing is hardly charity when it comes at the cost of making everyone more hungry, in sum, and it hardly takes any challenge when you're not the one paying for it. You care about the poor? GO DONATE, DONT MAKE OTHERS DO IT FOR YOU. THAT IS STEALING. STEALING BAD. BAD STEALING.
I think you just proved his point. Apparently anarcho-capitalists prefer letting people starve to death over taxing (omg stealing11!!!1ONe) money from rich-guys to feed them. And if they starve to death because no-one wants to help them it apparently isn't a problem either (in the eyes of anarcho-capitialists) Yep that would be a sociopath.
I didn't particularly say that if I were to personally meet a bum dying on the street, that I wouldn't feel pity, and I wouldn't want to give him something (I'm almost as broke as a bum though tbh). It's ridiculous to point that out when we were talking generalities, and the choice was between letting him die and stealing from someone. I would choose the former every time, because I do not have a claim over other's capital, and the bum's situation isn't my fault. I have no obligation towards him, and neither does the other person.
The bum is just an "extreme" (not really) case that calls for action. But even at such an instance I don't advocate stealing to feed him. Because it would be inconsistent. Lame, lame lame positivist strategy to get the ball rolling.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote: There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
2009? 53%
I assuming these are tax rates although the graph seems to have no explanations whatsoever and the data has no references at all
but ok I'll accept that this is correct data; what does it say? it says tax rates in the US have steadily increased since the end of the WWII war effort.
I'm assuming you want to draw the conclusion that this supports the idea that government is unfit to decide tax rates because it has no free market competition to pressure it.
but then you are ignoring the fact that after WWII there was the cold war, the US sent a man to the moon and the publics opinion of the government was at an all-time high, there is good justification for that steady tax increase outside of just government running amock is what I'm saying
also, OP of this thread seems like a rabid libertarian who is clearly just spam F5'ing this thread, not thinking through any of his posts and I'm not going to respond to them...
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
I love coercion
If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism... If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would do you alot of good to start reading what people actually write, and to adress their arguments rather than focusing on taking a few words out of context from every post, and using them as a launchpad to write whatever you feel like writing at the moment.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
Okay well, apart from the obvious "what's 'meaningful choice'", I question these: 1-Who's to blame for the individual's lack of choices? 2-Why is the employer exploiting for offering one more? 3-Would I be exploiting the bum if I offer him a loaf of bread in exchange for him mowing my lawn? Why, if everyone else in town would rather let him die? 3b-Loaf of bread for mowing my lawn, making me brownies? 3c-Loaf of bread for the above, plus cleaning up my basement 3d-Loaf of bread, the above, walking my dog twice for the next weekend 3f-Loaf of bread, the above, f for fellatio. 4- Why aren't your answers for all #3 questions entirely subjective, and therefore no distinction can objectively be made ever? 5- People can call 3b-3f exploitation, and the bum thinks 3f is fine, I mean, he's about to die isn't he. Why would you feel entitled in forbidding me from offering him 3f, or otherwise taking over my property if I did, when it's entirely a subjective matter between you and me that we can both find agreeable, and no disputes ensue thereafter? 6- If I were to offer him 3f, and only 3f, or he won't get bread for me, would YOU stop ME from making a voluntary OFFER to him? Would you deny the possibility that the bum may work for his bread under conditions that HE finds acceptable, but YOU don't?
Restrictions are never a good thing, because ultimately it comes down to the personal choice of both parties involved. You can have all the opinions you want, and recommend people to do whatever they want. That's fine. But the moment you deny them a choice, externalities aside, you have done one of two things: 1-Either it's an irrelevant regulation because the option is at most second-best. The best option is still available. 2-The regulation IS relevant, because it has taken out the best option, and you have to settle for second best. In the case of the bum, whatever options you've deemed exploitive, and would deny me the opportunity of offering it to the bum, you are at the same time eliminating what perhaps is the only option for the bum to keep living. It isn't sure even then, I'm not saying you, qua interventionist, KILLED the bum at any rate. Someone could pass by after I did, and give him food for free. I don't know, you don't know. But the hungry bum could potentially accept any offer. And you're in no position to decide for him, what options he can't chose, nor to deny me, what offers I can make. Exchanges can only be evaluated by the transacting parties.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
I love coercion
If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay...
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Now I can't sleep. Too bad. I'll stay awake for the day.
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:16 Yurebis wrote: Collusion doesn't work as good as the interventionist economy books say. A company cannot both:
1- have the profit motive as its highest priority 2- collude with others, and remain honest
If it's colluding with others, it has a direct incentive to cheat on the collusion, at least under-the-table, when it draws consumers to it, and sells more than everyone else. What happens then is, the collusion falls apart.
Collusions can only happen when companies were selling at about the same price anyways, or the government enforces it by capping the leader(s). The second being what usually happens - why? Because the government gets rid of the "monopoly", aka leader aka lowest pricer. Hurray for the government, raising the costs of living!
You misunderstand my post. I am not arguing that government intervention causes a more efficient allocation of ressources since it protects us from monopolies. I am arguing that a government helps to detach political/social incentives from economic interests and therefore helps to create an independent economic sector in the first place, whose participants think and act almost exclusively on the basis of monetary terms.
You're arguing only coercion can give you x.
Where do I argue that? Or do you equate "government" with "coercion"? Did you confuse my post?
Yes, I do in fact equate government with coercion, I'm glad you noticed. In a thread about anarcho-capitalism... If government were voluntary, meaning, you can choose not to join, and you can as freely secede from, then it's not a government, it's just an organization. It has no imposing powers, it doesn't claim ownership of all land, it can't tax, can't steal, can't kill, can't imprison, etc. etc. Can't coerce. Governments are monopolies of coercion, that attempt to stop everyone else from coercing, though it coerces its subjugates by default. The Leviathan, which requires that all men relinquish their rights to it, only to be given back at its criteria. Top bottom Law.
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: I deny it on the same grounds, because you don't understand what the role of capital nor money is. It is to facilitate market transactions, to better meet supply and demand of everyone to the best extent everyone can voluntarily. Your demand of x ("to create an independent economic sector"), as long as it's voluntary, can be best accomplished voluntarily. I'm too sleepy to help you out. I got to go.
I know its "the internetz", but I can assure you that I perfectly understand the role of capital and money and most of my students do to. Economy is only a function of society, however. I also think that your definition of "voluntarily" at least differs greatly from mine. "The state" does not force anybody to engage in an economic activity, it simply sets the rules by which participants need to play.
Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
I love coercion
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
If you wish to be taken seriously, it would do you alot of good to start reading what people actually write, and to adress their arguments rather than focusing on taking a few words out of context from every post, and using them as a launchpad to write whatever you feel like writing at the moment.
I haven't slept for almost 22 hours. I just want to end the arguments faster than people make them, LOL. Nothing wrong with a strawmen, just ignore it, jeez. I've lived through worse threads.
Also, I would argue that the lack of definitions make it harder for me to understand what they're saying. So yeah, I have to assume a lot, anyone would have to. Reading what I read... "power" meaning anything from "exclusive control over one's property" to "control over everything" "exploitation" that includes activities of anything from "using any property as capital in any shape of form" to "interest", and meaning to justify anything from "nothing" to "expropriation of all capital If it was just "monopoly" which had it's meaning twisted... it would be a cake walk. But people use communist terminology then tell me they're not communists at all... what the hell... alright, whatever. Sorry. jesus.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
I love coercion
If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay...
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
I misjudged that you were a commie. tee hee.
Well, you do at least make clear that you don't want to follow any authority ... not even the one of sense and coherence. Your noncomformism-for-the-sake-of-it gets old soon, but as long as it works for you, I am fine with it. ~tee hee
On August 30 2010 03:35 Phrujbaz wrote: There is no second government to spend tax money more efficiently than the first. There is no way for people to stop paying and find some alternative way of doing things on their own. That means that normal market pressures to create efficient spending practices are absent - with predictable consequences. Yes, politicians have their own internal logic to control spending, but it does not seem to work as well. For example, the opposition offering to reduce spending and reduce tax rates does not seem to be very common. The general theme is that there is never enough money, and the opposition simply wants to give a different use to it.
well I simply don't agree with that, sweden is currently going through an election and there are plenty of promises for tax cuts, also in the states it seems like republicans do nothing but promise tax cuts
2009? 53%
I assuming these are tax rates although the graph seems to have no explanations whatsoever and the data has no references at all
but ok I'll accept that this is correct data; what does it say? it says tax rates in the US have steadily increased since the end of the WWII war effort.
I'm assuming you want to draw the conclusion that this supports the idea that government is unfit to decide tax rates because it has no free market competition to pressure it.
but then you are ignoring the fact that after WWII there was the cold war, the US sent a man to the moon and the publics opinion of the government was at an all-time high, there is good justification for that steady tax increase outside of just government running amock is what I'm saying
also, OP of this thread seems like a rabid libertarian who is clearly just spam F5'ing this thread, not thinking through any of his posts and I'm not going to respond to them...
You see, it's things like this that make me wonder about the credibility and/or seriousness of acap's whole line of thought. It's just typical - no rigorous scholarship to be found anywhere.
It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough".
Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
In my opinion it becomes exploitation when an individual loses meaningful choice and the employer takes advantage of that. Wage slavery and poverty traps are very real things and they do create localised monopolies on employment. Any capitalist system is built on the principle of choice which is based around alternative options. Things will optimise for the betterment of all because people make rational choices in their own self interest. However if you are stripped of options by circumstance then you are in turn stripped of choice and the capitalist system no longer seeks to optimise your value. Without choice you can be exploited and when a company does that I call it exploitation.
But it's important to note how individuals lose meaningful choices. Has the employer caused your circumstance? If yes, the employer is exploitative for sure. But they were exploitative before the "wage slavery" even occurred, you see. But of course that doesn't happen; your employer has nothing to do with your financial circumstances before he employed you. If you had a low standard of living, your boss likely has nothing to do with it. And if he did, even in some indirect way like being in bed with government to produce regulation laws designed to limit competition from small start-ups, then yes he is being exploitative. But that's due to the power that the STATE gives the rich.
But some guy just offering you a job, in and of itself, is not exploitation. Couldn't the employer be said to be actually providing an additional choice to you? After all, the employees can decide for themselves whether or not they would be better off working for the employer or not. The mere fact that they lack choices is kind of meaningless. Primitive man has to hunt for his food, but now we can decide whether we would rather hunt or farm or produce light-bulbs or write software. You understand, choices come from the market. From the luxury of technologies and wealth. Without those choices you will have to hunt for your food, but that's not exploitation on part of all employers. That's just a natural reality. Government doesn't help give you those sorts of choices; in-fact it only serves to reduce those sorts of choices by keeping you in poverty.
You say people stripped of options by circumstance. Ok, but did the employer cause the circumstance? If you look at it more closely, you'll find they lack options because of crushing effect of government programmes. All of the taxes people have to pay once they get a job have to be factored into your wage, which reduce your wage and likelihood of even getting a job in the first place. It's not just a natural circumstance; it's because THEY'RE BEING STOLEN FROM. It's just difficult to see where the theft is occurring, why you can't get a job and why you have to work so hard to earn a living when it should be fucking easy. And if it was just natural circumstance, the job is helping them in some way and we know that because they CHOOSE to work there instead of deciding to remain in their previous circumstance.
The job is actually providing some good in spite of that. It's easy to have hatred for your boss because you're having to work longer hours, and you feel like you're slaving away to make ends meet. All of the taxes is actually what contributes to this hugely, and your employer has little choice but to require longer working hours and lower wages to even keep the company afloat. If the company goes under then your job goes too.
You understand, calling "wage slavery" is putting the blame on the wrong thing. Where is the coercion? Where is the exploitation?
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote: Oh shit you're a teacher, I better get the fuck out then. Are you state funded? Can you arrest me?
If the government is voluntary, tell me, can I not pay taxes? I could, but then I receive letters requiring my appearance in court. Then another one. Then another one... and at some point in time, the cops will come at my door at take me to jail. Yay. Voluntary taxes! I voluntarily go to jail. Sweet, free food.
Can I start my own competing criminal law court? Can I start my own police agency? Can I issue my own currency? Nope, the government has got monopoly on those. And as we all know, monopolies are bad. Wait, no, these aren't because, you see, when the government does something, it's good. That's right, how could I forget!
I love coercion
If you really bother to reply then why don't you just stop projecting and actually read what I write ... did I say anywhere that what the government does is inherently good.? Did I say anywhere that participation in the state itself is "voluntary"? No? Well, didn't think so ... but maybe, just maybe I didn't write that, because I don't hold this opinion ... ...
Okay, well, sorry, but when you say stuff like government is inevitable and take an instance against anarchism, from an apparent non-capitalist point of view... what else could I assume, other than you're a statist. But I guess you haven't thought it out yet.. Okay...
On August 30 2010 20:59 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 20:38 Yurebis wrote:
On August 30 2010 20:06 MiraMax wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote:
On August 30 2010 19:28 MiraMax wrote: "Ancap" promoters make the mistake to focus on economic issues, while the threat to any anarchic system is mainly social/political. Power is in itself not a marketable entity and its further not distributed equally. It will "clump up" and inevetibly lead to the formation of some form of governing body.
It's no mistake, it's an understanding of what the economy is.
Again, you're misusing the word power. Power over what? Power over one's own creations? That's not a market entity? Disagree. Power over other's? Yeah, well, duh. That's coercion. I'm reducing your declaration to coercion will result in a monopoly of coercion, which although isn't true, I don't really care. Welp.
Well, word games are not my cup of tea, but I was indeed not referring to property ... Power is not at all equal to coercion, coercion is just an effect of power being excercised. For somebody who seems to be so engaged in socioeconomic discussions, I am rather surprised you don't know its meaning in this context.
No, I don't. Enlighten me. Define it for me. I define anything you ask. In fact I tried defining it for you but apparently it isn't coercion. Well, what is it?
No, I will not define it for you. You are smart enough to work out the basics for yourself and apparently attribute high value to any individual's capability to reason.
On August 30 2010 19:43 Yurebis wrote: Is it as vague as "exploitation"? I hope it isn't, because even now, I don't know what the fuck do communists mean when they say "exploitation", other than "voluntary exchange that I find despicable enough to justify expropriation of the exploiter's capital by/for the workers that most often use said capital". A little arbitrary, yeah, but since I'm still waiting for a clear distinction of which voluntary exchanges can be considered exploitation, and which ones can't, I'm stuck with the overly complicated and subjective "that I find despicable enough". Is selling one's own clothes exploitation by the seller? Is selling one's own built wardrobe exploitation? One's hand built shack? One's built house? A syndicate selling a house they made? selling an appartment building? An office building? A sky scraper? At which point exactly does it become exploitation? Is it the nature of the transaction? How about renting a shack/house/building/skyscraper? How about renting a factory? To the workers? Oooh, exploitable questions.
Again, you seem to be more keen on setting up strawmen. Why do you give me a two paragraph rambling on exploitation when I never even used the word? Are you sure you are interested in discussing my point? If not, then just don't reply. That's perfectly fine with me.
I misjudged that you were a commie. tee hee.
Well, you do at least make clear that you don't want to follow any authority ... not even the one of sense and coherence. Your noncomformism-for-the-sake-of-it gets old soon, but as long as it works for you, I am fine with it. ~tee hee
Coercive authorities - correct. Authorities that I chose to subscribe to - no, they're fine. I'm not against hierarchies.
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote: It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
I'm answering every question still. Point me the logical fallacies. Yes, I should get some sleep. But it's too late now. Too late, I say. It does not follow that people can't defend themselves if not for the state. Defense is a service that is paid for, today, and could be paid for in ancap just as well, if not better (I argue much better, for other reasons which would fill a page again if I wanted to).
Perhaps a logical conclusion that would follow is that even if you can pay for security guards, and get guns yourself, you and your hired cops would be in conflict with other people and their cops, because there's no common authority reigning over them. But you haven't made such point (yet), so I stop here. Oh god, living and learning. LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote: It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
From Zimbabwe. LOL. 100 trillion dollar notes aren't enough for you to realise something is seriously wrong with statism? Actually that's not even funny; it's depressing.
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote: It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
From Zimbabwe. LOL. 100 trillion dollar notes aren't enough for you to realise something is seriously wrong with statism? Actually that's not even funny; it's depressing.
He's talking about me, unless you need sleep too. But more importantly, I don't think it's fair to call him on that, he seems to be the minarchist type... Oh I just love labels. Except when I'm labeled. Exploitable!
On August 30 2010 22:04 Yurebis wrote: He's talking about me, unless you need sleep too. But more importantly, I don't think it's fair to call him on that, he seems to be the minarchist type... Oh I just love labels. Except when I'm labeled. Exploitable!
Fair point, bit rude of me but I just found it amusing. But is he a minarchist? His only other post in this thread is one in which he seems to argue that the more a country spends on government the more prosperous it becomes.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
So your world is one where only the misery that is directly and intentionally inflicted by one human on other human is worth systemically eliminating? From what I've read here I don't even think that your "system" does that. I'm not even sure that my response is the best counter to your distasteful assertions, but I'm pretty sure that I'm not too far from one of the fatal weaknesses of your ideologically motivated mindpoop. I don't know how old you are and how far you've ventured out into the world. Have you ever been outside? Do you realize that people don't give a fuck whether the suffering they experience has human origin or not?! If it becomes too bad they'll blow your head off if they think it'll get them some relief. Many people have this idea that a just society has to meet certain standards. Sure, the complete absence of coercion would be nice, but the assurance that they won't die from a simple lack of funds/medicine/.. is way higher on the list. Of course they aren't smart enough to be fundamentalists like you. They don't understand that we must all focus on that one little dot in the mental realm and not value our own lives over the coercion of themselves and their neighbours by the state. Keep throwing insults like statist and communist around and see where it gets you. I've yet to hear about a human-made system other than real democracy that even has the chance of bringing us to a point where oppression/coercion becomes bearable.
On August 30 2010 22:04 Yurebis wrote: He's talking about me, unless you need sleep too. But more importantly, I don't think it's fair to call him on that, he seems to be the minarchist type... Oh I just love labels. Except when I'm labeled. Exploitable!
Fair point, bit rude of me but I just found it amusing. But is he a minarchist? His only other post in this thread is one in which he seems to argue that the more a country spends on government the more prosperous it becomes.
Oh, right, I misread "large government" as "small government". I kid you not. Sorry LOL CARRY ON
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote: It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
Perhaps a logical conclusion that would follow is that even if you can pay for security guards, and get guns yourself, you and your hired cops would be in conflict with other people and their cops, because there's no common authority reigning over them
Yes, that is the conclusion. Perhaps now that you see it, you and your deluded lackey who thinks I'm from Zimbabwe and is so eager to label me a term he doesn't understand can go to sleep.
Regardless, the answers as to why it wouldn't work are laid out before you. Whether you chose to accept them or keep arguing for your sleep deprived delusions for the sake of being right is up to you. I won't be coming back to this thread.
I also apologize if any of you take it personally.
On August 30 2010 18:39 Hasudk wrote: look up profit in a dictionary if you don't know the meaning. The surplus value of labour that is extracted by the seller of the product of the labour. Also I don't why people didn't choose the second best alternative, maybe because Fords people would kill them (probably not), or maybe because they didn't want to starve to death. Most people will take being abused and opppressed over starvation, but that doesn't mean that we should just embrace oppression as a brilliant thing does it.?
Welp, that's quite the big point you forgot to inquire. Like, the first thing that would go in my mind when listening to the story of a man who walked straight into the highway, and got run over by a truck, would be to immediately ask "why". That you did not, impliest to me that you can take your source's explanations and prescriptions without any questions, repeat them to others still without a doubt, and propagate an empiricist claim to which you have never reflected the validity of.
I would just guess to praxeologically say that either: 1- the men had no better second choice 2- they were coerced against, in which case you would be justifiably outraged.
However I doubt Ford's security guards could force people to walk in, work, day in and day out, without them leaving town, or calling the cops, or revolting like you said, etc. etc. soooo, most likely just #1. In which case, theeeeeres nothing wrong.
This as well as many of your other arguments revolves around a very odd kind of logic. The problem is EXACTLY that he DIDN*T have a better second choice. A society built around capitalism makes people choose between being oppressed or dying of hunger. How can that be an ideal society?
As I said in my first post: Its a shitty society - it WORKS, but it works in a shitty way. So let's make a different society that doesn't work in a shitty way instead =)
He's entitled to a better second choice? How? What second choice if there isn't any? He's entitled to something that doesn't (didn't) exist? And I'm the guy with weird logic?
The point is exactly that it works best to each man's options. Coercion only limits one man's options, and therefore can only make things shittier. Pretty simple logic if you ask me.
Read again, go think, understand and then come back my friend. =)
"Society" didn't put him into his position. Society came from the same mud. That he didn't inherit a king's fortune is no one's fault. He is not entitled to any riches. And if he's going to die because no one will feed him, I really don't give a shit. Usually people do, and usually an entrepreneur will see the waste that it is a man able to work dying because no one exchanged with him to better both person's wishes at the same time. However if it doesn't happen, it's still no one's fault, only his own.
You're the one who needs some reading in law and justice before you feel justified in blaming SOCIETY for the crimes that no one committed.
So your world is one where only the misery that is directly and intentionally inflicted by one human on other human is worth systemically eliminating?
You're not eliminating a bum's misery by restricting what people can offer to him. You're not eliminating anyone's misery by restricting what anyone can voluntarily do for them. If the miserable one is to get out of his misery, without stealing from others, without coercion, it has to be from a voluntary choice both in part of him in selecting the best offer available to him, and the best offer anyone in the market has to him. That is how the best exchanges are made. Overbidders, undercutters. The supply/demand curve. Anything else, is subpar.
Denying entrepreneurs the ability to offer jobs or exchanges that [i]you[i/] find exploitative isn't going to help anyone at best, and will hurt those who do find the terms not only agreeable but the best there are in the market, yet now they can't get hired or trade because you've denied them that choice. You haven't stopped anything bad, because nothing bad even happened.
On August 30 2010 22:11 wadadde wrote: Many people have this idea that a just society has to meet certain standards. Sure, the complete absence of coercion would be nice, but the assurance that they won't die from a simple lack of funds/medicine/.. is way higher on the list.
So... Moral aspect. It's justifiable to steal whenever it's something "way higher on the list"? Utilitarian aspect. It's most efficient to steal and be stolen from, by the government, so it can give back to you what you want minus bureaucratic spenditures?
My answers 1-Nope. 2-Hardly. It would be more efficient for everyone if instead of stealing and being stolen from, each one retained the fruits of their labor and bought exactly that which they needed. Government cannot remotely do the same even with the best intentions and at 0 bureaucratic cost, because: A- It has no market incentive to know when to buy more or less B- It has no price signaling to know how much to tax C- Any distribution system it creates is probably subpar or an outdated imitation of entrepreneurship.
In short, the government cant know what you need as good as yourself. For the purposes of getting what You want, it's more efficient if You're the one in control, You're the one buying the products. It makes a huge difference, buying a product yourself, from receiving a subsidized, socialized, one-size-fits-all product.
On August 30 2010 22:11 wadadde wrote: Of course they aren't smart enough to be fundamentalists like you. They don't understand that we must all focus on that one little dot in the mental realm and not value our own lives over the coercion of themselves and their neighbours by the state.
Negative, I don't consider myself to be smarter than anyone. I believe all the mentally healthy human beings have the same brain structure, the same mental coordination that builds my hierarchy of preferences, builds everyone else's. It is a matter of knowledge, conditioning, and the pattern in which information is collected, that makes the vast difference.
And I know you were being sarcastic, but I wanted to make this clear anyway.
On August 30 2010 22:11 wadadde wrote: Keep throwing insults like statist and communist around and see where it gets you. I've yet to hear about a human-made system other than real democracy that even has the chance of bringing us to a point where oppression/coercion becomes bearable.
They're not insults, they're ideologies. Both statists and communists can be consistent ideologies, if applied correctly. I don't say efficient, nor ideal by any means of course, but insofar as Ideas themselves, they aren't invalid or self-contradictory. Statism can be concise and consistent, if he is to believe he has both the best plans, and can benefit himself greatly, from using the state. Or even not using it, it just would be less likely. That he has the best plans however, is something that can't be verified. He has to believe in it a-priori. Which is kind of funny. Communism can... well, ok, it is too, even though the end results I feel would be the complete end of market incentives for higher order investments, and communist society is entirely reliant on a smart altruistic man, or in the assumption people wouldn't want higher order capital anyway. Both would be subpar to ancap in reaching my ends, but perhaps for the ends of someone who doesn't mind having rulers, or doesn't mind not having higher order capital, it could be consistent. And perhaps there are other ways to not be self-contradictory with them, this is just what I see right now.
On August 30 2010 22:38 Sadistx wrote: Yes, that is the conclusion. Perhaps now that you see it, you and your deluded lackey who thinks I'm from Zimbabwe and is so eager to label me a term he doesn't understand can go to sleep.
I'm sorry, what term did I label you as exactly? I will apologise for my rudeness; it was just something that I found amusing. To see Zimbabwe as your location and arguing for a monopoly on violence to bring virtue. Hilarious. I honestly don't care where you are from; it merely gave me a small chuckle and it really isn't worth continuing to talk about.
Regardless, the answers as to why it wouldn't work are laid out before you. Whether you chose to accept them or keep arguing for your sleep deprived delusions for the sake of being right is up to you. I won't be coming back to this thread.
I also apologize if any of you take it personally.
Well, you did your best but unfortunately you did little to convince me of anything. Take care now.
On August 30 2010 21:40 Sadistx wrote: It's pretty clear that you aren't interested in hearing arguments as to why it wouldn't work, but were instead intending to prove your point to everyone, by taking words out of context and writing pages upon pages of marginally related musings, filled with logical fallacies.
That was in the first few pages of the thread, which by now has devolved into something entirely unrelated, in large part thanks to yourself. Also, you should get some sleep.
So, to summarize, Anarcho-capitalism (or anarcho-anything) wouldn't work, because people will just kill you and take your stuff, as there is no entity (such as the state) that has a monopoly on violence. When there is no monopoly on violence, an advanced society cannot exist.
The end.
Perhaps a logical conclusion that would follow is that even if you can pay for security guards, and get guns yourself, you and your hired cops would be in conflict with other people and their cops, because there's no common authority reigning over them
Yes, that is the conclusion. Perhaps now that you see it, you and your deluded lackey who thinks I'm from Zimbabwe and is so eager to label me a term he doesn't understand can go to sleep.
Regardless, the answers as to why it wouldn't work are laid out before you. Whether you chose to accept them or keep arguing for your sleep deprived delusions for the sake of being right is up to you. I won't be coming back to this thread.
I also apologize if any of you take it personally.
Okay... then.. answering the question of whether cops would fight eachother now... They would have no reason to. A developed ancap could sell defense services through an insurance company, through which a PDA, protection defense agency, has officers and squads on demand to answer for calls, not unlike the 911 service of today. You pay a premium to the insurance, the insurance collects all the money, and pays the PDA the appropriate amount proportional to how much of it their members used it. Members that call for help more often, will have higher premiums, no different than car drivers that have more accidents pay higher premiums to their car insurance company.
There would be multiple competing PDAs, and multiple competing insurance companies, and the roles overlap; there could be PDAs that offer direct defense plans, and insurance companies that offer a bit of help themselves. The models themselves are to be determined, but at any rate, insurance->PDA is a commonly proposed model.
Then, those PDAs are also in competition to be the best providers of defense. How can that be determined? Well, PDAs that can't defend well, are called less, and the insurance companies that see their inefficiency, will look to find better PDAs. The PDAs that go beyond their scope of protection, necessarily have to charge more for the risk involved to their company from being physically and legally retaliated on; for the adittional weapons and ammunitions used in aggression, and decreased popularity among the general insurance-paying population. They will be overpriced, plain and simple, and the insurance companies will seek to contract them less.
So for a PDA to remain competitive, it has to perform efficiently that exactly what it's paid to do and nothing more - Defense. The insurance companies provide an extra layer of administration, but they could be proven to be unnecessary, I don't know. But that's basically it.
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from developing. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
[EDIT]: So not only does it work, we already live the dream, utopia fuck yeah.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
The state has presupposed authority to initiate force (in order to supposedly solve certain problems). If people recognise it as just a bunch of violent sociopathic thugs like the Mafia, then it's no longer a state. And it will be much less effective for it.
So yes, but it's the presupposed authority which makes up all the difference. The false meme is what most maintains the state's overwhelming power as it drastically reduces resistance against it. It's not merely their use of violence by itself that does it. People on the whole feel like whatever the state does it somehow has the authority to do it. And what's more, people think that they actually gave the sate the authority themselves, which is just brutal.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
The state has presupposed authority to initiate force (in order to supposedly solve certain problems). If people recognise it as just a bunch of violent sociopathic thugs like the Mafia, then it's no longer a state. And it will be much less effective for it.
So yes, but it's the presupposed authority which makes up all the difference. The false meme is what most maintains the state's overwhelming power as it drastically reduces resistance against it. It's not merely their use of violence by itself that does it. People on the whole feel like whatever the state does it somehow has the authority to do it. And what's more, people think that they actually gave the sate the authority themselves, which is just brutal.
I was so blind, but now I see: Hail to anarcho-capitalism! The great thing if you dislike the companies called states is, that most of them are so stupid as to reelect their whole board of executives every 4-5 years and everybody over the age of 18 can participate. So you can easily destroy them from the inside out by simply winning an election. No problem for you guys to outwit the state's marketing, is it? Didn't think so ...
Okay Yurebis, instead of immediately adressing all the points, let's look at the first one. Systematically adressing poverty and it's roots does not restrict "what anyone can voluntarily do". Generous people can engage in charity while they're being "robbed" a little by the state. Many people already do. You might think that affluent people will be less likely to show kindness to refugees, the sick, the disabled, the uneducated poor,.. in such a scenario, but that's hardly relevant if the poverty reducing measures ("free" education for all, for instance), for which the majority of the people voted, suffice. It does however limit the extent to which unscrupulous people can (ab)use the position the unfortunate/dumb find themselves in to increase their profits. What you're basically advocating is a world full of absurd inequality and abject poverty for the vast majority. You seem to assume that there's always a steady supply of work. You seem to assume that in an unregulated environment there will always be a supply of work that pays a living wage. It should be clear from looking at reality that this simply isn't the case. Moreover, manufacturers will collude to keep wages as low as possible and in such a lawless, highly hierarchical world any entrepreneur that breaks formation will be murdered, or otherwise put out of buisiness by competitors. Employers will use the survival instinct of the poor to make them do dirty, unhealthy, life-threatening, demeaning work for a pittance. The only way to possibly convince me of the opposite is to use relevant real world examples. All the history I'm aware of seems to point out that near-total freedom for wealthy employers perpetuates near-total misery for all others.
"You haven't stopped anything bad, because nothing bad even happened." Are you saying that extreme poverty can be solved merely by allowing people to work for almost nothing? I fear that you simply don't care about the issue.
On August 30 2010 23:40 MiraMax wrote: I was so blind, but now I see: Hail to anarcho-capitalism! The great thing if you dislike the companies called states is, that most of them are so stupid as to reelect their whole board of executives every 4-5 years and everybody over the age of 18 can participate. So you can easily destroy them from the inside out by simply winning an election. No problem for you guys to outwit the state's marketing, is it? Didn't think so ...
The sarcasm. It burns! I'm confused what you're trying to say here. That we should just vote? That companies are the same as democratic states, because if a company is enforcing their product upon people at monopoly rates then you can just try to run for board of directors every 4-5 years and change their business model from the inside? Seems kinda stupid.
You know, this is what kind of annoys me about this sort of argument. The Mafia today is never called a mini-state, other than as a metaphor by anti-statists I guess. Instead they're correctly called a bunch of thugs, right? Yet suddenly in ancap they're called a mini-state. Even fucking companies are called a mini-states. Makes fuck all sense to me. Nobody ever calls them states; they call them criminals.
Doesn't 'state' imply that they have authority? Mafia doesn't have authority. The point is, even if they manage to successfully 'tax' you (a.k.a. steal as most would then understand it to be), they are still not a state because they have no authority to do it. The recognition of this lack of authority is kind of important. Not only because it's fucking TRUE, but because it diminishes their effectiveness entirely. You think that if 99% of people recognise that the state is illegitimate they're just going to roll up their tanks to everyone's door to collect taxes? Get real. They wouldn't even have enough tax revenue to spend on tanks LOL. That's kind of the whole point. You wouldn't even need to literally fight them with defensive force because they wouldn't even try it.
And if you actually think that the government does have the authority to initiate force against peaceful people, then explain to me how the mere act of voting allows you to defer authority to the government that you never even had yourself. Magic? I've never heard a coherent explanation of how this is supposed to work. Ticking a box on a piece of paper and accumulating that tick that with other ticks somehow means the government now has authority to initiate force against peaceful people, yay! I mean, it's just... what? Somebody please explain this to me.
Most people think the government has authority because 'it's necessary for civilisation' and that we, as a people, have all agreed upon it because it's a DEMOCRACY. Oh yes, and because we don't move to another country, as though that makes taxation voluntary. All rationalisations of course. Sorry, but the government is not necessary for civilisation. It's antithetical to being civilised. Violence is destructive, not constructive. But even if it was necessary for some utilitarian end, the ends do not justify the means. You don't have the authority to murder one person just because it may be necessary to save 100. You understand right that if we put one innocent man on death row by accident, but our lax procedures allowed us to catch 100 more guilty men then it was not fucking worth it, and that it's not virtuous. Even though people on the aggregate may be happier with the lower crime rates.
I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that.
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote: I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that.
Let me ask you some questions:
Does the government legitimately own the land that it controls?
If yes, what gives it that legitimacy?
How did the government acquire ownership of the land it controls?
Does a company legitimately own the property or land that it controls / makes productive use of?
Is collecting rent from people living in a property that you legitimately own and with whom you voluntarily made agreements with beforehand considered the initiation of force?
So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^. Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^. Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
It has nothing to do with the 'amount of authority'. Do they have authority to initiate force or not?
I think you're conflating my use of the term authority with the mere means to coerce. I use it as meaning a legitimacy to coerce. For example, when somebody says that the government has the authority to perform action X, they don't just mean that the government is merely able to perform action X. They mean that the government has the legitimacy and moral right to perform action X. So substitute legitimacy for authority if you must.
A company does not have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people. I think we can all recognise this. They can set rules on their own property, for sure. The question is, does a government have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people? And does a government legitimately own the land that it rules over? The land that we call countries?
There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital?
I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.
Tell me how can there be an unfair business practice that is not coercive. And by coercive, I mean that it crosses the bounds of another's private property without their authorization.
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.
Exploitation as you defined it is irrelevant. Nature is exploiting me because food doesn't fall from the sky. Physics is exploiting me because I can't fly. There are no violations in your inability to do anything, it's just your current economical state of being, your current choices. You're not forced to work, you can choose to die too, yo. Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice. Coercion is exactly threatening to inflict upon you death, or another very low-priority choice, if you don't choose to do what the coercer wants.
But the current state of choices you have, and how deplorable they are, is no one's fault but yours. If you are going to die of hunger, your fault. If you are going to die of hunger, and another human being is in front of you yet chooses not to give you food, it's still your own damn fault. No one is obliged to give you anything.
It's a complete misnomer to call the inaction of others as POWER over you. God. Bill Gates has power over you by choosing not to give you a billion dollars? That's not what power means, what the fuck. Power means control. Bill Gates has no control over you. For him to do anything against you, you have to interact with him first. And if he does do something to you, then it's coercion, duh. And at that point he does have power over you, because he's exerting control over you - but it's called coercion, because it's considered overstepping your rights.
Please use definitions more closely to their popular meaning. (lol who am I to say that lol)
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.
You hold power my friend. You hold power aka control over your possessions. Should you be kept in check so that you don't EXPLOIT A BUM IN THE STREET for not letting him sleep over? Jesus. Your checks and balances are completely arbitrary. There's always going to be a hierarchy somewhere. Again, an example that I gave, is, when I talk, you shut up. That happens naturally. And then I give you voluntarily the command by letting you talk when I finish. SHOULD THAT TREACHEROUS CHAIN OF COMMAND BE REGULATED BECAUSE YOU CANT TRUST THAT I WILL LET YOU TALK? And then what? You have a hierarchy over a hierarchy. And then a hierarchy is needed to be on top of the second one. And on, and on, and on.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes? The question is a long one, and can't be answered completely, it can only be approximated to the optimal structure. And the optimal structure may be any series of complicated hierarchies and separations of powers. But the best way to approach it is by going for the least common denominator. Let each and every individual voluntarily assemble, and they will figure out what works best for everyone to the degree that everyone cares. Any other coercive solution, will twist the structure further away from the optimal structure, because you're denying people the ability to chose, because you as a central planner can't know what's up better than the sum of everyone else. Because you lack the market incentives, price mechanisms... oh fuck it.
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely.
WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU A CAPITALIST? YOU GO THROUGH ALL THIS COMMUNIST BULLSHIT AND THEN AGREES WITH ME? WHAT?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?
They most likely won't, but they'll ask that you give something back. If not money, labor. Something. at which point, THEYRE USING THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL AND THEYRE BEING GREEDY CAPITALISTS FUCK THE BOURGEOIS PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD UNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?
That's their choice, not mine. If the best business turn out to be those that do what you say, then they'll be more popular, and will profit more, and others will soon copy them. Voluntarily, you see how it works now?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners?
To the degree that capital is invested in them, we can assume that the aggregation of every stockholders and investors watching the business closely are very prudent, yeah. Much more than any single central planner can wave a pen and put some jackals of some agency on them yeah. Most most most definitely. And as soon as you understand that, the sooner will my fingers stop hurting.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).
Not the same type of power, and then, even if they do become corrupt over the power that they exert OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY, they're going to fuck up their own business.
Government has total power OVER EVERYONES PROPERTY. That my friend, is absolute power.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: The results are as such: 1. People need a means for survive.
You don't know which means. You cannot know, unless people are free to choose what they want or need. Everything else is second best. Last best. Worst best. Worst. Everything else is the woooorst. Central planning fails, at the very first premise...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors
You can't make such distinction. Tell me, is a worker who retains stock share of the company he works in a worker or an entrepreneur? OH MY GOD HES BOTH
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Skill set of any given person B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources). C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc).
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation.
You don't know that all of them need workers. There is such a thing as one-man-businesses. And he can use contractors, third party employees, nothing quite fixed as their own. But okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power"
I don't mind such illustration, only noting that the workers VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED the entrepreneurs to ride on their backs, because it was THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. If it wasn't...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position.
Uh.. companies work to become more efficient? Okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc)
They're in power to do what they want with the capital that is properly theirs. I thought you conceded that already. What is wrong with exerting power over your own property, your own house, your own body? Jesus. And LoL@greed.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder.
Not really, people choose to elect officials for a variety of dumb reasons. But I assume you just want to focus on that oversight aspect. Welp, I think you forgot to consider the constitutional republic of the US at least specifically doesn't oversees just for overseeing, the purpose of it was to withhold individual rights, property, etc. etc. Not overseeing people to make sure they're angels. It's to make sure they don't overstep other people's boundaries. (and they do so by taxing everyone but yeah)
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position. B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level.
This is competely wrong as I said above. The scope outside of government, besides the separation of powers stuff, is to protect both individual liberty and private property, mainly by the part of the judiciary. Not to impose your flavor of ethics, which is arbitrary as hell.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.
That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has. Actually, even if you added every corporate property and pretended they were all under a secret cabal of capitalist interest (LOL I BELIEVE THAT TOO), it STILL doesn't come close to the power of the state. Probably not even 1% still.
You don't seem to understand. Corporations come and go. As quickly as they've been raised, they can fall as fast. Sure there are hundreds of notable corporations today, but think how much time it's needed to amount what they have? It's a matter of less than a century on average. Governments last more than a century, and they own much much more. In one century, many corporations may have solved, merged, remade. But most states will still be there. Because they're like the plague, these fuckers.
Also, why do you give a fuck about a corporation's finance? And why do you think it's a good thing that the government can knock down any door, read any book? I think that's awful. If they can do it to the corporation, they can do it to you to, duh. How's that good? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The extent that one will go, to justify the state... it's scary. Scarier than Christians saying that God watches me masturbate and will send me to hell. Okay no one actually told me that. I'm getting sleepy already.
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.
What the fuck. Libertarian Socialist? They're polar opposites. You both respect private property but doesn't respect private property? Arbitrary and inconsistent much?
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.
The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.
Are you implying that because I have the demand to eat, the bakery across the street only exists because OF ME? WHAT? AND THEREFORE, THEYRE EXPLOITING ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I have the desire to fly, therefore planes were made, therefore I am entitled to those planes? I have the desire to x, x is made, therefore x is mine? Stop. Please. Seriously. Stop and think what you're saying, and what are the implications of your moral theory. Making shit up is fine and all, but this is garbage. If I come up with a theory that comes to the conclusion it's fine to rape-murder-genocide, I know there's got to be something wrong with it.
You don't own, nor are entitled, in any shape way or form, to stuff that other people made themselves. It doesn't matter if you asked them to. It doesn't even matter if you gave them the idea (keyword, gave). They're not obligated to give you shit, if you didn't help make it, or if they're not contractually bound to.
To say that you can claim that you deserve to use shit just because you have, had, or will have a demand for it, is completely inane. Anyone could claim entitlement for anything. What will that do? It doesn't settle any disputes, it doesn't stop conflicts over resources, nor capital. What the fuck? I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out. Sorry. But I am.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.
Oh, so I don't have power over myself, because I don't have power over a jacuzzi, a BMW, and the playboy mansion with all the chicks included? OH, these aren't necessary for life you say? SAYS WHO? I NEED THOSE THINGS TO LIVE. If you go past food, it's already arbitrary bro. It's your own value judgments on what you think people should be entitled to rob others for.
I Am a slave to HUNGER, as I am a slave to physics, nature, biology... again, meaningless distinctions and definitions. Perverting the word power? Check. Perverting the word slavery? check. Perverting the world exploitation? check. What's next, property? "Property is whatever the fuck you can grab" LOL. I'm sorry, I need to laugh a bit.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not. And once you feel it's justified to steal one single thing from someone else - you're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You're a hypocrite because you, yourself, feels that you're entitled to what you produce and buy, yet others, are only entitled to theirs as long as you let them. That's bullshit.
If you stole that cure and used it, you'd be required to restitute the doctor or face consequences. I really wouldn't give a shit to defend you. If it wasn't for the doctor, you'd be dead anyways. You own him your life. I personally would be very glad to pay him whatever he wanted, to the extent I could pay it. Finance it, ask help from charities, open a fund yourself, make loans, there are SO MANY DAMN THINGS you can do before you say "I deserve to live and I will step over anyone to do so". Be a man, quit playing the victim game. Thanks.
I don't really have time to type a rebuttal for all your points right now, but it really just seems like you expect ever single person to be some hybrid doctor-lawyer-mechanic-construction worker-dentist-farmer and if he needs any of the above services it was because he was unable to do so himself and that's his choice.
"Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice." Your ethical beliefs are a sick joke dude.
That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has.
The difference is between the government's potential power, and the corporate states exercised power. Are you seriously afraid that the government is going to knock down your house to build a highway? How often does that actually happen? I'll bet out of all the people on the team liquid forum this MAY have happened to potentially one person. You cannon count potential power, only exercised power, and only exercised power I'd say within our life times.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
Yes, most cost-efficient tbh.
I don't believe this response for one second. I want everyone on the team liquid forum to read that this guy would not care if Charles Manson was his doctor because it's the most cost effective way possible. Your ethics are a complete joke dude, the only reason you're arguing this point is because you know the exact same arguments can be applied to corporate CEOs and company executives, who hold MUCH more power than your auto mechanic would ever dream of having.
You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not.[/QUOTE]
Once again I want everyone to read this last statement made by OP. You do not believe in the word exploitation do you? I just cannot simply grasp your sense of morals. If you really do strongly feel your beliefs are that correct that you would let yourself or a loved one die because a pharmaceutical company has the right to charge you 50 times the actual cost of a medicine or vaccine, you are a sick person. I'm going to use your own statement and just say "I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out". As a matter of fact, if I was your father and I was the one with that disease and you sided with the pharmaceutical company instead of my life I would disown you as a disgrace.
"Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice."
Thank you, kidcrash. Market fundamentalists love to call themselves "amoral" but it's more like "immoral" when asked important, substantive ethical questions.
You've hit on something broader, also, which is the capitalist's refusal to guarantee the reproduction of labor, as well as the refusal to acknowledge that wages can fall below subsistence, but of course, how dare you think yourself "entitlted" to your own life.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies.
The state doesn't offer resources, it charges from you then gives you back. You can't deny to pay taxes, as much as you can't deny an armed robber your wallet. You're put in distress with a thread of physical aggression, and If you deny, you're inflicted with physical aggression, when you yourself did absolutely nothing to them first. So they've initiated force, and have no justifications for it other than "it's necessary". Well, I don't find it to be so necessary anymore.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from developing. utopia fuck yeah.
That isn't the same word "free" I am using. "Free" doesn't mean "you can do it under the threat of violence anyways", free means "you can do it WITHOUT the threat of violence". Please. Try to open your own bank, your own police station, court, anything the state has a monopoly on. You'll get raided by the thugs immediately. Even though it's supposedly your private property, and you have hurt absolutely -nobody-, they'll shut you down. The government blatantly imprisons victimless crime offenders, for christ sake. How's that even remotely free? "You're free to do whatever you want with your private property", says the state. "OH, sorry, I forgot to mention, I own all land and I can arrest you for whatever I want. Even victimless crimes. Lololol". Feudalism? Is that you?
Such abomination doesn't arrive from a decent theory of private property, that recognizes each individual's fruits as their fruits and theirs only. It arises when people start claiming supreme ownership of all the country, including other people's property and labor, "for the common good".
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
[EDIT]: So not only does it work, we already live the dream,
I don't know which definition of monopoly you're using, but if I were to assume it's the meaningless "provider of a service", it's wrong. Because coercion is not provided, it is inflicted. And a "monopoly" that does not have the power to stop entrepreneurs from entering the market and competing with them is not really a monopoly. They're capped on the profits they can make by the mere fact that if the margins are so huge, it is easy for any entrepreneur outside, acting on self interest, to come in. And if it's something that only the current leader can do, and no one can do better nor charge less, then no harm is done, because the leader is providing the best offer around, and if it weren't for him, people would be choosing a lesser second best.
If it's my definition of monopoly "the coercive practice of physically shutting everyone else that attempts to provide a similar service", then of course, it's right. But then it's also redundant, even though I do add either "force" or "coercion" at the end anyway, because otherwise people don't know what I'm talking about since they mostly only know the former, meaningless misnomer.
On August 30 2010 23:06 silynxer wrote: Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a coorperation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
The state has presupposed authority to initiate force (in order to supposedly solve certain problems). If people recognise it as just a bunch of violent sociopathic thugs like the Mafia, then it's no longer a state. And it will be much less effective for it.
So yes, but it's the presupposed authority which makes up all the difference. The false meme is what most maintains the state's overwhelming power as it drastically reduces resistance against it. It's not merely their use of violence by itself that does it. People on the whole feel like whatever the state does it somehow has the authority to do it. And what's more, people think that they actually gave the sate the authority themselves, which is just brutal.
I was so blind, but now I see: Hail to anarcho-capitalism! The great thing if you dislike the companies called states is, that most of them are so stupid as to reelect their whole board of executives every 4-5 years and everybody over the age of 18 can participate. So you can easily destroy them from the inside out by simply winning an election. No problem for you guys to outwit the state's marketing, is it? Didn't think so ...
State doesn't do marketing. And private property doesn't appeal do democracy. Like I said, democracy puts populism over private property. The only way to switch the two around is not through democracy, it is through cultural ideology.
Democracy can't ever respect private property because that's just the way the system is. People everywhere are instantly given the power to overstep other's private property, so according to the tragedy of the commons, everyone's private property becomes hunting ground. Everyone becomes a wild beast, trying to extract from others and defend for itself the most wealth.
The only way to stop this game is to stop playing the game, not try to hijack it and break it from within. It's not going to work, too many interest groups, lobbies, government employees that won't let go until they themselves are ready to let go. As much as I like Ron Paul, for example, he will never get elected for those reasons alone. It's best to let the government fall on its own bankruptcy, and teach people that cooperation pays. That you don't have to hunt eachother's taxpayer money. That it's better if each of us keeps that money and spends exactly on that which each wants.
You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. The state doesn't offer resources, it charges from you then gives you back. You can't deny to pay taxes, as much as you can't deny an armed robber your wallet.[/QUOTE]
You could always just be a bum and avoid paying taxes. Remember, death is a choice, usually it's your last choice, but its a choice. Or you could leave the country and start your own island somewhere else and create your own society of anarcho-capitalists. See how your own arguments can be turned around to point out hypocrisy?
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^. Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
It has nothing to do with the 'amount of authority'. Do they have authority to initiate force or not?
I think you're conflating my use of the term authority with the mere means to coerce. I use it as meaning a legitimacy to coerce. For example, when somebody says that the government has the authority to perform action X, they don't just mean that the government is merely able to perform action X. They mean that the government has the legitimacy and moral right to perform action X. So substitute legitimacy for authority if you must.
A company does not have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people. I think we can all recognise this. They can set rules on their own property, for sure. The question is, does a government have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people? And does a government legitimately own the land that it rules over? The land that we call countries?
I will get ahead of myself here and assume that you don't think the state has not the moral right to do these things. If the state does not have this legitimacy it does not have any authority (power+legitimacy) and can be seen as a normal company, phew lucky us. If it has the legitimacy, well lucky us the state is controlling our lifes legitimately.
What the people think the state can or cannot do is of no concern if it's just a company (if you think it's bad remember that the free market will selfregulate to the optimum).
@Yurebis: So where again is the difference between state and company? Their business model looks fraudulent to you? Well sue 'em
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote: I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that.
Let me ask you some questions:
Does the government legitimately own the land that it controls? define government, legitimately, own, and control but probably
If yes, what gives it that legitimacy? define legitimacy and gives but recognition from others
How did the government acquire ownership of the land it controls? it was there first / it bought the land / it hustles other people for it
Does a company legitimately own the property or land that it controls / makes productive use of? depends on your definition of control and own. companies can own land. they can also rent it...
Is collecting rent from people living in a property that you legitimately own and with whom you voluntarily made agreements with beforehand considered the initiation of force?
you guys can always gtfo of the country. the government only makes you pay taxes if you want to live within its borders or enjoy the privileges of being a member of its club. "my house, my rules."
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Okay Yurebis, instead of immediately adressing all the points, let's look at the first one. Systematically adressing poverty and it's roots does not restrict "what anyone can voluntarily do".
Name me one regulation that does not restrict. Name me one regulation that 'creates' something. No such thing. Bureaucrats don't create. They misappropriate capital, redirect action, by denying certain behaviors. Every law is restrictive in nature, and every agency and department is funded on stolen capital which would otherwise be used more efficiently to meet the exact goals of those it got stolen from.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Generous people can engage in charity while they're being "robbed" a little by the state. Many people already do. You might think that affluent people will be less likely to show kindness to refugees, the sick, the disabled, the uneducated poor,.. in such a scenario, but that's hardly relevant if the poverty reducing measures ("free" education for all, for instance), for which the majority of the people voted, suffice.
It is NOT a "poverty reducing measure" to steal from some and give to others. It's a poverty increasing measure. The state isn't buying capital, transforming it or using it, and creating products valued more in the market than the sum of its parts. They steal, keep some for themselves as bureaucratic cost, and then give it to some contractor or legal monopoly. It is a net deficit for society, for if there's really demand for the service being subsidized, people can pay for it directly, without wasting on the state overhead. That's one reason alone.
Second reason is, the state can't know what the demand for anything is. Whatever guess it makes is second best to people voluntarily acting. A thief who stole your money, could give it back to you in products and services as well as the government. They'll blow on stupid gifts, or mow your lawn, or mow your neighbor's lawn, buy you a dog when you didn't want one. It can do a number of things that are at best, second-best choices that you wouldn't make. Because if you would make, you'd go to the store and get it.
Hardly is it "poverty reducing" for there to be a street where you go to, thugs can rob you and give back to you the kind of gifts they think you want. If there were such a street, people would just avoid it. But sadly, those thugs are everywhere, in the case of a state.
Charity is not a categorically different service than anything else you can think of. You pay them, they take care of orphans, homeless, kids in china. There is absolutely no justification to either morally or pragmatically say that it's best for everyone if they're all robbed a little so a poor child doesn't die. How can the central planner best know how much to tax for that? How can the central planner best know how many children there is to feed? How can it develop a financially stable model that won't create externalities (any more than stealing obviously)? They cannot beat the market on the market's ability to supply demand... they will either tax too much or too little; waste too much or too little. They're intrinsically less adaptive, and have less incentives to do so. Bureaucrats just work enough to save face and get reelected.
Poverty can't ever reduced by such blatant misallocations and inefficiencies.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: It does however limit the extent to which unscrupulous people can (ab)use the position the unfortunate/dumb find themselves in to increase their profits. What you're basically advocating is a world full of absurd inequality and abject poverty for the vast majority.
"Absurd" inequality? You keeping 100% of the fruits of the labor that you 100% worked for is absurd? And since when is stealing an attempt at promoting equality? The state just handicaps some and tips others a fraction of what they steal. Hardly equalization, hardly charity.
The vast majority, believe me, will be much better off when 50% of the GDP isn't stolen from. Poor, medium class, and upper class included. It is capital accumulation that raises the standards of living, not some extortion scheme. Not coercive monopolies. Not regulations. Pure, unadulterated free exchange. It is you doing what you want that makes you richer. Not the state robbing from others to give to you; not the state robbing from you to give to others. That, is absurd.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: You seem to assume that there's always a steady supply of work. You seem to assume that in an unregulated environment there will always be a supply of work that pays a living wage.
No. But you seem to assume that regulating businesses increases the opportunities for work. Wrong, either it does nothing, or it denies both employer and employee a chance at making the best choice for both of them - merely because some feel good bureaucrat used his own subjective evaluations of what is a fair deal into someone's else deal. If a deal is good for two, it only has to be good for those two. Any intervention, is again, denying them the opportunity of making that best choice for them. Denying transactions, in turn capital accumulation, in turn, wealth. Making everyone poorer. By obligation.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: It should be clear from looking at reality that this simply isn't the case.
Meaningless comparison. In at least two terms. That no one can get exactly what they wish is no proof that they can't choose the better option. I wish I could shoot laser beams, but I don't blame the market for not giving me the opportunity me to shoot laser beams. The market doesn't have to give you all you want, because no one is obliged to give you what you want. The market however will best give you what you want to the fullest extent and efficiency that you can afford. The state can only make this mechanism less efficient, every time a restriction on your choice or the other party's is made... as they're not allowing you both to voluntarily reach the closest maximization of satisfaction. Also the current market is hardly free, in any sector, so it can hardly be used as an example of "how the market can't give people what they want".
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Moreover, manufacturers will collude to keep wages as low as possible
False, like I exposed before, you can't both assume that -Companies will collude to raise prices -Companies will remain honest and not undercut If they're guided by profit motive to collude, they're also guided for profit motive to cheat. The collusion is either meaningless, or will have to be government mandated - which is usually the case.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: and in such a lawless, highly hierarchical world any entrepreneur that breaks formation will be murdered, or otherwise put out of buisiness by competitors.
False, market law exists, courts exist, PDAs exist, insurance companies of any type exist. There is a vast vast amount of things that can be done, -better-, when 50% of the PIB is liberated for companies' own use.
Survival instinct is an appeal to human nature anyways, so the same could be applied to the state. Survival instinct would dictate that states would consider other states a menace all the time and will wage war all the time. Not the case, and if you were to compare the motives of state v. company, the company is much much more responsive to what customers want, and much more limited by how much they pay. Every bullet is accounted for at the company's expense, and is a waste of capital against it's profits if not used for what the customer hired it for. PDAs aren't hired to aggress, and those that do, are going to be not only retaliated against, but more expensive to hire, and therefore more unpopular on at least those two counts. Eventually, they go broke.
The state, not so much. You can have all the tanks as much as you get away with taxing the sheep. You can invade all foreign nations for lobbyist interest as long as you don't get revolted against by your own people. Elections are subpar checks and balances compared to constant market competition and consumer demand.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: Employers will use the survival instinct of the poor to make them do dirty, unhealthy, life-threatening, demeaning work for a pittance.
Employers compete amongst themselves to hire labor. If there's a factory hiring at minimum wage, and another hiring at minimum wage+1, guess who gets the better employees. The idea of exploitation is meaningless anyway. The poor, the rich, the middle class, no one is entitled to a job at any exact rate. You work for it. Market is a competition on all sides, and it's impossible for millions of entrepreneurs around the world to collude at giving workers nothing. Cheap labor is a profit opportunity for entrepreneurs. If someplace is full of poor people willing to work for one cent an hour, that says BIG MONEY who whatever entrepreneur can come in and offer them two. Then some other one comes and offers them three; four; five. It's an auction to the market price - to the point where there's a second best offer somewhere else. The market doesn't work by pushing people down, it pushes people up, if not on nominal wages, on real wages, by elevating the power each cent has, with increasingly more numerous and higher quality products, produced with increasingly higher order capital.
The government can't facilitate such capital accumulation process, because whatever restrictions it imposes, it only makes it harder for entrepreneurs to hire. It makes it riskier if it's illegal, therefore they have to pay less to account for the risk of being jailed; it makes it more expensive in taxes, therefore they have to pay less if they're to keep product prices up; it makes it even easier to collude, when other entrepreneurs have to fill a dozen forms and pay thousands of dollars just to hire illegally - so those thousands of dollars are passed on either on the product or deducted from wages. Nothing, nothing the government does helps anybody but feel-good statists. They either make things worse, or such senseless regulations that don't deny anyones' top choice anyway.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: The only way to possibly convince me of the opposite is to use relevant real world examples. All the history I'm aware of seems to point out that near-total freedom for wealthy employers perpetuates near-total misery for all others.
The minimum wage, is probably one law you think saves so many lives and feeds so many people? Welp, it ain't. Again, the minimum wage law is a restriction on entrepreneurs. They can't hire for any lower than, but it doesn't mean they have to hire higher. They will only hire people that can give him a net profit later higher than the wage they're being paid. What this does is, yes, maybe it pushes people who were a dollar below upto a dollar higher. But it doesn't push people two dollars, three dollars, four dollars higher. Those people who can only work at lower rates, will be pushed down if hired at all, because the employer has to make up for the risk of getting caught by the taxman, if he even wishes to risk such confrontation. So the poor people you speak of, when they would be working at the market rate, agreeable rate before the RESTRICTION was put in place, now are either not working at all, or working for even LESS.
It is a sad joke that government is praised as the champion of the poor, when they're the ones perpetuating their poverty. Not just by stealing from everyone, not just by subsidizing the unemployed, not just by "creating jobs" that are either retarded or would be better provided in the market if they weren't monopolized. No, it has to go further and deny people the choice of working at a rate that could be the best option they had.
On August 31 2010 00:02 wadadde wrote: "You haven't stopped anything bad, because nothing bad even happened." Are you saying that extreme poverty can be solved merely by allowing people to work for almost nothing? I fear that you simply don't care about the issue.
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote: I feel like its hard for people to understand me or maybe they aren't reading, but I agree with siliynxer.
Governments are essentially businesses. Government's authority extends over the territory and resources it controls, just like a businesses' (the mafia example) authority extends over its employees and people that belong to that organization. A government can initiate force just like a real estate company can charge people rent and force people to not have pets.
Did the government buy all the land? Did the government even buy anything that isn't stolen money to begin with? Did each and every individual signed a contract with the government saying they can do whatever they want with them? No to all counts. It's plain fraud. Comparing a coercive institution to a business... I don't know what to say. I've said too much on it. But if you want to believe that a thief robbing you $50 dollars and giving $10 back is a business, be my guest...
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote: There are no obligations and people are free to leave at anytime if they don't like it. They can try to immigrate to a different country or even just settle a piece of unclaimed land. Unfortunately, most of the good land is already owned by other people. In fact, i think some of the original colonies were founded by people getting out from under the king and looking for religious freedom.
States are mostly everywhere, if you ever stopped to check a political world map. And also, it is hardly "free". As free as the thug saying "you can leave town then I won't be able to rob you LOL". The thug has no claim over the town, and even if the thug did intermediate taxpayer money and gave it to contractors to build the sidewalk I'm on, it is not any more his than a stolen stereo would be mine if I were to buy it. Any coercion in a chain of exchange breaks the entitlement of the capital to anyone who's higher up, and requires restitution to the one who got stolen from.
In sum, the world is not the state's. (the world is not a stage... huur, felt like saying that)
On August 31 2010 03:40 geometryb wrote: Imagine your world. Imagine i started a business in that world. Imagine this business owns land (people can own resources in your world i hope...). My business strategy is -- to live on this land, you have to pay rent. To pay rent, you work the land and produce goods. To live and work here, you have to follow the rules that i outlined. i protect my land by hiring a security force. I decide to hire people that live on my land to do that.
That is perfectly fine as you have bought and homesteaded the land. However, it is not fine for any single entity to draw wiggly lines on a piece of paper, and claim they have supreme authority over it for as long as they are not destroyed. As the founding fathers did, I could write a piece of paper right now saying that you own me fellatio. Preposterous. I don't ditch the founding fathers, but the social contract is ultimately a fraud, and requires vast amounts of wishful thinking couple with coercion to make it work.
Anarcho-capitalism breed our modern system, in the beginning there was anarcho-capitalism, now we have our system, at some point some kind of collusion might have been involved, but there was no stucture to it and now as a direct transition we don't have anarcho-capitalism.
Goddamn, I refreshed the reply page and lost a bunch of text.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^. Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
They have full authority over their legally obtained property, just as you have over yours
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
It is so. But people are not obliged to trade with you. So, some of them may require you to buy insurance first to mitigate risks. The defense insurances in total would be no more expensive than what is paid to government today at any rate, so it would be nothing too bad. And if you don't want them, that's fine. It's legal to deal under the table, completely, and less risky than having to account for a taxman busting your ass open, but because some risk exist, people may do it less than insured. Depends on how the markets develops, but again, I assure it can't be worse than it is, and can't be worse than the most ideal government either. We're currently assured defense and law by broken courts, corrupt cops... and even if they weren't corrupt, they're still coercive monopolies, so they can charge a higher price merely on stick, as opposed to having to compete, reverse-auction style, with other entrepreneurs.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
Well I think if you know anything about druglords everywhere is that they're protected by the law. The illegality pushes non-violent businesses away. It requires every drug dealer to be armed, because conventional defense won't touch it, can't touch it, or the government will shut it down. You can't have a supermarket selling drugs, for example. So security is more expensive, violent is more occurring, etc. If drugs were legalized, druglords would pure and simply be outperformed by pharmacies, retailers...
On August 31 2010 05:31 Tuneful wrote: There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other.
I really like how to believe that garbage, you have to make so many big assumptions about human nature and other things... And yet you're convinced that you're right about every hypothetical "outcome" that you bring up.
On August 30 2010 17:42 Yurebis wrote: You forgot to determine who owns the river, and this is very relevant. I'm going to assume the fisherman were there first, and have therefore the highest claim of property over it. The fishers can therefore sue you, and so could the tourism agency even thought they'd have a lesser claim to make. At that point on, it would be resolved in court, much like it would be resolved in court today, with the caveat that the court ruling is not exactly a mandate, but not following it would constitute your company be seen by the rest of the population as a non-compliant entity. As a non-compliant entity, you have a 0 credit score, investors don't trust you, stock market is going to avoid you, and you pretty much have to rely on the capital you have right now and foreign markets to keep doing what you doing. Also, the court could have been nice the first time as it was a muddy situation, but that point on, the river would probably be rules either yours, the fishermen's, or a third party's property from then on to avoid further issues. So any further dumping would be considered a clear invasion of property and the fishermen's PDA are free to stop you by force.
Well, it did come down on who owns the river! Wow, it's like I didn't even know that was going to happen! Fantastic.
Why wouldn't investors trust a non-compliant entity? Just because such an entity doesn't respect the rights of fishermen downstream doesn't mean it won't maximize profits for shareholders. In fact, by ignoring the rights of fishermen downstream, that entity is, in fact, maximizing profits by keeping costs down. Investors love companies that keep costs down, regardless of how they do it (unless it means stiffing the investors themselves).
Wait, and the fishermen can stop the polluters by force? What's stopping the polluters from turning around and doing the same thing to the fishermen? Seems like this would give new meaning to the term "trade war."
The light house problem... you know it's been solved right? The docks own it, and they charge the ships that dock in for it.
So your solution requires that the docks in the town all be owned by one company. If there are more than one competing dock owners, each is going to refuse to fund construction of a lighthouse, etc., etc. For larger bays (San Francisco is a good example), such a scheme is not feasible because of the sheer amount of dock space and shipping traffic, and because all boats can use a lighthouse at the mouth of the bay, regardless of whose docks they go to.
Then you should be thankful there's at least that one to choose from, IMO. Because if it wasn't for it, then it would be a ZEROPOLY.
Wrong. Monopolies rarely innovate substantively. They rent-seek. Take a basic economics class.
It doesn't matter what it is, or why you need it. If it's not sold to you, or given to you, it's theft, period. You may think it's justified. Well, do try to steal then go to court then. Justify it in front of a judge, the plaintiff, and be ready to be in the news. That's doable in ancap. You just better have a god damn good reason, like 10 orphans were going to die if you didn't steal. Stealing because you're hungry? Get the fuck out and pay for your food - is what the judge would say.
You're missing the point. We're talking about achieving efficient outcomes for society. In some markets, consumers don't have a choice not to buy - they have to buy to continue to live. That means that a monopoly in such a market has the consumer at the point of a gun - buy or die. And that lets them charge any price they want, which is clearly an inefficient outcome.
If they got driven out of business, does that mean Standard Oil provided a more cost-efficient product, and the competitor couldn't keep up? How's that 1-bad, 2-coercion 3- stopping them from coming back if they hike prices up.
Standard Oil did no such thing. They prevented regional startups in the oil business by taking a loss on oil in that region for long enough to drive the startup out of business, while maintaining a high overall profit margin by raising prices in other regions where there were no competitors. The result is that they were able to charge a higher price for oil than if there had been a competitive market.
It's not. Standard Oil is deeply entrenched with government. May not been so in the beginning, at which point grats to them, but then, lobbylobbylobby to keep competition out.
Wrong. Standard Oil was broken up by the government you say it was in bed with, in order to create a competitive market for oil.
Analogy time. You're telling me there's this one build that destroys everything TvP, but when it comes down to it, the market is a progressing game, entrepreneurs learn how to profit, and there's no escaping that purpose. If you learn a way to outdo your competitors and be more efficient, you earned it. You're the best there is, best prices, best profits. There is no one magic build that "if you do this this and this, you can become FLASH", it's bullshit, there is no such thing. There is no free lunch, everything you know how to do, there can be someone else who can do better. Because market efficiency IS the goal, companies will always be outdoing one another to get the highest spot. And if someone becomes a BONJWA, it's an even greater thing. Means that he is fantastically efficient. Cheaper products, better quality than everyone else. Raises the standards of living of everyone by allowing them to buy more for less, expanding people's wealth.
What you call a monopoly, I'll call a BONJWA from now on LOL.
Monopolies maintain themselves by erecting barriers to entry into the marketplace, including non-governmental barriers like regional price discrimination. If such barriers to entry are sufficiently powerful, there will be no competition, and there will be no increasing efficiency.
No they don't, and if theyre' inefficient, then prove it. Compete with them, should be easy to outdo. You're calling the BONJWA a noob. You're saying he's a cheesy bastard that has no game, and makes everyone watch boring 6 min matches. LOL. Then why don't people play safe and beat him? There's no excuse. You want to call kespa and take away Flash's license, so you and mediocre players like... fantasy, can have an easier time. THATS RIGHT. I CALLED FANTASY MEDIOCRE. Ok enough of that.
Your analogy fails immediately because every game of Starcraft starts from scratch, while the whole point of monopoly is that it uses existing advantages (advantages that already exist at the start of the "game", of which there are, ideally, none in Starcraft) to prevent potential competition.
A closer analogy would be if Flash was able to start every game with his resource total from the end of the previous game.
You have no obligation to feed any child, not even your own.
This is the real ethics of anarcho-capitalism. Self-enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
On August 31 2010 05:31 Tuneful wrote: There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other.
Hahahahahaha. Let's compare what that article has to say about the common law to reality.
The article:
Historically, in the common law of England, Roman law, and the Law Merchant, law was formed in large part in thousands of judicial decisions. In these so-called "decentralized law-finding systems," the law evolved as judges, arbitrators, or other jurists discovered legal principles applicable to specific factual situations, building upon legal principles previously discovered, and statutes, or centralized law, played a relatively minor role.
Reality:
Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became ossified, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law."
The common law was created by the King's court. Literally, it was created by the tyrannical state, in the person of the King.
The common law is a state-driven, state-created system, and has nothing to do with "market law."
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: Also an employer has more power to hire you than you have to "become hired" by them. Yes, you have all the potential in the world to become as qualified as desired but that doesn't change the fact that if an employer doesn't want to hire you, for absolutely any reason they want, they don't have to. It's called employment at will and in my state, probably about 90% of the jobs here abide by that law. They don't have to give you a reason to let you go. The only catch is if they don't give you a reason you get unemployment.
Okay, and you think that's bad, because the entrepreneur is exploiting the unemployed by not letting them work with its capital?
I don't believe it's bad however I believe there is a price to pay for holding such power over people's heads.
Why do you find it fair for the employee to be able to use whatever capital he wishes; to work wherever he wants, when he has not helped build the factory, he has not helped design the business model which bridges the business' customer to himself, and allows him to be paid?
Never said that a worker should be able to work wherever he wants. What I was trying to say is people who are in control and who are in power should be monitored and guided to prevent unfair business practices.
Tell me how can there be an unfair business practice that is not coercive. And by coercive, I mean that it crosses the bounds of another's private property without their authorization.
Why do you find it fair for the entrepreneur to be forced into allowing in whoever wanted to work in his facility, that facility which he paid to be built, he organized, he made the contacts and established it as a financially viable enterprise? He has worked already.
Where are you getting this idea that I think workers should be able to work wherever they want? I was simply stating that corporations have power over you, not the other way around. When you stated that a worker should not feel obligated to work at any one job and he can leave at any time, the point of my rebuttal was; you are free to leave but that does not give you any leverage whatsoever over a companies actions. Exploitation comes from a lack of leverage. You are forced to find work to live but a job does not feel obligated to hire you. I don't have a problem with this, my concern is for people that think companies should have their power monitored. When you are in control of so much power, you must be monitored. A police officer has power over you, do you not agree that there should be someone making sure they aren't abusing their power? Our whole entire democratic system is based on checks and balances. It's not perfect (there will always be corruption in all levels of "power") but in utilitarian terms, it's creating the greatest amount of good.
Exploitation as you defined it is irrelevant. Nature is exploiting me because food doesn't fall from the sky. Physics is exploiting me because I can't fly. There are no violations in your inability to do anything, it's just your current economical state of being, your current choices. You're not forced to work, you can choose to die too, yo. Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice. Coercion is exactly threatening to inflict upon you death, or another very low-priority choice, if you don't choose to do what the coercer wants.
But the current state of choices you have, and how deplorable they are, is no one's fault but yours. If you are going to die of hunger, your fault. If you are going to die of hunger, and another human being is in front of you yet chooses not to give you food, it's still your own damn fault. No one is obliged to give you anything.
It's a complete misnomer to call the inaction of others as POWER over you. God. Bill Gates has power over you by choosing not to give you a billion dollars? That's not what power means, what the fuck. Power means control. Bill Gates has no control over you. For him to do anything against you, you have to interact with him first. And if he does do something to you, then it's coercion, duh. And at that point he does have power over you, because he's exerting control over you - but it's called coercion, because it's considered overstepping your rights.
Please use definitions more closely to their popular meaning. (lol who am I to say that lol)
Why is it not fair for the entrepreneur that already worked to collect a return from his investment?
How do you think any more factories, facilities, buildings will be erected, if the people who build them aren't allowed to gain anything from it, besides using them themselves? What would be the incentive for engineers, architects, miners, construction workers, if they're not going to use the building? A pat in the back?
Because a group of people consolidating their efforts to create a businesses or corporation hold power. Yes, anyone can be an entrepreneur, however everyone cannot become one. For every one business owner there needs to be multiple managers and bosses and for every boss there needs to be multiple entry level guys doing to dirty work. When you create a chain of command, there needs to be checks and balances. The government serves as the middle man between the entry level guy and the CEO business owner to make sure that everyone's voices are heard equally. Is it perfect? No, there will still be corruption at all levels of the chain. From the store clerk who is pocketing people's money or stealing product, to the corporate CEOs or shareholders who embezzle money, or the politicians in Washington siding with lobbyists instead of their own ethical beliefs. Just because it's imperfect does not mean it isn't the most efficient way to make sure no one is getting screwed.
You hold power my friend. You hold power aka control over your possessions. Should you be kept in check so that you don't EXPLOIT A BUM IN THE STREET for not letting him sleep over? Jesus. Your checks and balances are completely arbitrary. There's always going to be a hierarchy somewhere. Again, an example that I gave, is, when I talk, you shut up. That happens naturally. And then I give you voluntarily the command by letting you talk when I finish. SHOULD THAT TREACHEROUS CHAIN OF COMMAND BE REGULATED BECAUSE YOU CANT TRUST THAT I WILL LET YOU TALK? And then what? You have a hierarchy over a hierarchy. And then a hierarchy is needed to be on top of the second one. And on, and on, and on.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes? The question is a long one, and can't be answered completely, it can only be approximated to the optimal structure. And the optimal structure may be any series of complicated hierarchies and separations of powers. But the best way to approach it is by going for the least common denominator. Let each and every individual voluntarily assemble, and they will figure out what works best for everyone to the degree that everyone cares. Any other coercive solution, will twist the structure further away from the optimal structure, because you're denying people the ability to chose, because you as a central planner can't know what's up better than the sum of everyone else. Because you lack the market incentives, price mechanisms... oh fuck it.
Can a group of construction workers and engineers collectively sell or trade a building as if it were a "personal possession" that they've made? Probably not, right? Can they agree with someone to barter goods with in advance? Then use those goods as money? But then it would be capitalism all over again, so guess not. Welp. I guess no buildings will be erected that require an extensive chain of exchange, since they can barely buy food with it unless it's a barter deal with someone who needs a shack or small house?
Can a construction work and engineer collectively sell or trade a building? As long as they are abiding by lawful businesses practice every step of the way, absolutely.
WHAT THE FUCK? ARE YOU A CAPITALIST? YOU GO THROUGH ALL THIS COMMUNIST BULLSHIT AND THEN AGREES WITH ME? WHAT?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Why should people who have obtained property and product before I did, or with means in which I was unable to, hold those things which I need to live over my head without someone making sure they are doing it the most ethical and efficient way possible?
They most likely won't, but they'll ask that you give something back. If not money, labor. Something. at which point, THEYRE USING THE PROPERTY AS CAPITAL AND THEYRE BEING GREEDY CAPITALISTS FUCK THE BOURGEOIS PROLETARIATS OF THE WORLD UNIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITE
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Maybe their bosses are making their lives "more stressful" because they are breathing down their necks to make sure everything is nice and "by the books". Should upper management just let the guys down below do whatever they want, in hopes of; if the guys down below us are left alone, they will work better under stressed?
That's their choice, not mine. If the best business turn out to be those that do what you say, then they'll be more popular, and will profit more, and others will soon copy them. Voluntarily, you see how it works now?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: So how about when you continue all the way up the ladder of power to the top tier? Who watches those guys to make sure all business practices are nice and ethical?
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Should we just assume that if they made it this far, that they are obviously extremely moral characters, capable of operating a business without exploiting anyone or cutting any corners?
To the degree that capital is invested in them, we can assume that the aggregation of every stockholders and investors watching the business closely are very prudent, yeah. Much more than any single central planner can wave a pen and put some jackals of some agency on them yeah. Most most most definitely. And as soon as you understand that, the sooner will my fingers stop hurting.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Anyone is capable of becoming corrupt but as you said in your OP, those who hold the most power are the ones or more often than not abuse their power for their own benefit (police officers were you example).
Not the same type of power, and then, even if they do become corrupt over the power that they exert OVER THEIR OWN PROPERTY, they're going to fuck up their own business.
Government has total power OVER EVERYONES PROPERTY. That my friend, is absolute power.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: What is created becomes a large scale checks and balances system which may not be perfect, but is the most efficient way of handling ethical question and scenarios from a utilitarian stand point.
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: The results are as such: 1. People need a means for survive.
You don't know which means. You cannot know, unless people are free to choose what they want or need. Everything else is second best. Last best. Worst best. Worst. Everything else is the woooorst. Central planning fails, at the very first premise...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 2. People are divided between the the entrepreneurs and the average working class. This division happens naturally based on several factors
You can't make such distinction. Tell me, is a worker who retains stock share of the company he works in a worker or an entrepreneur? OH MY GOD HES BOTH
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Skill set of any given person B) Luck of environment and surroundings (born into well off or not so well off family, living within a region with varying degrees of available work and resources). C) People doing whatever makes them the most happy and allows themselves and their loved ones to survive (dreams, goals etc).
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 3. Businesses need workers and workers need employers to hire them. It's a give-take situation.
You don't know that all of them need workers. There is such a thing as one-man-businesses. And he can use contractors, third party employees, nothing quite fixed as their own. But okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 4. The regular working class person earns a means to survive. On the backs of the working class the entrepreneurs become successful and climb up a few notches on the "ladder of power"
I don't mind such illustration, only noting that the workers VOLUNTARILY ALLOWED the entrepreneurs to ride on their backs, because it was THE BEST CHOICE FOR THEMSELVES. If it wasn't...
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 5. The give-take situation ratio grows in favor of the companies due to the inevitable massing of profits and expanding. Companies gain leverage allowing them to weed out the unfit workers from the ones with skill sets better fitting for the position.
Uh.. companies work to become more efficient? Okay.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) Those who decide they are too lazy to work receive a justifiable response by not earning a means to survive. They learn to adapt or become unhappy.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: B) The corporations in power do what they want. They have the greater leverage and can decide business practices on whatever motive they see fit (greed, efficiency etc)
They're in power to do what they want with the capital that is properly theirs. I thought you conceded that already. What is wrong with exerting power over your own property, your own house, your own body? Jesus. And LoL@greed.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 6. People elect officials in a democratic society to make sure the people whom they have no leverage over(corporations) are acting ethical. We have reached the top of the ladder.
Not really, people choose to elect officials for a variety of dumb reasons. But I assume you just want to focus on that oversight aspect. Welp, I think you forgot to consider the constitutional republic of the US at least specifically doesn't oversees just for overseeing, the purpose of it was to withhold individual rights, property, etc. etc. Not overseeing people to make sure they're angels. It's to make sure they don't overstep other people's boundaries. (and they do so by taxing everyone but yeah)
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: A) To prevent political corruption, the bottom of the ladder elects officials that they see fit for the position. B) Lobbyists and shareholder get to put their foot in the political door to allow for leverage from their corporation tier C) Elected officals watch over each other within an "inner tier checks and balances system" at the highest level.
This is competely wrong as I said above. The scope outside of government, besides the separation of powers stuff, is to protect both individual liberty and private property, mainly by the part of the judiciary. Not to impose your flavor of ethics, which is arbitrary as hell.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: 7. Although the government state may control the most power, the corporate tier has control over the most amount of power. So technically from a quantitative standpoint, corporations are the more powerful entity. The actions of the corporate state have a more direct affect on us(working class) than the actions that the government state has on the lower working class tier. For example; It's easier for the government to check on the book keeping of a corporation than for the FBI to find some random serial killer.
That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has. Actually, even if you added every corporate property and pretended they were all under a secret cabal of capitalist interest (LOL I BELIEVE THAT TOO), it STILL doesn't come close to the power of the state. Probably not even 1% still.
You don't seem to understand. Corporations come and go. As quickly as they've been raised, they can fall as fast. Sure there are hundreds of notable corporations today, but think how much time it's needed to amount what they have? It's a matter of less than a century on average. Governments last more than a century, and they own much much more. In one century, many corporations may have solved, merged, remade. But most states will still be there. Because they're like the plague, these fuckers.
Also, why do you give a fuck about a corporation's finance? And why do you think it's a good thing that the government can knock down any door, read any book? I think that's awful. If they can do it to the corporation, they can do it to you to, duh. How's that good? What happened to innocent until proven guilty? The extent that one will go, to justify the state... it's scary. Scarier than Christians saying that God watches me masturbate and will send me to hell. Okay no one actually told me that. I'm getting sleepy already.
I think anarcho-communism is lacking a market structure for higher order capital to be built. People can't build that which they aren't recognized as the exclusive owners of. Well, I mean, they can, but it's going to be built way less frequently.
I prefer the term libertarian-socialist because a corporation should be the businesses owners private property, as long as they choose to remain lawful and ethical in practice.
What the fuck. Libertarian Socialist? They're polar opposites. You both respect private property but doesn't respect private property? Arbitrary and inconsistent much?
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: No matter how "strong" you think unions are, or how "powerful" you think the liberal grasp is on the economy, they are not what run things in our country. Just take a look at share holders and lobbyists and you can see that the true "state" is actually the corporate state. You may find it hard to believe but no matter how desperately the people in charge try to control corporations, they are truly the ones who dictate your lives, in every way shape and form. It's called exploitation, and it's the reason why we need to government to coerce companies and business into ethical business practices.
Fact: Corporations have more power than the government state does.
They don't dictate your life, you should just learn to respect that people are entitled to exclusively control that which they built, or paid to be built. It's not an unfair concept at all. You build a house, it's yours. And by "it's yours", I mean people respect your claim to it. They respect the decisions you have about it's use. Because if it wasn't for you, it wouldn't exist.
You and your house is analogous to the corporation and it's investors and stockholders. They paid it to be built. They put their time, money, labor in a sense, on the line. They have the best claim over the corporation, because if it weren't for them, the corporation wouldn't exist, and the facilities wouldn't exist, the products which it sells wouldn't exist, it's employers would be working somewhere else, and their salaries and jobs would probably be sub-par as to what they are; because if there were better jobs, they wouldn't be this corporations employees in the first place. So yeah. The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
The type of power the state exercises is different, because it goes beyond what they built. They claim they own the entire land, they own a piece of your labor, they own your house if they deem it necessary (to build a highway on top for example). They own your retirement funds, they own your education, they own your streets. They own your pipes, poles, lights and electric lines (though leased, yeah). And by 'your', I mean the taxpayer - because it's the taxpayer afterall that paid it all to be build (when it wasn't taken over at least). The government played the middleman, and got their checks on the deal. Not bad, if it wasn't for the fact that the deal shouldn't have been made in the first place. Because it is no deal, they just took it. They take it, and say it's for your own good. Completely different types of power.
You have power over yourself and what you create. That is fair. You can trade all you want and can, voluntarily. Corporations are not any different. Political power however, is the power over other's creations and labor. That, is true power.
Learn to recognize entrepreneurship as work, because it is hard work. The hardest mental work there is, I would argue. Harder than being a chess player, harder than a scientist, a mathematician. Perhaps not as complex from day-to-day activity, but at least as tough. It's constant competition over other brilliant minds, and it's the type of game with the most people playing in the world. Like starcraft, with millions of people. Entrepreneurship is life! Oh yeah. Ok enough rhetoric.
I bolded (don't think bolded is a word) two points in your last few paragraphs, which are point's I'd like to criticize if I may.
The kind of power they exercise is only over that which wouldn't exist if it weren't for their efforts in the first place.
Which came first, the need for a service or the desire to create the service for profit. You are born hungry, you are born in need of shelter and a means to survive. The human race could not survive without some sort of barter or trade system. I'm not talking about buying a computer or purchasing some sort of entertainment product, I'm talking about paying the bills, buying groceries etc. The need for these things came prior to the "desire" to produce something for capital. Therefore it is exploitation.
Are you implying that because I have the demand to eat, the bakery across the street only exists because OF ME? WHAT? AND THEREFORE, THEYRE EXPLOITING ME? ARE YOU SERIOUS?
I have the desire to fly, therefore planes were made, therefore I am entitled to those planes? I have the desire to x, x is made, therefore x is mine? Stop. Please. Seriously. Stop and think what you're saying, and what are the implications of your moral theory. Making shit up is fine and all, but this is garbage. If I come up with a theory that comes to the conclusion it's fine to rape-murder-genocide, I know there's got to be something wrong with it.
You don't own, nor are entitled, in any shape way or form, to stuff that other people made themselves. It doesn't matter if you asked them to. It doesn't even matter if you gave them the idea (keyword, gave). They're not obligated to give you shit, if you didn't help make it, or if they're not contractually bound to.
To say that you can claim that you deserve to use shit just because you have, had, or will have a demand for it, is completely inane. Anyone could claim entitlement for anything. What will that do? It doesn't settle any disputes, it doesn't stop conflicts over resources, nor capital. What the fuck? I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out. Sorry. But I am.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You do not have power over yourself like you said in the 2nd bold statement. Do you have power over things like food and shelter? So you are trying to tell me you are not slave to your hunger? You are telling me we aren't all slaves to desires and material things that bring us happiness? Maybe if we were monks living in a hut in the mountains of Tibet I could see some validity in your point but no one on this forum could possibly admit they could live without spending money.
Oh, so I don't have power over myself, because I don't have power over a jacuzzi, a BMW, and the playboy mansion with all the chicks included? OH, these aren't necessary for life you say? SAYS WHO? I NEED THOSE THINGS TO LIVE. If you go past food, it's already arbitrary bro. It's your own value judgments on what you think people should be entitled to rob others for.
I Am a slave to HUNGER, as I am a slave to physics, nature, biology... again, meaningless distinctions and definitions. Perverting the word power? Check. Perverting the word slavery? check. Perverting the world exploitation? check. What's next, property? "Property is whatever the fuck you can grab" LOL. I'm sorry, I need to laugh a bit.
On August 30 2010 09:26 kidcrash wrote: You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not. And once you feel it's justified to steal one single thing from someone else - you're a hypocrite, plain and simple. You're a hypocrite because you, yourself, feels that you're entitled to what you produce and buy, yet others, are only entitled to theirs as long as you let them. That's bullshit.
If you stole that cure and used it, you'd be required to restitute the doctor or face consequences. I really wouldn't give a shit to defend you. If it wasn't for the doctor, you'd be dead anyways. You own him your life. I personally would be very glad to pay him whatever he wanted, to the extent I could pay it. Finance it, ask help from charities, open a fund yourself, make loans, there are SO MANY DAMN THINGS you can do before you say "I deserve to live and I will step over anyone to do so". Be a man, quit playing the victim game. Thanks.
I don't really have time to type a rebuttal for all your points right now, but it really just seems like you expect ever single person to be some hybrid doctor-lawyer-mechanic-construction worker-dentist-farmer and if he needs any of the above services it was because he was unable to do so himself and that's his choice.
Not at all, and if anyone makes such assumption, it is the statist, for legislators are indeed expected to know a lot about everything... The market forms its hierarchies in the manner that is most profitable, to the extent that anyone can know and profit off it - in the manner that best meets consumer demand.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote: "Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice." Your ethical beliefs are a sick joke dude.
It's true though. It's the most undesirable choice, but there are people who sometimes value death more than the expected suffering for the remainder of their lives. I'm not saying people should choose to die, as much as they should choose to live. Praxeology is a value-free science... but I better not call it science here... uh.. theory.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote: That's ridiculous. No single corporation even comes close to 1% of the power the state has. The state has control over ALL LAND, corporations own their buildings, production facilities, research camps, whatever else they have, but that is nothing, NOTHING, compared to what the government has.
The difference is between the government's potential power, and the corporate states exercised power. Are you seriously afraid that the government is going to knock down your house to build a highway? How often does that actually happen? I'll bet out of all the people on the team liquid forum this MAY have happened to potentially one person. You cannon count potential power, only exercised power, and only exercised power I'd say within our life times.
Corporate states.. like corporatism? You do notice the state component there, right? Not an argument against ancap; you don't know whether I'm afraid of the government and the question is completely irrelevant, ignored. Oh I see what you mean by potential power. I'm not counting on it. It's a fact that states around the world leech at least about 50% of their GDP every year. I mean... is that not happening? I don't care that much about the political and social restrictions as much as they impact economical progress. The true economical progress, by voluntary means, not a twisted version of a planned economy, where the state robs you and gives back to you something you may or may not have bought spontaneously.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote:
On August 30 2010 13:25 kidcrash wrote: Let me ask you a question. If you went to the doctor for advice on a medical issue, or a mechanic for an auto tune up, would you not hope that the person in charge of hiring these people were making sure they were the most qualified and honest people for the job?
Yes, most cost-efficient tbh.
I don't believe this response for one second. I want everyone on the team liquid forum to read that this guy would not care if Charles Manson was his doctor because it's the most cost effective way possible. Your ethics are a complete joke dude, the only reason you're arguing this point is because you know the exact same arguments can be applied to corporate CEOs and company executives, who hold MUCH more power than your auto mechanic would ever dream of having.
Actually, your economical understanding is a joke. If mr. Manson were to open a clinic, no one would go to it no matter how cheap it is. Even for free. Because the risks are accountable, you can evaluate how much you'd expect to lose by going there. If you evaluate that there is 100% chance that you will lose your life by entering that clinic, you will not go in there not even if he pays you.
I mean, that's not even an externality. And hardly something that wouldn't be stopped in ancap anyway, as I believe PDAs would be justified in preemptively raiding a serial killer's house to arrest him and take him to court.
When you take corporations, and comparing them to governments... you're doing so without comparing the incentives that would take either one to screw with you. Be fair at all, and you'd admit that the 'ones that sell you stuff' are less likely to screw you than the ones that rob you stuff. Yes, it's true that the 'ones that sell you stuff' use the 'ones that rob you stuff' to ... rob you stuff. And they should be legally accountable for conspiracy, but what isn't right is to denounce everyone that 'sell you stuff' in the same class as those who 'rob you stuff'. Each and every individual, group, should be denounced only on what coercive actions itself has done or paid others intentionally to coerce for them.
Getting rid of the state is getting rid of the cheapest hitman in town. A legitimized one at that.
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote: You're the kind of person that would tell me, if I had a cure to a disease that you were the only one infected with, and I was the sole possessor of the vaccine, and I charged you 3 million dollars for the vaccine, that would not be exploitation. That charging that much would be morally and ethically just because I'm the one who put forth the hard work and effort into creating the vaccine. If you honestly tell me that that isn't exploitation than I'm leaving this thread and never coming back.
Certainly would not be. You may feel like you're entitled to other people's products, but you're not.
Once again I want everyone to read this last statement made by OP. You do not believe in the word exploitation do you? I just cannot simply grasp your sense of morals. If you really do strongly feel your beliefs are that correct that you would let yourself or a loved one die because a pharmaceutical company has the right to charge you 50 times the actual cost of a medicine or vaccine, you are a sick person. I'm going to use your own statement and just say "I'm still puzzled how the fuck could you even type that out". As a matter of fact, if I was your father and I was the one with that disease and you sided with the pharmaceutical company instead of my life I would disown you as a disgrace. [/QUOTE] Because I reject positive rights I'm a monster? Absolutely not, it's the positivists that don't realize how outrageous their ideas are. It's right for me to steal the cure -> it's right for me to rob. It's right for anyone to rob, whenever they feel they need the stuff their rob. What is the criteria then, that stops the inventor of the cure of stealing the cure back? And for the original owner of any stolen capital to steal it back? There's nothing but subjective wishes.. positivist theory is completely broken, because it would create infinite cycles of obligations, especially since the determination of them are completely arbitrary. It would come down to might-makes-right, or whoever has the most votes is right, etc. etc.
Also, there is no such thing as actual cost. It's at the creators' criteria how much he charges you for it, and while it would be good for both parties if he charged an agreeable price, he does not have to. He can charge a billion dollars for it, as I can charge you a billion dollars to perform sexual favors for you. But such retarded charges come at a cost - the buyer may simply not choose to buy from you, and you get nothing. You can only get rich, or you can only sell by definition and the theory of catallactics (And the power of Grayskulllllll), if the price is agreeable.
The seller would be most interested in selling at a price the ill can pay for, or he gets nothing. And also, that he is the sole seller also means that you can't possibly know how much such medicine will cost in the future. And if is such cheap, easy to make medicine, then surely there would have been people making them already, why wouldn't there. Oh wait, I have an idea, maybe the government would make patents, and crush the competition. Perhaps that way, the drug can be overpriced no problem, since he is indeed the sole seller, and he will charge as much as it maximizes the demand curve.
I would tell you, my dying father, that 1- if it weren't for the inventor, your chances of surviving would be 0% anyway, is that not correct? That he accepts even exchanging with you for an exorbitant amount at least gives you the chance of raising all the capital you can, through charity, selling everything you have, to give you a new chance of life. Yes, it is correct that you do not have a claim over that which you didn't create, and that goes for everything in life. And you may find him greedy, evil, exploitative. But he allowed you to live, and you took that offer, choosing life at the expense you found life be worth living.
Besides that scenario is like, almost impossible to happen in real life anyway. "Oh my god, what if we're on a boat, which is flying in the air, and there's two people in the engine room, one with a bomb, the other one with a switch that will trigger a bomb in africa which will kill ten thousand orphans..."
On August 31 2010 05:32 kidcrash wrote: "Seriously, death is always a choice, usually the last choice, but still a choice."
On August 31 2010 05:40 Tuneful wrote: Thank you, kidcrash. Market fundamentalists love to call themselves "amoral" but it's more like "immoral" when asked important, substantive ethical questions.
You've hit on something broader, also, which is the capitalist's refusal to guarantee the reproduction of labor, as well as the refusal to acknowledge that wages can fall below subsistence, but of course, how dare you think yourself "entitlted" to your own life.
Oh I think I get what reproduction of labor means. It means "using capital in the manner that you find appropriate", right? Would you blame yourself for "refusing to guarantee the reproduction of labor" in saving for the winter? In saving to buy something without financing? In hoarding food in your fridge? In hoarding so many domestic utensils that you can't possibly even use them all? In having any money in a savings account? In your checking account even? Arbitrary. Any distinction you make of what is "refusing to guarantee the reproduction of labor" is necessarily subjective to the expectations of what each thinks the capital can be used for.
Savings is a matter of personal choice. It could be preparing for hard times. It could be not wanting to buy anything at the moment. It could be evaluating the capital to be worth more by just keeping it safe rather than spending in uncertain times. Savings serve as a function of investment also, as projects that require large amounts of capital require just as large amounts of savings elsewhere- oh wait, I forgot we live in fiat times, where the government can just create bubbles everywhere it wants and perverse the capital structure structure to both invest too much and consume too much at the same time. Disregard that, business cycles solve that problem, yeah. Love them booms and busts.
Morally, it is as silly as saying "refusal to guarantee the making of chocolate ice cream", or "refusal to guarantee the making of TSL3". That you have a preference for other's capitals to be used a certain way in no way warrants you to control their capital, because if it did, then it also has to logically apply the other way around. The corporations could just as easily say "refusal to guarantee slave work" or "refusal to guarantee buying my extra-large products". It's completely anti-property, and ignorant of the externalities that it would involve.
No one would be able to save to the extent that the state (or you) deem them to be "refusing to guarantee blowing off their money however I like". Everyone would have to follow your plan, and we would never figure out what the market optimum was, because you haven't allowed it to be approximated. You just forced people into your plan that you said was best, but will never be able to prove it was.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
This is the most loaded post I have ever read for several reasons:
1) You're establishing and defending a moving target:
There's several different takes on anarcho-capitalism and you never define what your stance is. There's no way to accept or refute any sort of anarcho-capitalism without a clear and concise definition of what you are saying.
2) You swear off empirical proof.
4 1/2 years of LD debate has taught me you can make anything seem plausible using pseudo-logic as long as you don't have to provide empirical proof.
3) Advocating a style of government that has never been tested.
Boiling down your post, it essentially says, "Hey, this seems like a good idea! I'll defend it!" There's absolutely no background or historical context for anarcho-capitalism, so you cannot say it is foolproof when there is absolutely no basis for making such a claim.
4) Attempting to pre-empt a very specific and complex argument with a blanket statement and no backup.
I could go on, but there's no real reason to reply to the actual political system when all that will happen is a fallacious response that will quickly disintegrate into the typical forum bickering and no quality discourse whatsoever. If you actually want to discuss a political philosophy, write up at least an abstract for discussion instead of this tripe.
On August 31 2010 05:55 kidcrash wrote: You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the coorperations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies.
The state doesn't offer resources, it charges from you then gives you back. You can't deny to pay taxes, as much as you can't deny an armed robber your wallet.
You could always just be a bum and avoid paying taxes. Remember, death is a choice, usually it's your last choice, but its a choice. Or you could leave the country and start your own island somewhere else and create your own society of anarcho-capitalists. See how your own arguments can be turned around to point out hypocrisy? [/QUOTE] A bum in his own house isn't free of the taxman and it's thugs.
Death is a choice in the sense that I can choose it, but it's not a choice when it's inflicted upon me by resisting arrest. Nor is being taken to jail a choice when I was forced to.
Say the free man has a near infinite amount of choices, but reduced to how many letters there are in the alphabet for convenience, A to Z. The state comes along and threatens me of inflicting upon me course of action X, in the condition that I do not do Y. The choice, then, for me, is not between A-Z anymore. It is either X, Y, or the implied D for Death, if I chose to resist their X. Or P for Prison if X wasn't already prison.
On August 31 2010 04:52 silynxer wrote: So a company which gains too much authority becomes a state and ceases to be a company if the two are distinct. Conversley a state that loses his authority becomes a company. The Dalai Lama makes for an awesome CEO ^^. Makes me wonder what an AnCap society would do with a company that gets too much authority.
By the way shouldn't it be the an AnCap ideal that people themselves are the best to decide which authority to abide (or to oppose)? I kind of get the vibe that you want to decide for the people here, I thought that's a big nono.
Not that I want to argue this point but in some favelas (namely in Rio) the authority are the drug bosses. I don't know if they are called mini-states but it would be pretty fitting.
It has nothing to do with the 'amount of authority'. Do they have authority to initiate force or not?
I think you're conflating my use of the term authority with the mere means to coerce. I use it as meaning a legitimacy to coerce. For example, when somebody says that the government has the authority to perform action X, they don't just mean that the government is merely able to perform action X. They mean that the government has the legitimacy and moral right to perform action X. So substitute legitimacy for authority if you must.
A company does not have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people. I think we can all recognise this. They can set rules on their own property, for sure. The question is, does a government have the legitimacy or moral right to coerce people? And does a government legitimately own the land that it rules over? The land that we call countries?
I will get ahead of myself here and assume that you don't think the state has not the moral right to do these things. If the state does not have this legitimacy it does not have any authority (power+legitimacy) and can be seen as a normal company, phew lucky us. If it has the legitimacy, well lucky us the state is controlling our lifes legitimately.
By the same argument, the thug on the backalley is always a normal company as well. Please test your arguments instead of having me point obvious flaws. The thug isn't a normal company, and by normal I hope you mean voluntary, because it does not act under the NAP (non aggression principle). So a company that is not voluntary cannot be said to be voluntary.
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote: What the people think the state can or cannot do is of no concern if it's just a company (if you think it's bad remember that the free market will selfregulate to the optimum).
It is of concern of the company, because non-aggression is popular, and all the courts would support retaliation against an initiator of violence. If a PDA (protection agency) or not even a defense agency at all, fucks somebody up, does not appear in court when called, it is automatically deemed a violent company, and won't be protected by reputable courts nor any PDA. The employees all lose their insurance, are required restitution for any breach of contracts, and can be aggressed against easily by any lawful organization or person, because he would have the backing of no one. The employee would rather steal capital from it's own aggressing company and leave, before his reputation goes down with, so the profit motive can even destroy the company from within.
The only way that an aggressing company could kill and steal, and get away with it without going to reputable courts, that I can imagine, would be for being the largest of all, and becoming a state indeed. But I doubt that would happen for several reasons that I won't elaborate until we're even past lowly criminals and 6-pool builds. Which is a shame, that after 20 pages I still haven't got past that point. Though I have only myself to blame, I guess.
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote: @Yurebis: So where again is the difference between state and company? Their business model looks fraudulent to you? Well sue 'em
Of course it's fraudulent, by any theory of private property. There is absolutely no justification for the state to be a-priori entitled to a fraction of you labor; your house; any capital that itself has not contributed anything into producing. Absolutely no private property theory, even those that claim everyone has an equal share to every resource in the world; the government goes way beyond that and the taxation schemes are plain exploitation.
On August 31 2010 06:47 geometryb wrote: you guys can always gtfo of the country. the government only makes you pay taxes if you want to live within its borders or enjoy the privileges of being a member of its club. "my house, my rules."
But I thought people could own houses? And that government stole from people to build infrastructure makes it no more the proper owner of it than the buyer of a stolen stereo...
On August 31 2010 06:19 silynxer wrote:I will get ahead of myself here and assume that you don't think the state has not the moral right to do these things. If the state does not have this legitimacy it does not have any authority (power+legitimacy) and can be seen as a normal company, phew lucky us. If it has the legitimacy, well lucky us the state is controlling our lifes legitimately.
What the people think the state can or cannot do is of no concern if it's just a company (if you think it's bad remember that the free market will selfregulate to the optimum).
@Yurebis: So where again is the difference between state and company? Their business model looks fraudulent to you? Well sue 'em
Seriously what is it with your hang up on this? I know you think you're being really clever here, but you're just being really annoying.
So because I am one person amongst one million say, who thinks that the state does not have any legitimacy, you say phew lucky US because then I personally (and only I personally) see the state as being merely the same thing as a company. A company with no authority to initiate force, and so therefore somehow states are equivalent to companies to EVERYBODY ELSE TOO and so they have no power over us (hence the phew I suppose). You talk about ME PERSONALLY FIRST, and then say lucky US because my belief renders the state powerless. Do you see that it doesn't even make sense?
If I personally don't accept that the government is legitimate, it doesn't mean everybody else thinks the same way. It doesn't mean the state does not have authority anymore, even with your equation of power + presupposed legitimacy. They still have presupposed legitimacy; just not MY presupposed legitimacy. So it's 1 million minus 1, and you call it equal to zero. No, it's one step closer to zero, but it's not equal to zero. Obviously.
By the by, even if we follow this train of thought I don't see how it makes the government a company. The Mafia is not a company; it's a criminal gang. I prefer to differentiate between voluntary, peaceful, productive organisations like businesses and violent, destructive organisations like criminal gangs. I mean, this whole thing just strikes me as being an abuse of language, propagandising for the use of violence. It's just conflating the words together so that governments sound like voluntary service providers, just like businesses are.
Will you concede, at very least, that around 99.9% of people think that the government somehow has the moral right to initiate force, and that only 0.001% (or less) would think that private voluntary organisations and companies have the moral right to initiate force? CAN'T YOU AT LEAST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE IS A MAJOR HUMONGOUS FUCKING DIFFERENCE THERE? I mean what does it matter practically if only 0.1% of people think that the government is illegitimate? You're seriously going to tell me that it's the exact same thing as an enlightened anarchy, where 99.9% of people would think it instead? Sorry, but no. We don't live in anarchy, companies are not mini-states and states are not mega-companies.
On August 31 2010 07:31 MoreFasho wrote: Anarcho-capitalism breed our modern system, in the beginning there was anarcho-capitalism, now we have our system, at some point some kind of collusion might have been involved, but there was no stucture to it and now as a direct transition we don't have anarcho-capitalism.
Yes, that is correct, but conditions have changed, informantion flows much faster and wider, standards of living have raised by a lot, so perhaps the sequence of factors that led people into servitude aren't present anymore, and the state can be rid of no problem. I am interested in coming to know what those factors could be, although I'm no empiricist and don't particularly rely on them to make the argument that "stealing is wrong", "killing is wrong", etc.
On August 31 2010 07:38 Djzapz wrote: I really like how to believe that garbage, you have to make so many big assumptions about human nature and other things... And yet you're convinced that you're right about every hypothetical "outcome" that you bring up.
Well first of all, I haven't particularly made assumptions of human nature, the main assumptions are on catallactics. If you read the OP, you could see that appeals to human nature are equally appliable to any system, so are hardly any use,
Second, tell me how could I be wrong, instead of just saying I'm wrong. Empiricism isn't without flaws either, especially in the realm of social science. One can make all the experiments one wants, but because there are millions of confounding variable, it can always be argued that his conclusion is flawed, that his historical interpretation is wrong, etc.
Please be more humble about your epistemological considerations, because like human nature, we're all bound to it.
On August 31 2010 07:46 Sight wrote: But OP what are the net benefits of Anarcho capitalism
Not being stolen from by the state (tax), and buy only exactly what you want Not being legislated by the state, to build legal codes from the bottom up, for the purposes of dispute resolution, and not some central planner's mandated goal. Not having to rely only on the coercive monopolistic services that you can't compete against, and better answer those demands through market competition.
As opposed to
Being stolen from, to pay for things that are subpar to what one would like Being restricted on, and having to put up with retarded laws and victmless crimes Establishing monopolies of a random collection of services that are necessarily overpriced, inefficient, and can't possibly work as best as the market could make them to be, due to the economcal calculation problem (no response to market incentives apart from subpar ellections, no way to determine exchange prices)
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
In sum, strawman.
If I straw manned you, it was by accident. But I didn't really. I'm saying if you don't deny people will have a tendency assemble/cooperate for common interests, then you cannot deny government or governing systems are inevitable.
If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
"Coercion" as you call it is just the result of a few hundred years of continual cooperation and progress, and the institution of the state is so powerful it is able to coerce its people and people who do not wish to cooperate have few viable options (like for instance, moving to an uninhabited island). Perhaps its time to tear that down, but your only kidding yourself if you believe it won't build itself back up again.
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on? I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government.
See where I bolded? I suppose if you have that view of America, I can see how you can think that Ancap is anything more then a transitional stage. It just shows your misconceptions on how people behave.
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
lolwut? Marginalizing human beings cuts profits? Have you ever heard of slavery? You devalue the life of a human being to a subhuman, and you've devalued the cost of his labor as well. Very simple.
You deny someone work and service long enough on the basis of something he cannot change, and hes going to settle for less when you do take him.
Also...The desire of southerners to make profit is not what stopped Slavery. The Desire of Northerners to make money off the southerners expense is what stopped Slavery (not saying thats intrinsically bad or anything lol).
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Took this from wikipedia as no definition of this theory was given in the OP.
Why it can't work based on this definition. It says that the state has to be eliminated. This is just retarded academic jerk off thinking.
The obvious questions that need answering: 1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors? 2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
Their answer? "Voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies." What does this even mean? I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. This is just inviting the return of 7th century warlords to take over and do whatever the fuck they want. In essence, this whole idea is going to be ruined simply because the guy with the bigger gun is going to call the shots.
You can't run a society by eliminating the state. It just makes no sense. You need legislators to write statutes and define the crimes and rules. You need the executive to carry out these rules. And you need a fair and impartial judiciary to interpret the law. I mean c'mon, you can't even create a corporation in any country if the legislator does not allow it.
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
Its the product of being born privileged in a first world nation somewhere in suburbia :/.
Seriously, I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the heart of the issue, its one of logical contradictions. It isn't even "this cannot work". Its "this idea, as a concept, is basically a paradox".
Transitional Anarchy without people dieing on the Streets? Sure. Can happen, has happened, and will happen again.
Long term Anarchy? The very idea, applied to human beings, is illogical. Humans beings thrive on growth and change, and long term Anarchy assumes neither exist.
On August 30 2010 17:42 Yurebis wrote: You forgot to determine who owns the river, and this is very relevant. I'm going to assume the fisherman were there first, and have therefore the highest claim of property over it. The fishers can therefore sue you, and so could the tourism agency even thought they'd have a lesser claim to make. At that point on, it would be resolved in court, much like it would be resolved in court today, with the caveat that the court ruling is not exactly a mandate, but not following it would constitute your company be seen by the rest of the population as a non-compliant entity. As a non-compliant entity, you have a 0 credit score, investors don't trust you, stock market is going to avoid you, and you pretty much have to rely on the capital you have right now and foreign markets to keep doing what you doing. Also, the court could have been nice the first time as it was a muddy situation, but that point on, the river would probably be rules either yours, the fishermen's, or a third party's property from then on to avoid further issues. So any further dumping would be considered a clear invasion of property and the fishermen's PDA are free to stop you by force.
Well, it did come down on who owns the river! Wow, it's like I didn't even know that was going to happen! Fantastic.
Why wouldn't investors trust a non-compliant entity? Just because such an entity doesn't respect the rights of fishermen downstream doesn't mean it won't maximize profits for shareholders. In fact, by ignoring the rights of fishermen downstream, that entity is, in fact, maximizing profits by keeping costs down. Investors love companies that keep costs down, regardless of how they do it (unless it means stiffing the investors themselves).
It would cost them a LOT if the courts judged against them.
On August 31 2010 07:52 Matrijs wrote: Wait, and the fishermen can stop the polluters by force? What's stopping the polluters from turning around and doing the same thing to the fishermen? Seems like this would give new meaning to the term "trade war."
The polluters have deemed to be in the wrong as the fishermen came first, or whatever the property law judges say. For them to pollute the river freely they'd either have to go back in time and homestead the river first, or pay the fishers to move.
I'm not a judge, but to expect that from a court of law, people are going to kill each other is ridiculous. The court is there to settle disputes, and it does so in the best manner the market can afford. They won't kill each other as much as states don't kill each other right now. You got to demonstrate how could it be more profitable for them to enter into a slugfest of guns instead of settling it like civilized man. Hint: it's cheaper to settle civilly. And if one of them disagrees and wants to be a dick, then he's gonna get blown over by the vast collection of decentralized PDAs and courts that agree, justifiably so.
The light house problem... you know it's been solved right? The docks own it, and they charge the ships that dock in for it.
So your solution requires that the docks in the town all be owned by one company. If there are more than one competing dock owners, each is going to refuse to fund construction of a lighthouse, etc., etc. For larger bays (San Francisco is a good example), such a scheme is not feasible because of the sheer amount of dock space and shipping traffic, and because all boats can use a lighthouse at the mouth of the bay, regardless of whose docks they go to.
What the fuck I didn't say that. You're coming with the most retarded example, because lighthouses have historically proven to be a perfect example of how private entities can share shit with some free riders yet still be able to afford it. I'm sorry but it's ridiculous that you think something can be so desirable, so demanded, yet can't be monetized when IT HAS BEEN already.
Then you should be thankful there's at least that one to choose from, IMO. Because if it wasn't for it, then it would be a ZEROPOLY.
Wrong. Monopolies rarely innovate substantively. They rent-seek. Take a basic economics class.
If they don't innovate, how do they keep up? Rent seeking is a joke, the government is the greatest rent seeker of all. Own all land much? Tax everyone much? Steal 50% of the GDP much? Be consistent for once. And If someone's adding nothing to a business, then it should be easy peasy for other entrepreneurs to come and rent-seek too. Undercut the EXPLOITERS.
Plus I don't think putting up a fence around some land would be allowable nor defendable in ancap law. You don't know what the law is going to say, and I don't either. But I feel it would be heavily based on homesteading, and putting up a fence hardly consists into homesteading something. Building a house and leaving it unoccupied for 50 years too. Yes there will be arbitrary determinations of how private property can be earned and maintained from natural resources, of course. Else people could just claim to own from the moon to yo mamma.
It doesn't matter what it is, or why you need it. If it's not sold to you, or given to you, it's theft, period. You may think it's justified. Well, do try to steal then go to court then. Justify it in front of a judge, the plaintiff, and be ready to be in the news. That's doable in ancap. You just better have a god damn good reason, like 10 orphans were going to die if you didn't steal. Stealing because you're hungry? Get the fuck out and pay for your food - is what the judge would say.
You're missing the point. We're talking about achieving efficient outcomes for society. In some markets, consumers don't have a choice not to buy - they have to buy to continue to live. That means that a monopoly in such a market has the consumer at the point of a gun - buy or die. And that lets them charge any price they want, which is clearly an inefficient outcome.
If they got driven out of business, does that mean Standard Oil provided a more cost-efficient product, and the competitor couldn't keep up? How's that 1-bad, 2-coercion 3- stopping them from coming back if they hike prices up.
Standard Oil did no such thing. They prevented regional startups in the oil business by taking a loss on oil in that region for long enough to drive the startup out of business, while maintaining a high overall profit margin by raising prices in other regions where there were no competitors. The result is that they were able to charge a higher price for oil than if there had been a competitive market.
Who did they buy the wells from, and why the fuck would the competitor not just deactivate the well and activate it again when standard oil increases its prices, if it was knowable that they were running at a loss? It's their own fault for being retarded, and the government would know no better. Props to standard oil IMO. Do they own every well in the world already because everyone was dumb enough to sell it to them, while only the clever clever guys at the state could have foreseen such huge profit margins going to waste?
It's not. Standard Oil is deeply entrenched with government. May not been so in the beginning, at which point grats to them, but then, lobbylobbylobby to keep competition out.
Wrong. Standard Oil was broken up by the government you say it was in bed with, in order to create a competitive market for oil.
Do I really have to go that empiricist road and study the case just to prove to you that it couldn't be? Government breaks up monopolies to put up oligopolies, it's standard practice, sometimes to the benefit of the monopoly, because they're colluding with everyone else to raise prices above what was the market price. Such an obvious strategy. The state is paid off by the corporations, and they only enter a market if its to either help one at the expense of the other, or help all of them at the expense of the consumer. The taxpayer is hardly hardly a factor, because taxpayer qua voter is so cheap to obtain.
Analogy time. You're telling me there's this one build that destroys everything TvP, but when it comes down to it, the market is a progressing game, entrepreneurs learn how to profit, and there's no escaping that purpose. If you learn a way to outdo your competitors and be more efficient, you earned it. You're the best there is, best prices, best profits. There is no one magic build that "if you do this this and this, you can become FLASH", it's bullshit, there is no such thing. There is no free lunch, everything you know how to do, there can be someone else who can do better. Because market efficiency IS the goal, companies will always be outdoing one another to get the highest spot. And if someone becomes a BONJWA, it's an even greater thing. Means that he is fantastically efficient. Cheaper products, better quality than everyone else. Raises the standards of living of everyone by allowing them to buy more for less, expanding people's wealth.
What you call a monopoly, I'll call a BONJWA from now on LOL.
Monopolies maintain themselves by erecting barriers to entry into the marketplace, including non-governmental barriers like regional price discrimination. If such barriers to entry are sufficiently powerful, there will be no competition, and there will be no increasing efficiency.
"Oh no, that guy is running at a loss! He will make us bankrupt!" Then just freeze the assets until he stops, god how hard is that? Do we really have to be afraid of people giving stuff out for free? "Oh no, that guy is 6 pooling us!" He can't raise prices back up so much that the next second best product - and it doesn't even have to be the same kind of product, just any other product that satisfies the same end - becomes more cost efficient.
No they don't, and if theyre' inefficient, then prove it. Compete with them, should be easy to outdo. You're calling the BONJWA a noob. You're saying he's a cheesy bastard that has no game, and makes everyone watch boring 6 min matches. LOL. Then why don't people play safe and beat him? There's no excuse. You want to call kespa and take away Flash's license, so you and mediocre players like... fantasy, can have an easier time. THATS RIGHT. I CALLED FANTASY MEDIOCRE. Ok enough of that.
Your analogy fails immediately because every game of Starcraft starts from scratch, while the whole point of monopoly is that it uses existing advantages (advantages that already exist at the start of the "game", of which there are, ideally, none in Starcraft) to prevent potential competition.
A closer analogy would be if Flash was able to start every game with his resource total from the end of the previous game.
NICE ONE. But then EVERYONE would be able to do the same. A chobo like Shine could cheese some protoss, expand to the whole map, and do the same thing next game. What then? Thats what entrepreneurship is, you take profits and interest from previous investments and turn them into new investments. And people do that all over the world. But that's not to say that whoever gets the first say one trillion dollars will necessarily beat them either. Sure he can give people money for free, but where is that capital coming from? It's coming from a previously successful exchange, so he's completely legitimized in doing that.
The problems with oil though are just so so government entrenched, not just directly entrenched, but indirectly too, through car companies, socialized roads, how other means of transportations were killed by the state... It's not an easy issue that you can take a piece off and say "this is the worst part of it".
Consitently, you have to, have to admit, that if you're against a monopoly, you have to be against the state, there is no ifs and buts. It's completely arbitary how you think oil titans are awful, but law titans, police titans, military titans, road titans, are fine. It makes 0 sense, and it just tell how biased you are. To pick on voluntary monopolies before involuntary ones. I'm sad.
You have no obligation to feed any child, not even your own.
This is the real ethics of anarcho-capitalism. Self-enrichment at the expense of everyone else.
Oh, yeah, because I totally said "I wouldn't feed my own child", or "You shouldn't feed your own child" No, I rejected moral, positive obligations, and there's a plethora of reason why to. I've went through them a lot in this very thread, and you must be the third person to appeal to emotion and say "you don't care about children, you don't care about kids, hurrr". YOU DONT KNOW WHAT I CARE ABOUT AND THATS NOT THE POINT. The point is that as soon as you decide that goal X is enough of a reason to coerce a non-aggressing human being, you should fully understand what you did, and why is that a bad thing in private law. Because there is no stopping someone stealing from you on the same grounds, because there is no stopping the very person you aggressed from aggressing you back. Nothing. So quit using those retarded examples, to make pointless, ambiguous and contradictory moral theories.
On August 31 2010 05:31 Tuneful wrote: There's a reason Economics used to be called "Political Economy" or the "Economics of Politics." It is a fool's errand to try and divorce market operations from their legal frameworks. One cannot exist without the other.
Historically, in the common law of England, Roman law, and the Law Merchant, law was formed in large part in thousands of judicial decisions. In these so-called "decentralized law-finding systems," the law evolved as judges, arbitrators, or other jurists discovered legal principles applicable to specific factual situations, building upon legal principles previously discovered, and statutes, or centralized law, played a relatively minor role.
Henry II developed the practice of sending judges from his own central court to hear the various disputes throughout the country. His judges would resolve disputes on an ad hoc basis according to what they interpreted the customs to be. The king's judges would then return to London and often discuss their cases and the decisions they made with the other judges. These decisions would be recorded and filed. In time, a rule, known as stare decisis (also commonly known as precedent) developed, which is where a judge would be bound to follow the decision of an earlier judge; he was required to adopt the earlier judge's interpretation of the law and apply the same principles promulgated by that earlier judge if the two cases had similar facts to one another. By this system of precedent, decisions 'stuck' and became ossified, and so the pre-Norman system of disparate local customs was replaced by an elaborate and consistent system of law that was common throughout the whole country, hence the name, "common law."
The common law was created by the King's court. Literally, it was created by the tyrannical state, in the person of the King.
The common law is a state-driven, state-created system, and has nothing to do with "market law."
Uh I think you missed the point where the lawmakers could only know what laws to write once they started from the bottom up, to decide which laws would most people consider fair. That ultimately it was a statist that enforced the law is irrelevant to the case that law can be brought about by moral sentiment plus dispute resolution alone.
On August 29 2010 07:38 Yurebis wrote: Posit any reason why you think anarcho-capitalism can't work, and I'll try to answer.
I'll start saying that whatever you have against "human nature", cannot apply to anarcho-capitalism and not the state at the same time. If people cannot be trusted to behave non-violently the majority of the time, then the state cannot be trusted to behave just the same. A man with a badge is still a man. And I would argue, even more so, that an institution that gives full, monopolistic, coercive power to a man over the course of an election, is much more prone to lure the worst of man to office.
I will make little empirical arguments, but my premises are very agreeable on so don't worry.
This is the most loaded post I have ever read for several reasons:
1) You're establishing and defending a moving target:
There's several different takes on anarcho-capitalism and you never define what your stance is. There's no way to accept or refute any sort of anarcho-capitalism without a clear and concise definition of what you are saying.
Uh, perhaps you're just not used to the idea that a society can exist without a central plan? There is no central plan, live with it. I've defined the basic tennets, and I've proposed how things could work, but of course, I can't predict what things will be in ancap just as much as I can't predict what the next Apple product will me, or what will be the next fashion of the season.
And so, because you don't know what Apple's next product will be, you can't defend Apple? I mean... that's a non argument. The same could be said about the state, even more so I believe, because the state is much more unstable in its foreign policies and capital management. Healthcare could be heavily socialized next year. North Korea and Iran could be nuked or attacked anytime. Illegal immigrants could have amnesty next year. Taxes can rise and fall easily by a margin of 10%, the fed can create a new bubble. There's so many things that the state can do to impact society much much faster (and for much much worse) than the decentralized decisions of millions of capitalists acting on their own property restraints.
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote:
2) You swear off empirical proof.
4 1/2 years of LD debate has taught me you can make anything seem plausible using pseudo-logic as long as you don't have to provide empirical proof.
I don't swear it off, I do what I can, but I dislike copy-paste, googling slugfests. I feel much less is learned by that. And well, you can prove anything empirically as well bro, so, cheers. The sun got up, it must have been the state's doing. Tee hee. Also, empirical tenets are a-priori, so... yep. Try explaining why you think the scientific method should be used, empirically. "The scientific method should be used because the scientific method proves the scientific method is a valid theory". :O
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote: 3) Advocating a style of government that has never been tested.
Boiling down your post, it essentially says, "Hey, this seems like a good idea! I'll defend it!" There's absolutely no background or historical context for anarcho-capitalism, so you cannot say it is foolproof when there is absolutely no basis for making such a claim.
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote: 4) Attempting to pre-empt a very specific and complex argument with a blanket statement and no backup.
Then don't accept it and ignore me, but don't come and say it's wrong without refuting it...
On August 31 2010 08:26 deth2munkies wrote: I could go on, but there's no real reason to reply to the actual political system when all that will happen is a fallacious response that will quickly disintegrate into the typical forum bickering and no quality discourse whatsoever. If you actually want to discuss a political philosophy, write up at least an abstract for discussion instead of this tripe.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive.
Hrm? I'm not talking about a dominion by a private citizen, I'm talking about in relationship to the companies providing these services.
I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
Merely opposing something doesn't mean you're actively in favour of banning it. I oppose your point of view but I recognise your freedom to hold it. I might oppose porn on some sort of ethical disagreement with it, but still recognise that people are free to voluntarily agree to appear naked for money if they so wish. I might try to convince people not to create or consume porn, but still recognise that ultimately it's their decision and that they're responsible for it.
But let's say that 63% of Americans are actually in favour of banning it. People really don't understand the machinery of the state and how it works. They honestly don't understand or see the aspect of violence that they're proposing. That's partly why the state is so effective, because the violence is hidden. Euphemisms are continually used in our culture to obscure the use of violence, not unlike your use of the word cooperation to describe the beating of slaves being forced to build pyramids. The violence and coercion and threats and bullying may as well not even be occurring at all for the amount of empathy it brings out in people.
I doubt many of those people would be personally willing to carry out the act of destroying the mosque, or arresting the mullah or extracting a fine from him or whatever it is that they want the government to do about it. Who would be willing to carry that act out themselves in principle? Wouldn't they quickly come to realise that they're being coercive? The mullah himself would not presuppose their authority and so would probably resist, which means you have to get physically coercive which drives the point home even further. And they would have to pay out of their own pocket to do it, and for what benefit? They would make that cost benefit analysis. When the job is offloaded to the state they don't see any of that and they don't make a rational analysis of their decision, whether it was worth it, how destructive and pointless it all was.
Uh, I don't deny that, but I deny that there is a market demand for coercion. Like, people paying to be exploited, or to exploit others. It's risky and unprofitable. The state does it, and it's in deep debt, all of them. Because you lose entrepreneurial focus when you do things like that. You don't respond to market incentive anymore, you ignore market prices... etc. etc. etc.
I don't deny people assemble, that's retarded. I deny that a group of x people is able to assemble and coerce, trick everyone else, constantly, every day week or month, and get away with it. They're less people. There's few sociopaths in the world. The way they do it today is of course through the state first and foremost. The lowly criminals can all be dealt with easily, i mean if even the corrupt and subsidized cops managed to do it a bit, poorly, but still, a private cop will be much much more equipped with the right incentives and resources as best as any single person is able to manage. Because that entrepreneur will be profiting, because he will be outperformed if he sucks, because he has no monopoly on coercion... etc. etc. etc.
In sum, strawman.
If I straw manned you, it was by accident. But I didn't really. I'm saying if you don't deny people will have a tendency assemble/cooperate for common interests, then you cannot deny government or governing systems are inevitable.
Voluntarily assemble... governing systems are not about voluntarism, it's about forcing everyone in
But it's ok I mean, I've made way more strawmen throughout this thread than you could ever fit in a post. It would hit the character limit LOL. ...Is there even a character limit?
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If people have moved in, they accepted rent conditions If you just claimed to own everything, then it's a fraud, and it's a state.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: "Coercion" as you call it is just the result of a few hundred years of continual cooperation and progress, and the institution of the state is so powerful it is able to coerce its people and people who do not wish to cooperate have few viable options (like for instance, moving to an uninhabited island). Perhaps its time to tear that down, but your only kidding yourself if you believe it won't build itself back up again.
Welp, if teared down for the right reasons, aka understanding of private property, I doubt it would come back up, just like an understanding of "civil liberties" and partial individual rights won't allow for slavery to come back up.
It wouldn't be impossible of course, but it would take quite the deterioration, multiple times worse that the deterioration of the constitutional republic of the USA.
So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on? I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Oh ok, a dispute over capital, property. Well I believe any dispute can be settled in court, before the need of a gun. And most generally people are able to deter eachother from aggression by having some retaliatory force on their own.
The state of course, only diminishes both the ability of all disputes from being taken to court (by having shitty laws that imprison even victimless crime offenders), and reduces the ability for each person to best defend themselves through taxation and a socialized police force.
Well ok, of course, the sociopaths and lowly criminals will be marginalized. Do you think they should not be? Read the estoppel approach to law by stephan kinsella to see my opinion... mises.org/journals/jls/12_1/12_1_3.pdf
Hrm? If we look over to the other thread about the WTC area mosque you can see 63% of Americans oppose the building of a Mosque in America. In Ancap, well, you can easily imagine a scenario where half or more of the country has outlawed Islam.
They vote 63% because it's free to vote, and the court+law system that is in place allows for such a measure to be made. So... the whole legal system has become a tragedy of the common, where people try to get from it as much as they can, because they all equally are paying for the trash system, robbed both in capital and from the opportunity of having a better one. "Let the state determine the law" immediately results in the state perverting the law, even if just a little bit, and creates these types of moral hazards, where it costs nothing to agress
If those 63% were to close someone's property in ancap, they'd have to put their money where their mouth is worth, and pay for it to be removed. That includes the costs that would incur from fighting a more healthy law system that isn't built top-bottom, but bottom-top, one that puts private property over populism. And if you think it all throughout, the repercussions would probably be too great of a cost. But for you to understand that it would require to learn more about private law and enforcement...
They could only feasibly take it down if they could prove that the mosque is a direct threat for all the people around it... then... maybe. But because of religion or superstition? It wouldn't come cheap.
Oh really? That's a nice scenario. So assume that the anti-muslim was there first. Why the fuck would a muslim move right next to him? There's houses elsewhere. Racists are far and few at this day and age, and even then, so what? The anti-muslim guy can *today* deny muslims access to his home. Well, and if it's not a home, it's a commercial establishment, then he has a direct profit motive to let any type of paying customer in. He's retarded if he chooses to forfeit money due to someguy's religion. And even then if he does, HE IS FREE TO DO SO AND THATS OK, you think it's fair with him if the state forced him to accept people? That's not fair at all. That's like the state saying you should allow criminals in your room. Well, not as retarded, but still an invasion of your property rights by the government.
See where I bolded? I suppose if you have that view of America, I can see how you can think that Ancap is anything more then a transitional stage. It just shows your misconceptions on how people behave.
Latent racism, yeah. But not deal-breaking. People aren't like that anymore. "Sorry, I don't sell cars to blacks". heh :/ . Most establishments in the US have no problem getting any customer of any race, as long as they pay, IMO.
Thing is, discrimination cuts profit. It's not something that's been eliminated due to government contrary to popular thought. It's something that's fading away because it makes 0 economical sense. Because people woke up one day and said "geez, I could make money off those black people if I didn't care about their melanin concentration." "is it worth getting rid of my dumb surperstitions and traditions to make more money?" and turns out that more often than not, yes. And it's been increasingly so ever since.
lolwut? Marginalizing human beings cuts profits? Have you ever heard of slavery? You devalue the life of a human being to a subhuman, and you've devalued the cost of his labor as well. Very simple.
You deny someone work and service long enough on the basis of something he cannot change, and hes going to settle for less when you do take him.
Also...The desire of southerners to make profit is not what stopped Slavery. The Desire of Northerners to make money off the southerners expense is what stopped Slavery (not saying thats intrinsically bad or anything lol).
Uh... okay... so you can just swear at someone until he becomes a willing or relatively willing slave? I don't think it works like that... if I've learned anything about exploitation, it's because the low-self-esteem fellow doesn't see a better choice - and I'm not saying there is, there may very well not be. In the case of a slave, even if he escapes, the state had laws requiring people to return them to the slave. And I'm not blaming the state completely of course, since most probably would have done so anyway. But anyway. It's not particularly the relation between slave and slaveowners, blacks and racist whites, but the realization that you have no where to go where it isn't so.
We will have to agree to disagree on what the main factor of ending slavery is. I don't agree with an mainstream interpretations of the civil war, but I recognize one may have every reason to accept it. It's empiricism anyway.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: If I have a community the size of a fourth of montana, built from common interest and voluntary interaction, protected by "private security firms", which require payment for residence within the area, how is that NOT a state?
If you legitimately own that region land that is the size of a fourth of Montana, then fine. I can't see how you'd come to own it. I mean you'd have to convince every landowner in the area to sell their land to you. But say that did happen then that's fine. But I wouldn't call it a state. States didn't buy their region of land that we call a country. They own control it because of presupposed authority over the region. But if you want to call your scenario a state then that's fine; it's just a minor semantic quibble. The important thing is that it's all voluntary and not coercive.
Hrm? I'm not talking about a dominion by a private citizen, I'm talking about in relationship to the companies providing these services.
You said if YOU have a community. But fine, so what? Private companies / organisations own the land. Whatever, it's the same. I'm ok with it if it's voluntary, if not I will oppose it. And again I don't consider the private company a state, assuming they legitimately own the land. But that's maybe just a minor semantic difference.
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy” or “market anarchism” or “free market anarchism”) is a libertarian and individualist anarchist political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market. Economist Murray Rothbard is credited with coining the term. In an anarcho-capitalist society, law enforcement, courts, and all other security services would be provided by voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies rather than through taxation, and money would be privately and competitively provided in an open market. According to anarcho-capitalists, personal and economic activities would be regulated by the natural laws of the market and through private law rather than through politics. Furthermore, victimless crimes and crimes against the state would not exist.
Took this from wikipedia as no definition of this theory was given in the OP.
Why it can't work based on this definition. It says that the state has to be eliminated. This is just retarded academic jerk off thinking.
The obvious questions that need answering: 1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors? 2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
Their answer? "Voluntarily-funded competitors such as private defense agencies." What does this even mean? I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. This is just inviting the return of 7th century warlords to take over and do whatever the fuck they want. In essence, this whole idea is going to be ruined simply because the guy with the bigger gun is going to call the shots.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for. The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote: You can't run a society by eliminating the state. It just makes no sense. You need legislators to write statutes and define the crimes and rules. You need the executive to carry out these rules. And you need a fair and impartial judiciary to interpret the law. I mean c'mon, you can't even create a corporation in any country if the legislator does not allow it.
Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts. You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
On August 31 2010 09:15 Sultan.P wrote: I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
I get so sad when I see young intellectuals waste their time and energy on these theories that make no sense and do not have any value for a society at all. To me, it just seems like a childish grudge against our, unfortunately, imperfect system. If there's a way to make government and society better, I'm all for it but not this kind of joke.
Seriously, I can see where the OP is coming from. But at the heart of the issue, its one of logical contradictions. It isn't even "this cannot work". Its "this idea, as a concept, is basically a paradox".
What's the paradox?
On August 31 2010 09:17 Half wrote: Transitional Anarchy without people dieing on the Streets? Sure. Can happen, has happened, and will happen again.
Not the same kind of anarchy. Or rather, anarchism.
On August 31 2010 09:17 Half wrote: Long term Anarchy? The very idea, applied to human beings, is illogical. Humans beings thrive on growth and change, and long term Anarchy assumes neither exist.
What is capitalism to you? Again, it is anarcho-capitalism. Not the conventional definition of anarchy, aka, chaos. That would indeed be kind of silly. "Why chaos can't work?". Well, I think the definition pretty much covers that it's a non-working, purposeless state.
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
On August 31 2010 10:02 Myrkul wrote: I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
The necessity or desirability of a service to you or to others in your perspective is no justification that they have to be coercively organized in any central way. Many things depend on many things in the market, and yet the companies that are depended on by others could fall the very next day. What happens if the metallurgy goes broke? Then the engineering firms, car industries, would all go broke too? What happens if the milkman had a heart attack, and no milk was delivered for a day? What if, what if... So many things could happen that it does kind of scare you, because we are indeed in a very interconnected and interdependent, highly specialized market.
But coercion, you have to understand, would only make things worse. A central planner, coercing a population to pay for a certain project or business model, and not allowing others to present what could be a better answer, will always lead to more inefficiencies than if the market were able to operate on it's own. Because the thousands of entrepreneurs already did and constantly ask themselves the questions which you too fear. They know their business best than anyone else, because they have all the incentives and market inputs to do so. Government on the other hand, has neither appropriate incentives, nor can it even know what the prices of its services should be, apart from emulating signals from elsewhere and crossing their fingers.
The market of higher education today IS the next bubble, and it costs a lot exactly because it is inflated. People are getting diplomas for jobs that won't exist, because again, the government has fiddled with student loans, and people are going to college with near 0 liability, at 0 initial cost, so yeah.
Roads can also exist privately. Again, just because the state has built them coercively, doesn't mean they can't be built voluntarily, and I believe they would be not only cheaper but also free of externalities, such as destroying people's property that are on the way... and THEN paying them a fraction of what it was worth.
Addressing the last sentence: I could just as well say "I don't really understand how can you call something like 'me grabbing money from your wallet' and spending on something like a new computer for myself 'stealing'". It is stealing, plainly because if it wasn't, then no taxes are needed, people would just donate to the government what they think is due. Or even better, people could buy only those services they want. Which is what I've been advocating all this thread...
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote: One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing?
Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction.
You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers.
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote: One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
I've never heard this objection before. Can you be more specific about the problem? I'd just like some more clarification on the evidences / reasoning about market liberalism lowering incentives for reproduction, and how this creates a problem in society?
We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement.
Is this a problem? Why not defer your gratification of having children until you own a house, earn a solid income, have savings and such? Or are you talking about something else?
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Again, so you don't get confused, I am putting to question your assumption that a private police force would be more efficient and free from impulses to enslave the people. Furthermore, what would this police force exactly be enforcing if there is no legislature that will come up with statutes under which they could prosecute people?
Also, how exactly would a "private judiciary" work? Wouldn't judges in these positions be susceptible to bribes, leaving no room for any type of justice?
Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts.
This sentence...makes no sense at all. I think you forgot to finish it up.
You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
Liquidpedia? I thought that was for starcraft, lol. If you have explained the basics please quote it for me at least so I don't have to wander aimlessly through 26 pages.
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
Again, please quote me something I can address instead of brushing me off. Your OP says to state reasons why Anarcho-capitalism can't work, yet you ambiguously, if anything, define the term and completely dodge questions that scrutinize the ideology. You must do better than this, for the sake of argument.
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote: One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing?
Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction.
You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers.
No, I don't see a women choosing to work as a problem. But how is your system going to last longer than a generation? And what's exactly preventing people from contributing to a fund for responsible parents now? I don't think you've answered this question and you've dismissed it.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote: You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
I can't speak for Yurebis but I'm 99% sure this is just a minor misunderstanding. I think his 'more like communism' statement was directed at "I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community."
How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
You brought it up in your first question: 1) Who protects the people from possible foreign aggressors? 2) Who protects the people from others in the society who wish to do harm.
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
I think the original message had nothing to do with property rights or marketing. (that was a follow-up on some argumentation). If I read it correctly, it equates current government to a company that could arise in the environment that ancap provides. I see various people arguing this (I think I mentioned something likewise, less precise) in various forms, but can you give a really easy to follow transparent argument that shows that such a mega-conglomeration could not come to fruition?
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote: One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
I've never heard this objection before. Can you be more specific about the problem? I'd just like some more clarification on the evidences / reasoning about market liberalism lowering incentives for reproduction, and how this creates a problem in society?
We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement.
Is this a problem? Why not defer your gratification of having children until you own a house, earn a solid income, have savings and such? Or are you talking about something else?
I gave the reason. It's more that they take themselves out of competition during maternity leave and that they lose promotion opportunities and income generating ability. The Western countries are experiencing declining birth rates amongst its citizens, with Japan being the hardest hit. The decline is attributed to females entering the workforce. I can find plenty of citations for the theory and there's good empirical evidence that the West is experiencing declining birth rate. Did you want those?
If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient.
On August 31 2010 11:40 DetriusXii wrote:I gave the reason. It's more that they take themselves out of competition during maternity leave and that they lose promotion opportunities and income generating ability. The Western countries are experiencing declining birth rates amongst its citizens, with Japan being the hardest hit. The decline is attributed to females entering the workforce. I can find plenty of citations for the theory and there's good empirical evidence that the West is experiencing declining birth rate. Did you want those?
No that's ok. I understand where you're coming from now, thanks. I honestly don't know how an ancap central planner would "solve" this, so I'll have to pass and maybe think about it a little more. If I had to throw something out there, I'd say people today are working just to make ends meet. If people had much more expendable wealth they could afford to work less and have a baby and it wouldn't really matter as much. But that's assuming that enough people would actually want to have babies and not do other things instead. If you were dictator, what would you change about today's system to solve this problem? Genuinely curious. Thanks.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
And I argue that the market mechanisms that make insurance companies possible, also will make the assessment of personal and collective defense possible. Not just possible, but more efficient than the state, because there is many more people competing to provide the best solution. Because there's this thing called the "calculation problem", that handicaps the state's ability to efficiently cover demand - which is a main reason why public services can't adapt to changes as well, and can't provide the amount of service that is demanded as accurately. It's not even an issue of big government, it is an issue of central planning period.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote: Again, so you don't get confused, I am putting to question your assumption that a private police force would be more efficient and free from impulses to enslave the people. Furthermore, what would this police force exactly be enforcing if there is no legislature that will come up with statutes under which they could prosecute people?
Also, how exactly would a "private judiciary" work? Wouldn't judges in these positions be susceptible to bribes, leaving no room for any type of justice?
Market law can arise out of dispute resolutions and the moral sentiments of the population. Because capitalism is preserved, it is expected that the laws first and foremost would protect private property over everything else. Courts are in competition with one another, and they can each have different law codes, however, because they're employed to solve conflicts over property, it would most likely be proper that they try to establish the type of property theories that most satisfies all of their clients, and makes the court reputable. The leading courts will disseminate those law codes to other courts as it is in its own interest to be able to arbritrate cases between clients of different courts.
PDAs, aka protection defense agencies, would have no more rights than anyone else, and would be susceptible to the PDAs "rulings" as anyone else would. If a PDA is ruled aggressive, it must comply with its terms or it will greatly lose popularity. You may laugh out that popularity won't stop PDAs from becoming aggressive, and they'll just disregard the court rulings, but you can't forget that the courts are the decentralized opinions of the people. Reputation, for a PDA, court, and insurance company, is even more important to its business than say, congress approval ratings is for the state. Because the PDA is not a monopoly, if he is deemed "unlawful", so are it's employees, and everyone in that PDA loses public approval. They may lose credit scores, ability to make contracts, have breached some of their contracts already, and they're basically a carcass waiting to be picked on and liquidated. An unlawful PDA or court is a failed PDA or court.
Thats basically it.
I must have written that for the fourth time, lol.
Law has a natural demand for the market, as you say, you'd want there to be laws, and so every other individual who wants to keep their property, exchange, and make contracts.
This sentence...makes no sense at all. I think you forgot to finish it up.
You and any other individual who wants to be able to formally exchange with others, will want to be under a law code, aka be friends with the courts, be a member of a defense insurance company, client of a PDA... because if you're not, it's not like you're illegal by any means, but there's less insurance that making business with you is safe. Like a credit score. But also criminal. There can be private agencies who evaluate that too.
You have seen the liquipedia article, so I assume you could study it yourself on how it could work. Sorry but I must have explained the basics on that thoroughly at least three times.
Liquidpedia? I thought that was for starcraft, lol. If you have explained the basics please quote it for me at least so I don't have to wander aimlessly through 26 pages.
Oh I meant wikipedia.
I dare not going back into the earlies dark pages, without good reason. I dare not.
There is sense, but I feel you haven't even understood the "capitalism" part of anarcho-capitalism, so of course you're not going to get the full picture.
Again, please quote me something I can address instead of brushing me off. Your OP says to state reasons why Anarcho-capitalism can't work, yet you ambiguously, if anything, define the term and completely dodge questions that scrutinize the ideology. You must do better than this, for the sake of argument.
Well I was responding a brush-off with a brush-off, I always go through the entire reply, and either ignore people's brush-offs, or sometimes make lesser brush-offs myself. It is justified retaliation though. We can go to court for it, if you want. he.
On August 31 2010 10:50 DetriusXii wrote: One thing I should bring up that hasn't been said throughout the 27 pages of threads is that we're already witnessing that market liberalism doesn't know how to handle reproduction nor does market liberalism reward reproduction. We're witnessing that women will willingly trade away maternity for career advancement. So I'm wondering how anarcho-capitalism will create incentives for reproduction without restricting females from entering the workforce or from obtaining birth control or abortions?
Why do you feel there should be more reproduction, and why is that enough of a justification to coerce others into reproducing?
Incentives can be voluntarily generated, sure. Raise a fund for responsible parents, that gives money to those who can show they're raising a number of kids responsibly. Or just create educational institutions with the purpose of telling people the benefits of reproduction.
You are not justified, however, from stopping people from obtaining whatever products that were voluntarily produced, nor stopping them from getting a job if they wish and have willing employers.
No, I don't see a women choosing to work as a problem. But how is your system going to last longer than a generation? And what's exactly preventing people from contributing to a fund for responsible parents now? I don't think you've answered this question and you've dismissed it.
Demand for reproduction would spontaneously increase if the population were to decrease rapidly. Is this acceptable?
I seriously doubt millions of people would suddenly have near 0 demand for reproducing, it would be quite the unnatural genetic anomaly. Especially all in one generation. And even then, why is that a bad thing? If no one wants to have children anymore, then so be it. Are you entitled to live in a world with tons of people? Why don't you go make a huge family of over ten children then. Fulfill that demand of yours yourself. Lol.
The more I read, the more I believe this is unfeasible without there being a global catastrophe of some kind that eliminates all the states ability to function and a drastic drop in population. It would need a reset of thousands of years of history and behavior that have been ingrained into our psyche.
Even then, it is debatable whether or not people would behave in a way that would support this or just revert back to the basics that start the formation of governments/states.
The only other possibility is to have like-minded people settle another planet to have it work on a large-scale basis.
On August 29 2010 08:26 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Thread is too theoretical for my taste. Has anarcho-capitalism, whatever this political system is, ever worked before? If not, has anyone tried it?
some other time the OP of this thread wrote (it's on page 2) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_anarchist_communities None of them were really capitalistic though imo. I like the american wild west example best, it's a complete myth that it was a lawless land. Less homicides than the eastern part at least. I'm no empiricist so I'll stop there though.
Well people have stated that the lawless west wasn't really lawless and that it did take on a form of government spontaneously so it did not last. Therefore I would argue that the lawless west did not sustain anarchy and therefore did not work.
The time era and environment are also significantly different from what we have today.
I checked out the last three anarchistic societies listed on wikipedia since all of the other ones ceased to exist.
The first: Freetown Christiania Seems like it won't last as the local dutch government and the people nearby are pushing so hard for its removal. Any greater power will exert influence on a lesser one.
The second: Zapatista Autonomous Municipalities Does not sound so bad.
The assemblies and councils serve not as traditional governing bodies but as instruments of the people to provide medicine, education, food, and other essentials. The "laws" passed by the Good Government Councils are not enforced with policemen and prisons, but in a way that respects "criminals" as members of the community. For example, it was decided to ban alcohol and drugs,[16] due to their nefarious influence on Indians in the past (though alcohol/drug prohibition is considered in conflict with anarchist principles). Violation of this law is surprisingly rare; those who do may be required, for example, to help build something their community needs. Some anarchists believe this to be a decentralized, non-authoritarian style similar to what they advocate, having always loathed prisons, police power, and capital punishment.
The third Abahlali baseMjondolo: South Africa Says that the location is a constant violent struggle. Someone will probably assume control soon enough.
You say you are not an empiricist. I am quite the opposite. As long as something has been proven not to work time and again, I don't believe that it will work any time soon. Perhaps in a thousand years when society has evolved enough to be completely different from what it is today, an anarcho-capitalistic society of people could exist on a large scale.
It'd have to be a future very different from the starcraft one though.
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
I think the original message had nothing to do with property rights or marketing. (that was a follow-up on some argumentation). If I read it correctly, it equates current government to a company that could arise in the environment that ancap provides. I see various people arguing this (I think I mentioned something likewise, less precise) in various forms, but can you give a really easy to follow transparent argument that shows that such a mega-conglomeration could not come to fruition?
If it's the brand which has bought land, raised buildings, and have people move over, there's absolutely nothing stopping that, and I would expect the contracts to be very extent and detailed on how the company promises to run the city or town, but in the end, it's a choice by the tenant to move in to such a place.
If it's the "I own all land now mwhahaha" brand, I can't say it can't happen either, however knowing that it can happen is already half the way to prevent it from happening. The right question to ask, in ancap, is not just "can it happen", but "how can we prevent the undesirable from happening" (most preferably without violence). Well, the main companies that would be able to become a state are the PDAs, who have most of the guns and weaponry. Perhaps private armies too, circumstantially formed to defend against foreign invasion. But mainly PDAs, because they already have similar infrastructures of the today's police force, so they're close by the residents, and they arguably have the means to do something like that.
Well, what can the people in ancap do to stop a PDA from becoming too big, and giving it the chance to become a state again? I can think of many things. 1-Account for that risk by not necessarily picking always the cheapest and largest PDA, but the second best, third, fourth, etc. 2-Require of the insurance agencies or other third parties some sort of oversight over the PDAs (it will come at a cost, of course, everything does lol) 3-Require less entangling contracts, allowing you to immediately quit your membership with the PDA (or insurance->PDA, however the model is), whenever you see something funny. (comes at a greater premium or at a penalty) 4-Be better prepared yourself, as an individual and in your community, to react to such a possibility, arming yourself, making a local militia (which already exist btw) 5-Even if it becomes a state, just resist as much as it's feasible. The rogue PDA runs at a loss if the people resist, like don't pay taxes, civil disobedience (lol), just make their work suck. Don't really need to be violent back, though of course if they shoot first there's nothing you can do but fight back. Anyway, it will eventually become bankrupt. It will fuck up the entire society, but it will go down with it. That goes for foreign powers too.
Since this is completely open information, and the PDAs themselves aren't dumb, I think it will be very unlikely that they will ever turn society back into a state again. Even if people just forget that it's possible for them to do so, the moment they do, it will resurface. It has to. Well, if it won't, then we're fucked, but... uh.. knowing that we may forget... there may be a way not to? Heh.
On August 31 2010 11:41 jgad wrote: If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient.
On August 31 2010 12:09 Adila wrote: The more I read, the more I believe this is unfeasible without there being a global catastrophe of some kind that eliminates all the states ability to function and a drastic drop in population. It would need a reset of thousands of years of history and behavior that have been ingrained into our psyche.
Even then, it is debatable whether or not people would behave in a way that would support this or just revert back to the basics that start the formation of governments/states.
The only other possibility is to have like-minded people settle another planet to have it work on a large-scale basis.
Well, if you believe in free markets, then it has to follow that the state is pretty bad at everything. And that includes preserving itself, so, it's not a stretch to say that the state may trip on it's own foot; it has happened so many times in history. The question is indeed like you said, whether people are ready for it, and don't just stand around confused and waiting for a new ruler.
Though it's not a complicated idea.. not at all. It may be complicated if you want to understand the entire economy, of course, that's biologically impossible for any single individual, but as far as generalities go, if even a dumbass troll idiot retarded OP like me can understand it, I think society can be ready in under 100 years easily. Especially at the velocities the flow of information is going.
On August 31 2010 12:09 Adila wrote: The more I read, the more I believe this is unfeasible without there being a global catastrophe of some kind that eliminates all the states ability to function and a drastic drop in population. It would need a reset of thousands of years of history and behavior that have been ingrained into our psyche.
Even then, it is debatable whether or not people would behave in a way that would support this or just revert back to the basics that start the formation of governments/states.
The only other possibility is to have like-minded people settle another planet to have it work on a large-scale basis.
Well, if you believe in free markets, then it has to follow that the state is pretty bad at everything. And that includes preserving itself, so, it's not a stretch to say that the state may trip on it's own foot; it has happened so many times in history. The question is indeed like you said, whether people are ready for it, and don't just stand around confused and waiting for a new ruler.
Though it's not a complicated idea.. not at all. It may be complicated if you want to understand the entire economy, of course, that's biologically impossible for any single individual, but as far as generalities go, if even a dumbass troll idiot retarded OP like me can understand it, I think society can be ready in under 100 years easily. Especially at the velocities the flow of information is going.
There's more than 1 society on Earth though. You would, at the very least, need Russia and China on board. Quite frankly, I don't believe those societies are anywhere near capable of adapting this idea, especially China.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors.
Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is?
An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for.
Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources.
So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project?
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
I think the original message had nothing to do with property rights or marketing. (that was a follow-up on some argumentation). If I read it correctly, it equates current government to a company that could arise in the environment that ancap provides. I see various people arguing this (I think I mentioned something likewise, less precise) in various forms, but can you give a really easy to follow transparent argument that shows that such a mega-conglomeration could not come to fruition?
If it's the brand which has bought land, raised buildings, and have people move over, there's absolutely nothing stopping that, and I would expect the contracts to be very extent and detailed on how the company promises to run the city or town, but in the end, it's a choice by the tenant to move in to such a place.
If it's the "I own all land now mwhahaha" brand, I can't say it can't happen either, however knowing that it can happen is already half the way to prevent it from happening. The right question to ask, in ancap, is not just "can it happen", but "how can we prevent the undesirable from happening" (most preferably without violence). Well, the main companies that would be able to become a state are the PDAs, who have most of the guns and weaponry. Perhaps private armies too, circumstantially formed to defend against foreign invasion. But mainly PDAs, because they already have similar infrastructures of the today's police force, so they're close by the residents, and they arguably have the means to do something like that.
Well, what can the people in ancap do to stop a PDA from becoming too big, and giving it the chance to become a state again? I can think of many things. 1-Account for that risk by not necessarily picking always the cheapest and largest PDA, but the second best, third, fourth, etc. 2-Require of the insurance agencies or other third parties some sort of oversight over the PDAs (it will come at a cost, of course, everything does lol) 3-Require less entangling contracts, allowing you to immediately quit your membership with the PDA (or insurance->PDA, however the model is), whenever you see something funny. (comes at a greater premium or at a penalty) 4-Be better prepared yourself, as an individual and in your community, to react to such a possibility, arming yourself, making a local militia (which already exist btw) 5-Even if it becomes a state, just resist as much as it's feasible. The rogue PDA runs at a loss if the people resist, like don't pay taxes, civil disobedience (lol), just make their work suck. Don't really need to be violent back, though of course if they shoot first there's nothing you can do but fight back. Anyway, it will eventually become bankrupt. It will fuck up the entire society, but it will go down with it. That goes for foreign powers too.
Since this is completely open information, and the PDAs themselves aren't dumb, I think it will be very unlikely that they will ever turn society back into a state again. Even if people just forget that it's possible for them to do so, the moment they do, it will resurface. It has to. Well, if it won't, then we're fucked, but... uh.. knowing that we may forget... there may be a way not to? Heh.
Thanks for laying it out. I find that you assume quite a lot, and towards favoring ancap without any basis really. I know that it might work that way and could be stable. But color me skeptical of the human race. The biggest threat I see is in conglomeration, monopoly forming and cartels. Greed. PDA's will work for money and they will work for those with a huge accumulation of wealth/power. Others have mentioned this a lot in this thread already. I find it not believable that anything but an institute explicitly responsible towards the people, can deal with these issues. A big pillar in today's society, and what also would be for the ancap society from the examples you mention, is the freedom of information. If people know wrongs, they can take action. Many governments work too much in secrecy, I'm sure you'll agree on that. But how does ancap provide a guarantee for freedom of information, and how can information manipulation be battled? Skeptical me again saying that you can't. But these arguments are of course only really verifiable in a real life situation that would involve at least a million people. (edit typo's)
Anyone who's posting here claiming that the state is bad has to contend with the powerful argument in THIS IMAGE. It strikes me as intellectually arrogant to simply state that these institutions could be replaced without real knowledge of the consequences. Uncertainty is a powerful force--- yesterday an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico simply explodes and causes an environmental disaster, and tomorrow who knows? It's hardly a conservative position to suggest that the impact of "replacing the state" with an anarcho-capitalist (u/dis)topia could result in just about anything and no one here knows what that would be.
On August 31 2010 10:02 Myrkul wrote: I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
The necessity or desirability of a service to you or to others in your perspective is no justification that they have to be coercively organized in any central way. Many things depend on many things in the market, and yet the companies that are depended on by others could fall the very next day. What happens if the metallurgy goes broke? Then the engineering firms, car industries, would all go broke too? What happens if the milkman had a heart attack, and no milk was delivered for a day? What if, what if... So many things could happen that it does kind of scare you, because we are indeed in a very interconnected and interdependent, highly specialized market.
But coercion, you have to understand, would only make things worse. A central planner, coercing a population to pay for a certain project or business model, and not allowing others to present what could be a better answer, will always lead to more inefficiencies than if the market were able to operate on it's own. Because the thousands of entrepreneurs already did and constantly ask themselves the questions which you too fear. They know their business best than anyone else, because they have all the incentives and market inputs to do so. Government on the other hand, has neither appropriate incentives, nor can it even know what the prices of its services should be, apart from emulating signals from elsewhere and crossing their fingers.
The market of higher education today IS the next bubble, and it costs a lot exactly because it is inflated. People are getting diplomas for jobs that won't exist, because again, the government has fiddled with student loans, and people are going to college with near 0 liability, at 0 initial cost, so yeah.
Roads can also exist privately. Again, just because the state has built them coercively, doesn't mean they can't be built voluntarily, and I believe they would be not only cheaper but also free of externalities, such as destroying people's property that are on the way... and THEN paying them a fraction of what it was worth.
Addressing the last sentence: I could just as well say "I don't really understand how can you call something like 'me grabbing money from your wallet' and spending on something like a new computer for myself 'stealing'". It is stealing, plainly because if it wasn't, then no taxes are needed, people would just donate to the government what they think is due. Or even better, people could buy only those services they want. Which is what I've been advocating all this thread...
I am not satisfied with your answer, but unfortunately I don't have time right now, and I'm going out of town till the end of the week and I won't have any internet access probably, and by that time this thread will probably be dead, which is a shame. Oh well thanks Yurebis for bringing to my attention an interesting topic, it's always good to question things one takes for granted.
Voluntarily assemble... governing systems are not about voluntarism, it's about forcing everyone in
But it's ok I mean, I've made way more strawmen throughout this thread than you could ever fit in a post. It would hit the character limit LOL. ...Is there even a character limit?
The concept of choice only arises out of the lack of solidarity. Or in capitalistic terms, the lack of monopoly. If we assume that humanity will always, and should always develop existing infrastructure, and will always form infrastructures of cooperation, then after sufficient development and sufficient solidarity, both which are completely inevitable as time progresses (though it can be slowed), then you end up with a state, unless you have a governing body to prevent it, which does not exist in an ancap.
If people have moved in, they accepted rent conditions If you just claimed to own everything, then it's a fraud, and it's a state.
I'm not talking about a single landowner (which could easily occur fyi), I'm talking about a monopoly of security companies/other crucial infrastructure companies normally left to the government,
Welp, if teared down for the right reasons, aka understanding of private property, I doubt it would come back up, just like an understanding of "civil liberties" and partial individual rights won't allow for slavery to come back up.
It wouldn't be impossible of course, but it would take quite the deterioration, multiple times worse that the deterioration of the constitutional republic of the USA.
You've already set up a structure for the state to "come back" in the form of private companies. You don't need a forced takeover of "private property" for a state to emerge. Let me ask you a question, what is the difference between a region with only one or two private infrastructural companies and a state?
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: Show nested quote + So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on? I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Oh ok, a dispute over capital, property. Well I believe any dispute can be settled in court, before the need of a gun. And most generally people are able to deter eachother from aggression by having some retaliatory force on their own.
The state of course, only diminishes both the ability of all disputes from being taken to court (by having shitty laws that imprison even victimless crime offenders), and reduces the ability for each person to best defend themselves through taxation and a socialized police force.
Thats not really what I meant, but as I said, its irrelevant now as it was just an example to prove a point we've reached a mutual consensus on.
But um...you said private courts earlier. Whos private court do we go to????? lol.
Latent racism, yeah. But not deal-breaking. People aren't like that anymore. "Sorry, I don't sell cars to blacks". heh :/ . Most establishments in the US have no problem getting any customer of any race, as long as they pay, IMO.
For someone who isn't an empiricist, your fixating awfully hard on specifics. My point behind racism is to illustrate a simple point-The State forces cooperation upon people who would not otherwise cooperate. You argue that these people are only behaving as is because of the state, but I'd argue that the forced requisite by the state to "share" is all thats keeping them from fragmenting.
Again, it is anarcho-capitalism. Not the conventional definition of anarchy, aka, chaos. That would indeed be kind of silly. "Why chaos can't work?". Well, I think the definition pretty much covers that it's a non-working, purposeless state.
Their is absolutely no difference between an Ancap and a Anarchy on an theoretical level. By definition, there cannot be. You either have an ancap, or have anarchy. It just depends on the environment in which the state is dissolved. In principal, they are one and the same.
And structures of organization exist on all levels. Pure Anarchy is like everyone living in the woods with no human contact. We no shit that wouldn't work, if not else, theres not enough room lol. Anarchy usually is limiting this to a organizational structures on the scale of small voluntary tribes, while ancap limits this to company like structures. The nation state of course, would be the second largest form of organization, one step below world government.
The idea of Anarchy, of any form, is silly for this reason. The desire to organize and expand is one of the only human attributes present throughout history. Anarchy's, of any form, point towards a level of organization, and say "STOP THERE". Why? Why would it "stop there"? Because people understand "private property"?
You argue that there should be choice among companies, a primary distinguishment between that statism, but you forget to account for limited resources. There is only so many customers, so many resources, to allow for so many infrastructural companies on a large scale (pmcs, etc). And in the end, you've certainly broken down the institution of state into many small pieces, but states nonetheless.
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
This kinda shows you have a misconception of how exactly defense works in this world. As much as the US wastes on defense, its probably, in the end, actually made huge economic progress because of it. Defense is preemptory. A billion spent on prevention a day beats 2 billion spent on defense, because that 2 billion comes with it economic damage.
There was a very real chance the cold war would have erupted had the US not "wasted" trillions of dollars on defense research and paramilitary operations throughout the "cold war". And had a non-nuclear cold war occured, the world economy would have suffered greater damage and growth would have been more greatly slowed then if the US simply had "wasted" this money on defense that was not used.
Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Without any sort of environmental regulation, what's to stop companies from spewing chemicals into the air and the oceans? Libertarians often say all property being private is enough to stop pollution but how do you privatize the air and the oceans?
I can envisage how this kind of world would be amazing for rich people- they could buy up all the the parks, national parks and beaches and prevent the 'plebes' from having access to them and their companies could pollute the air and oceans with impunity.
For others else it wouldn't necessarily be so great though. There would be no more free libraries and those without enough money for healthcare would be dying in the streets. 5 year-olds from poor backgrounds would be putting in 14-hour days in sweat shops until they drop dead. Workers could try to go on strike to get some rights but risk being slaughtered by the private armies of the billionaires they work for.
All you would be doing by abolishing government is creating a vacuum of power that has to be filled. Once the billionaires become powerful enough society would basically revert to being a feudal serfdom until the serfs have had enough and finally rebel and bring back a some form of democratic government.
Yes, this is speculation but so it's also speculation when the libertatians/ ancaps/ whatever try to tell us that without any government and with corporations in total control the world would be some kind of utopia.
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
Seriously what is it with your hang up on this? I know you think you're being really clever here, but you're just being really annoying.
I think the "hang up" results from the special pleading which you and Yurebis constantly show. You equate the state with coercion and say the fact that you can simply move to another country with different terms is somehow invalid, because all states are illegitimate. But at the same time, in an anarcho-capitalistic society, where all land is owned by other people/companies, whenever I want to "rent" a space of living somewhere, then this constitutes a valid choice, since if I don't want to move to the land of somebody, I just go to somebody else. But what if none of the offered terms are acceptable to me? Well, then it's my (or Yurebis famous "nobody's") fault and I can at least chose to die ... the fact that none of the terms that different states have to offer are acceptable to you, however, is the states' fault ... this does not compute.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote:Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression.
Don't kid yourself - there is one and ONLY one way to profit from war and that is to sell supplies to BOTH sides of the war. This is how the US got rich during WWII, not because of some magical pseudo-economic notion that paying people to build bombs makes them richer and happier people. Where's the profit? Think about it.
On August 31 2010 19:11 MiraMax wrote: I think the "hang up" results from the special pleading which you and Yurebis constantly show. You equate the state with coercion and say the fact that you can simply move to another country with different terms is somehow invalid, because all states are illegitimate.
I don't equate the state with coercion alone, but with the false meme that they have moral right to use coercion. I've attempted to make this distinction many, many times. But hey, if you want to be a serf and think that your government owns the entire Deutschland legitimately somehow, and that you just rent it from the elites running your country, then your rent analogy would actually hold some water. But nobody has yet explained to me how this legitimacy came into being. Voting is it? How did the government come to acquire the land? Called dibs did they?
And if you want to say oh, well, the government is just "the people", so it's really just the people who own the Deutschland. Well, why would it stop at the Deutschland? Those borders are completely arbitrary. And even in the UK where the borders are arguably not completely arbitrary (because it's an island), I live near Manchester which is to the north of England. What possible claim do I have to a collective share of a plot of land in Cornwall? It doesn't make any sense. I've never even been to Cornwall. I just receive that collective share of the land in Cornwall because I happened to be born in the UK, so now I have the legitimacy to charge rent for it through the machinery of the democratic state? No. What's more, I only receive my share when I am 18 because obviously it doesn't make sense to receive it when I am 5. What are you going to do, allow toddlers to vote? But why 18? Is that written into the moral fabric of reality? More arbitrary magic.
Legitimate ownership accrues to individuals through original appropriation or voluntary trade.
But what if none of the offered terms are acceptable to me? Well, then it's my (or Yurebis famous "nobody's") fault and I can at least chose to die ... the fact that none of the terms that different states have to offer are acceptable to you, however, is the states' fault ... this does not compute.
This is just a nonsense scare scenario. Ohmigads what if I can't afford to live anywhere?! It's like asking what if I couldn't afford food? Well, food is pretty cheap right? People are willing to sell food for very low prices and they still make decent profit off of it. And if you still think you'd be better off growing your own food instead of buying it, then go do it. Nobody is stopping you (except the government of course). But inarguably at least you have a much greater opportunity today to get your food, and much more varied food at that.
Plus it would be much easier to earn a living. Your money would have greater purchasing power, and there wouldn't be bullshit regulations in place stopping you from creating your own florist business, or getting a job cutting hair or whatever it is that you want to do with your life. Food will be even cheaper because people will be that much wealthier.
But how do states supposedly solve this problem? Wouldn't there be drastically more land options available to you if entire continents were not owned by relatively few elites, but instead only the land that is being made use of was owned by the individuals making use of it? Why is it so much better that a few elites are able to charge monopoly rates for land because they called dibs, rather than having competitive prices? I don't understand. Cheap land gives you more opportunity than expensive land. But even then, you can always go into the wilderness and build a house there and farm for your food, or hunt for your food. But saying the same thing to us is just retarded, because the entire question is whether or not the government legitimately owns the land in the first place. You claim they do, so I'd like to know how they acquired it.
On August 31 2010 12:09 Adila wrote: The more I read, the more I believe this is unfeasible without there being a global catastrophe of some kind that eliminates all the states ability to function and a drastic drop in population. It would need a reset of thousands of years of history and behavior that have been ingrained into our psyche.
Even then, it is debatable whether or not people would behave in a way that would support this or just revert back to the basics that start the formation of governments/states.
The only other possibility is to have like-minded people settle another planet to have it work on a large-scale basis.
Well, if you believe in free markets, then it has to follow that the state is pretty bad at everything. And that includes preserving itself, so, it's not a stretch to say that the state may trip on it's own foot; it has happened so many times in history. The question is indeed like you said, whether people are ready for it, and don't just stand around confused and waiting for a new ruler.
Though it's not a complicated idea.. not at all. It may be complicated if you want to understand the entire economy, of course, that's biologically impossible for any single individual, but as far as generalities go, if even a dumbass troll idiot retarded OP like me can understand it, I think society can be ready in under 100 years easily. Especially at the velocities the flow of information is going.
There's more than 1 society on Earth though. You would, at the very least, need Russia and China on board. Quite frankly, I don't believe those societies are anywhere near capable of adapting this idea, especially China.
So they wouldn't nuke ancap? Not really, you just need to understand their motives for nuking, and eliminate or make up for those motives. At worst, there's nothing stopping people grouping to chip in for a nuke if it's really needed for deterrence. And there's no reason why they wouldn't - if it's knowable that they are going to get incinerated, certainly they wouldn't mind paying a fraction of what is paid today, to the trillion dollar military complex.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors.
Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront.
Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is?
Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did.
If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then...
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for.
Nope. Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing.
And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources.
(Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7. The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL) But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals. How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified.
That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP)
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project?
Yes. And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway.
On August 30 2010 23:19 silynxer wrote: You call it presupposed authority i call it clever marketing.
Can you see the fraud then?
Does your question imply that you agree with the original analogy he made?
No, I don't, but if you see the marketing, I suspected you could see the lies as well. But I was wrong I suppose.
Can you then provide an actual argument against the analogy? Antagonizing governments doesn't get you there.
Is it marketing for me to punch you in the nose and require ten bucks? Is it marketing for the mafia to extort protection money from a business? No, it's just coercion. That makes no sense. What they say or justify it with may be marketing, but the acts themselves aren't marketing. They're physical aggression or threats thereof.
I was referring to the start of this little bit, being here. (Reading back I see I wasn't being clear on that, sorry)
Okay, well, whether they have good marketing or not is irrelevant to it's coercive practices, and the coercive practices are fully defined in property rights theory.
You can choose not to respect a certain property rights theory, but it's inconsistent to both disrespect property rights, and want property rights for yourself. It is also inconsistent by the part of the state to claim that they're protecting property rights, but necessarily intruding them for taxation, regulation, etc.
You can call it good marketing, and I see why, but I disagree, merely because the act, for me, is very clearly coercive.
I think the original message had nothing to do with property rights or marketing. (that was a follow-up on some argumentation). If I read it correctly, it equates current government to a company that could arise in the environment that ancap provides. I see various people arguing this (I think I mentioned something likewise, less precise) in various forms, but can you give a really easy to follow transparent argument that shows that such a mega-conglomeration could not come to fruition?
If it's the brand which has bought land, raised buildings, and have people move over, there's absolutely nothing stopping that, and I would expect the contracts to be very extent and detailed on how the company promises to run the city or town, but in the end, it's a choice by the tenant to move in to such a place.
If it's the "I own all land now mwhahaha" brand, I can't say it can't happen either, however knowing that it can happen is already half the way to prevent it from happening. The right question to ask, in ancap, is not just "can it happen", but "how can we prevent the undesirable from happening" (most preferably without violence). Well, the main companies that would be able to become a state are the PDAs, who have most of the guns and weaponry. Perhaps private armies too, circumstantially formed to defend against foreign invasion. But mainly PDAs, because they already have similar infrastructures of the today's police force, so they're close by the residents, and they arguably have the means to do something like that.
Well, what can the people in ancap do to stop a PDA from becoming too big, and giving it the chance to become a state again? I can think of many things. 1-Account for that risk by not necessarily picking always the cheapest and largest PDA, but the second best, third, fourth, etc. 2-Require of the insurance agencies or other third parties some sort of oversight over the PDAs (it will come at a cost, of course, everything does lol) 3-Require less entangling contracts, allowing you to immediately quit your membership with the PDA (or insurance->PDA, however the model is), whenever you see something funny. (comes at a greater premium or at a penalty) 4-Be better prepared yourself, as an individual and in your community, to react to such a possibility, arming yourself, making a local militia (which already exist btw) 5-Even if it becomes a state, just resist as much as it's feasible. The rogue PDA runs at a loss if the people resist, like don't pay taxes, civil disobedience (lol), just make their work suck. Don't really need to be violent back, though of course if they shoot first there's nothing you can do but fight back. Anyway, it will eventually become bankrupt. It will fuck up the entire society, but it will go down with it. That goes for foreign powers too.
Since this is completely open information, and the PDAs themselves aren't dumb, I think it will be very unlikely that they will ever turn society back into a state again. Even if people just forget that it's possible for them to do so, the moment they do, it will resurface. It has to. Well, if it won't, then we're fucked, but... uh.. knowing that we may forget... there may be a way not to? Heh.
Thanks for laying it out. I find that you assume quite a lot, and towards favoring ancap without any basis really. I know that it might work that way and could be stable. But color me skeptical of the human race. The biggest threat I see is in conglomeration, monopoly forming and cartels. Greed. PDA's will work for money and they will work for those with a huge accumulation of wealth/power. Others have mentioned this a lot in this thread already. I find it not believable that anything but an institute explicitly responsible towards the people, can deal with these issues. A big pillar in today's society, and what also would be for the ancap society from the examples you mention, is the freedom of information. If people know wrongs, they can take action. Many governments work too much in secrecy, I'm sure you'll agree on that. But how does ancap provide a guarantee for freedom of information, and how can information manipulation be battled? Skeptical me again saying that you can't. But these arguments are of course only really verifiable in a real life situation that would involve at least a million people. (edit typo's)
Greed, contrary to popular thought, is a good thing. It is what enables specialization of labor, and spontaneous hierarchies to be formed as people voluntarily recognize some are better than others at doing certain tasks. Money is the intermediary of how much certain actions are worth in relation to others, which are expressed in price.
What is not good, and that people seem to ignore, is that some may decide to coerce instead of trade. It is necessary to understand the conditions that lead one to do so, not to blame some incentive which is obvious to human nature (at least for me), that 'people do what they want'. Of course people do what they want, but what makes a man kill, loot, enslave, and how can it be solved without killing, looting, enslaving yourself? The market answers that in the best way they find suitable, but the state is necessarily the worst choice, because it by definition loots and enslaves the population, to save it from what it argues would be a greater coercive environment.
I've shown a few manners to which PDAs can be kept down, and spontaneous checks and balances put in place if there are demands for it. If there are no demands, and people just throw money at PDAs without caring what they do, well, then yeah a state could emerge. But you don't know that people will be that stupid. If even you can see it happen, why wouldn't the people who lived through and understood the evils of government not see it better? I argue they would, and free competition would keep PDAs down.
"An institution explicitly responsible towards the people" - because you say so - is not enough of an elaboration as to what incentives the man inside such institution have that will make them consistently be responsible. It is just not the case. Elections are subpar to market demand, basically a socialized and coercive version of the economy in deciding who's the best supplier of executive administration; departments are devoid of market incentives apart from the rat maze that could be said to exist between voter->letters->representative->executive->department, abysmally worse than customer<->business; the whole state is unable to coherently establish exchange prices at what should be an approximate of the market price, because it is not exposed to the market, and therefore can't know whether it's charging too much or too little. That anyone can believe such an institution can respond to any issues at all vis-a-vis with the market is jaw dropping to me.
Transparency is a common, common market procedure. No one pays someone to do something without knowing what they're doing. No one pays huge sums of money to anyone without a contract, so if a dispute arises it can much easily be resolved in court. And by no one, I mean no one who cares for what their money is worth. It's a much better incentive for both customer to keep a check on business, and businesses keep a check on other businesses, as to what actions are being rewarded, and what actions aren't. Lack of transparency makes dealing with you riskier, as the customer doesn't know or isn't assured enough of what you're going to do, so you as the business loses potential customers. Profitable business have to be as transparent as paying customers customarily wish them to be. The state gets away with that because, of course, the customer isn't a customer, he's a taxpayer, and he has to pay it no matter what. Feedback from the taxpayer to the state is laughable. "Send letters to your representatives and vote better in 4 years kthxbyelol".
On August 31 2010 14:33 quandle wrote: Anyone who's posting here claiming that the state is bad has to contend with the powerful argument in THIS IMAGE. It strikes me as intellectually arrogant to simply state that these institutions could be replaced without real knowledge of the consequences. Uncertainty is a powerful force--- yesterday an oil rig in the Gulf of Mexico simply explodes and causes an environmental disaster, and tomorrow who knows? It's hardly a conservative position to suggest that the impact of "replacing the state" with an anarcho-capitalist (u/dis)topia could result in just about anything and no one here knows what that would be.
Is a slave also estopped from calling out it's slavemaster because it is given food to eat?
On August 31 2010 10:02 Myrkul wrote: I'm afraid I'm not very well educated on the subject, and my English is a bit lacking, especially the spelling, but I'll do my best.
I'm going to use a hypothetical example to illustrate my point. It's a known fact in economics that transport plays a vital role in the reproduction cycle. Raw resources need to be transported to facilities were goods will be made out of them, which in turn need to be transported to warehouses etc, and eventually to the consumer. Thus the more advanced transport is, the more efficient the economy is. Now this is a good reason to build massive highways that for example make a huge grid in the US, or any other country. Now, to make the grid optimal in terms of cost-efficiency requires the work of very educated people, advanced mathematics, huge amounts of collected data on the needs of transport in the area in question, well educated engineers, lots of labor etc.
Now the first thing that puzzles me is how would this Ancap society even have high education, university's etc.. required for the job. These things obviously cost alot of money, but in the eyes of your average joe serve no real purpose. Or atleast cost more than they should, which tends to be the opinion of everybody about the things they don't really understand. From what I understand nobody in this soceity gives his capital to anything he does not want to, so given that a vast majority of today's population are not economists, presumably they would say something along the lines of "I manage with the current roads just fine thank you, your fancy highway that goes to places I've never even heard of, nor have the need to travel to doesn't interest me". So I presume you would have to have people walking around and explaining the basics of the economics, that the better the roads are the cheaper you get your goods and so on. But then who would pay these people to do that, who would justify their existence to your average joe? It seems to me that everyone in this Ancap soceity would have to be very well educated in every field of human research for it to be efficient. Otherwise it looks to me like everyone just looks after himself and very capital intensive long-run return on investment projects (like science) would never be aproved.
I don't really understand how you can call something like collecting funds(taxes) and spending it on something like subatomic particle research "stealing".
The necessity or desirability of a service to you or to others in your perspective is no justification that they have to be coercively organized in any central way. Many things depend on many things in the market, and yet the companies that are depended on by others could fall the very next day. What happens if the metallurgy goes broke? Then the engineering firms, car industries, would all go broke too? What happens if the milkman had a heart attack, and no milk was delivered for a day? What if, what if... So many things could happen that it does kind of scare you, because we are indeed in a very interconnected and interdependent, highly specialized market.
But coercion, you have to understand, would only make things worse. A central planner, coercing a population to pay for a certain project or business model, and not allowing others to present what could be a better answer, will always lead to more inefficiencies than if the market were able to operate on it's own. Because the thousands of entrepreneurs already did and constantly ask themselves the questions which you too fear. They know their business best than anyone else, because they have all the incentives and market inputs to do so. Government on the other hand, has neither appropriate incentives, nor can it even know what the prices of its services should be, apart from emulating signals from elsewhere and crossing their fingers.
The market of higher education today IS the next bubble, and it costs a lot exactly because it is inflated. People are getting diplomas for jobs that won't exist, because again, the government has fiddled with student loans, and people are going to college with near 0 liability, at 0 initial cost, so yeah.
Roads can also exist privately. Again, just because the state has built them coercively, doesn't mean they can't be built voluntarily, and I believe they would be not only cheaper but also free of externalities, such as destroying people's property that are on the way... and THEN paying them a fraction of what it was worth.
Addressing the last sentence: I could just as well say "I don't really understand how can you call something like 'me grabbing money from your wallet' and spending on something like a new computer for myself 'stealing'". It is stealing, plainly because if it wasn't, then no taxes are needed, people would just donate to the government what they think is due. Or even better, people could buy only those services they want. Which is what I've been advocating all this thread...
I am not satisfied with your answer, but unfortunately I don't have time right now, and I'm going out of town till the end of the week and I won't have any internet access probably, and by that time this thread will probably be dead, which is a shame. Oh well thanks Yurebis for bringing to my attention an interesting topic, it's always good to question things one takes for granted.
You're welcome. You are the first one to say thanks so I'm in tears right now. Metaphorical tears, of course, of course... :'( :')
Voluntarily assemble... governing systems are not about voluntarism, it's about forcing everyone in
But it's ok I mean, I've made way more strawmen throughout this thread than you could ever fit in a post. It would hit the character limit LOL. ...Is there even a character limit?
The concept of choice only arises out of the lack of solidarity. Or in capitalistic terms, the lack of monopoly. If we assume that humanity will always, and should always develop existing infrastructure, and will always form infrastructures of cooperation, then after sufficient development and sufficient solidarity, both which are completely inevitable as time progresses (though it can be slowed), then you end up with a state, unless you have a governing body to prevent it, which does not exist in an ancap.
Um, no, you still don't understand what a monopoly trully is, the mainstream definition aside. It is not the lack of competition, it is a coercive barrier of entry. If the first definition is to be interpreted fully, then every accepted patent issuant is a monopolist, and should be broken down. If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you. That people may disregard some monopolies as competing with other monopolies, and therefore aren't monopolies, is also arbitrary, because in the end, everyone selling anything in the market is competing for value in the market with everything else. That interventionists cross one line here saying "this is the amount of differential needed to discern a monopoly from a non-monopoly", and then cross ANOTHER outbound line before such discernment reaches its domain, "I'm not a monopoly because I'm necessary", is completely, completely flawed.
Monopoly qua private property, is not a lack of solidarity, it is an understanding of private property theory. You can be and should be as altruist as you want. Monopoly qua coercion, IS a lack of solidarity, because it forces people to give away what should be theirs at someone else's arbitrary reasons and distinctions.
If people have moved in, they accepted rent conditions If you just claimed to own everything, then it's a fraud, and it's a state.
I'm not talking about a single landowner (which could easily occur fyi), I'm talking about a monopoly of security companies/other crucial infrastructure companies normally left to the government,
Welp, if teared down for the right reasons, aka understanding of private property, I doubt it would come back up, just like an understanding of "civil liberties" and partial individual rights won't allow for slavery to come back up.
It wouldn't be impossible of course, but it would take quite the deterioration, multiple times worse that the deterioration of the constitutional republic of the USA.
You've already set up a structure for the state to "come back" in the form of private companies. You don't need a forced takeover of "private property" for a state to emerge. Let me ask you a question, what is the difference between a region with only one or two private infrastructural companies and a state?
By infrastructural companies, you mean, companies who built whole cities themselves and had people move in? The difference first and foremost, is that the tenant chose to move in, at the contract's conditions.
And if you mean, companies that provide piping and wiring over property that is not theirs (but the pipes are, and they're installed voluntarily etc.), well, you can both not pay for them and compete against them.
And if you mean road builders, the people who move in to their roads can have contracts for all sorts of things. For the roads that were socialized and then auctioned off, they will be required with the residents and businesses that were using the road (and paid for it through state coercion) that at least they can't disallow people from moving out, and perhaps other clauses that I'm sure legal experts can foresee better than I do.
On August 31 2010 09:12 Half wrote: Show nested quote + So what? I'm incompatible with you right now. Is there anything bad going on? I'm against coercion, not incompatibility. If I wanted compatibility I would be for a state to kill and imprison all that disagree with its rule. But I don't think that's the way to go. Aggressing the population to save it from aggression, is kiiiind of incompatible, lol.
Thats not what we I mean, and so far, we haven't demonstrated ourselves incompatible. I'm talking about physical incompatibilities. Like if I want X law, and you don't, a physcal incompatibility. However the point is irrelevant now because the reason why I made the example is to demonstrate why people will tend to organize by common/compatible interests, which you already agreed to.
Oh ok, a dispute over capital, property. Well I believe any dispute can be settled in court, before the need of a gun. And most generally people are able to deter eachother from aggression by having some retaliatory force on their own.
The state of course, only diminishes both the ability of all disputes from being taken to court (by having shitty laws that imprison even victimless crime offenders), and reduces the ability for each person to best defend themselves through taxation and a socialized police force.
Thats not really what I meant, but as I said, its irrelevant now as it was just an example to prove a point we've reached a mutual consensus on.
But um...you said private courts earlier. Whos private court do we go to????? lol.
Yes I was kind of surprised this question wasn't asked before but it's not hard to answer though. Clients of different courts who have a dispute can rely on the courts themselves to either arrange a third party, agreeable court, or have previously agreed to forfeit cases to one another depending on the nature of the case. Court hierarchies can be made in a number of ways, and could be just as they are today, with bigger courts overruling smaller ones, appeal courts, etc. I find the current type of overruling hierarchy bad though, so for the most part, a third party court will be used I believe.
Latent racism, yeah. But not deal-breaking. People aren't like that anymore. "Sorry, I don't sell cars to blacks". heh :/ . Most establishments in the US have no problem getting any customer of any race, as long as they pay, IMO.
For someone who isn't an empiricist, your fixating awfully hard on specifics. My point behind racism is to illustrate a simple point-The State forces cooperation upon people who would not otherwise cooperate. You argue that these people are only behaving as is because of the state, but I'd argue that the forced requisite by the state to "share" is all thats keeping them from fragmenting.
Well, I disagree in that: 1- Forced cooperation is not a good thing. It can't even be called cooperation when one does had not chosen to cooperate in the first place. He is just choosing to cooperate as opposed to pay a fine or go to jail. Is a slave "forcibly cooperate'd" to raise cotton? No, that's silly. Coercion is coercion, no matter the motive. 2- Jim crow laws are a good example of it. The government was cherished as being the savior when it abolished their own laws which were segregative in nature. What the fuck? Should a rapist be applauded when he's done? Government exacerbates segregation whenever it makes a law on the topic. It either coerces people on assembling when they did not want to, which perhaps stales the cultural progress of people learning to accept one other naturally; or it separates people that could spontaneously come together, and learn to respect one another by themselves. As much as racism is culturally repugnant, it is something that has to be culturally resolved, if resolved at all. Forcing people away or caging them together... isn't the best way IMO.
Again, it is anarcho-capitalism. Not the conventional definition of anarchy, aka, chaos. That would indeed be kind of silly. "Why chaos can't work?". Well, I think the definition pretty much covers that it's a non-working, purposeless state.
Their is absolutely no difference between an Ancap and a Anarchy on an theoretical level. By definition, there cannot be. You either have an ancap, or have anarchy. It just depends on the environment in which the state is dissolved. In principal, they are one and the same.
And structures of organization exist on all levels. Pure Anarchy is like everyone living in the woods with no human contact. We no shit that wouldn't work, if not else, theres not enough room lol. Anarchy usually is limiting this to a organizational structures on the scale of small voluntary tribes, while ancap limits this to company like structures. The nation state of course, would be the second largest form of organization, one step below world government.
So there's no difference between anarcho-capitalism and anarcho-communism either? I with I could convince anarcho-communists of that TBH.
What people respect is extremely relevant. In statism, people generally respect the state more than anything. In anarchy, no one respect anyone. In anarcho-capitalism, people respect private property more than anything. And anarcho-communism, people respect getting high and smoking trees. LOL jk
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote: The idea of Anarchy, of any form, is silly for this reason. The desire to organize and expand is one of the only human attributes present throughout history. Anarchy's, of any form, point towards a level of organization, and say "STOP THERE". Why? Why would it "stop there"? Because people understand "private property"?
The desire to organize and expand is not enough of a justification to break the NAP. And yes, it should stop there because people understand everyone's better off when everyone respects everyone's possessions and non-coercively obtained capital. It is the most efficient, and the most consistent point to stop at. If you go any further, you have people invading people's property, and it's arbitrary - some stealing, some keeping; if you go backwards, there can't be property because property isn't respected, so there can't be formal division of labor, investment on higher order capital, and general capital accumulation not even to half the degree that is observed today.
Anarcho-capitalism maximizes both capital and moral conciseness. And anarcho-communism can exist within anarcho-capitalism, btw. The opposite cannot, because the pestering hippies would be smoking on peoples front yard LOL JK
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote: You argue that there should be choice among companies, a primary distinguishment between that statism, but you forget to account for limited resources. There is only so many customers, so many resources, to allow for so many infrastructural companies on a large scale (pmcs, etc). And in the end, you've certainly broken down the institution of state into many small pieces, but states nonetheless.
Uh, define state. Are you a state of yourself?... State is coercion. You don't coerce yourself, and voluntary organization don't coerce it's members. That's just muddying the waters. Are you being coerced by me to post, or by teamliquid mods to remain civil? No, that's ridiculous.
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
This kinda shows you have a misconception of how exactly defense works in this world. As much as the US wastes on defense, its probably, in the end, actually made huge economic progress because of it. Defense is preemptory. A billion spent on prevention a day beats 2 billion spent on defense, because that 2 billion comes with it economic damage.
I disagree that preemption is always better. It may not come to be the case. Either way it's circumstantial, and the best way to deal with circumstances is to let the people who are paying decide what course of action is the most efficient, not imposing your own flawless plan upon them.
On August 31 2010 16:31 Half wrote: There was a very real chance the cold war would have erupted had the US not "wasted" trillions of dollars on defense research and paramilitary operations throughout the "cold war". And had a non-nuclear cold war occured, the world economy would have suffered greater damage and growth would have been more greatly slowed then if the US simply had "wasted" this money on defense that was not used.
You don't know what would have happened. And even if your opinion is more educated than mine, I humbly maintain that people would have figured out something if the state didn't exist - or that perhaps russia would have no interest in aggressing decentralized cities which they can't revert back to statism and tax without huge losses from decentralized terrorism, resistance, and therefore wouldn't be cost-efficient. People would be able to be or make deterrence themselves, is what I mean.
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote: Without any sort of environmental regulation, what's to stop companies from spewing chemicals into the air and the oceans? Libertarians often say all property being private is enough to stop pollution but how do you privatize the air and the oceans?
If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote: I can envisage how this kind of world would be amazing for rich people- they could buy up all the the parks, national parks and beaches and prevent the 'plebes' from having access to them and their companies could pollute the air and oceans with impunity.
I would argue that 1- one can't own a natural resource that he didn't homestead 2-harvesting, fencing is arguiably not a homestead 3- you don't own them yourself, nor are you affected by what happens to far away, unowned environments, so why do you care? 4- in the case that you ARE affected, then you can take it to court and claim that. 5- people aren't required to sell their land to rich people. If the rich people are buying it for profit, then the local owners can be aware of that and profit themselves. 6- one hardly profits from harvesting all the wood in the world in one day, to go bankrupt the next. Businesses don't think as short profit as you expect, in fact I would say that 4-year-term representatives have more incentives to be than business do. 7- not enough of a justification to jump for the gun.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote: For others else it wouldn't necessarily be so great though. There would be no more free libraries and those without enough money for healthcare would be dying in the streets. 5 year-olds from poor backgrounds would be putting in 14-hour days in sweat shops until they drop dead. Workers could try to go on strike to get some rights but risk being slaughtered by the private armies of the billionaires they work for.
Who pays today for the "free libraries" and how, and why do you think such a system delivers libraries best than a free market does? What are the incentives? How isn't the central planner not intellectually handicapped to provide the service as compared to a thousand other able investors? Healthcare, same questions. Sweat shops, same questions. (also http://mises.org/media/1160 )
And the idea that it is cost-efficient to have a private army of your own to enslave a small group of people is laughable, especially when today the corporations can lobby the government for a thousandth of the cost to do it for them. The answer isn't abolishing wealth, it is abolishing coercion of all types.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote: All you would be doing by abolishing government is creating a vacuum of power that has to be filled. Once the billionaires become powerful enough society would basically revert to being a feudal serfdom until the serfs have had enough and finally rebel and bring back a some form of democratic government.
The answer isn't abolishing wealth, it is abolishing coercion of all types. Everyone is entitled to wealth (power) because everyone is entitled to their fruits of their labor. If you deny that right to anyone, for arbitrary reasons, then everyone is equally at risk of being robbed. Everyone will be equally poor, because no one can invest in higher order capital while having their returns be duly theirs respectfully.
The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
On August 31 2010 17:40 tomatriedes wrote: Yes, this is speculation but so it's also speculation when the libertatians/ ancaps/ whatever try to tell us that without any government and with corporations in total control the world would be some kind of utopia.
Corporations in control of what they duly own aren't a threat. Corporations in control of everything by government proxy is. Without the subsidized army of thugs, paid for by the slaves themselves, it is hardly possible to even raise the funds needed for such venture, let alone profit from it.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state.
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
Seriously what is it with your hang up on this? I know you think you're being really clever here, but you're just being really annoying.
I think the "hang up" results from the special pleading which you and Yurebis constantly show. You equate the state with coercion and say the fact that you can simply move to another country with different terms is somehow invalid, because all states are illegitimate. But at the same time, in an anarcho-capitalistic society, where all land is owned by other people/companies, whenever I want to "rent" a space of living somewhere, then this constitutes a valid choice, since if I don't want to move to the land of somebody, I just go to somebody else. But what if none of the offered terms are acceptable to me? Well, then it's my (or Yurebis famous "nobody's") fault and I can at least chose to die ... the fact that none of the terms that different states have to offer are acceptable to you, however, is the states' fault ... this does not compute.
Sure it's coercion. The claim by the state to own or be entitled to control all land is as ridiculous as the feudal lord's. It has no property theory behind it, it is just an empty claim backed by power (coercive power, mind you) and a feel good democracy sentiment.
The difference between the state and a company which build a whole city by itself - roads, buildings, wires, pipes, sewage, electricty, water, all social services needed, etc. - is that the company has a claim for everything in it, because it had funded all of it. I doubt such adventure would even be feasible for one company alone, as diseconomies of scale could apply for such a massive "central planning" adventure, even if it's voluntary. Past the supply issue, I don't know if it would draw many people to it, as indeed, it would be kind of scary, but if people want to move in it, by all means go ahead. I think they'll still have support from the outside with some contractual clauses saying so, so even if suddenly the cops close all exists and make them slaves somehow, I doubt that they wouldn't be able to call for help from the outside, and if such scheme would even be profitable as people wouldn't work as well at the barrel of a gun.
In sum, the idea of corporations somehow coming to own an entire city even, is way too iffy, and doubtfully profitable even if it does succeed.
..But now I realized this was somewhat of a strawman so... okay, don't say anything. I'll just leave that there.
Also it's doubtful hundreds of landlords would all be colluding to explore the people, for reasons that I already exposed on how collusion is extremely unlikely in any circumstance where there are either competitors or the ability of other entrepreneurs to enter the market unhindered. All entrepreneurs knowdgeable of the business (don't even have to be actually competing, because they can enter when such profit margin arises), can't all be: -be willing to voluntarily collude for profit. -be willing to not cheat on the collusion for profit.
This is the third time I write this. Ohmygawd. Collusions can only work when the companies are already close to the market price anyway. Any higher, and there's profit opportunities from both outside entrepreneurs to come in, and colluding members to cheat.
On August 31 2010 11:41 jgad wrote: If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient.
:D
If there is one thing I've learned as somebody who doesn't give a fuck, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. They're too stuck-up for it. Until they realize that they're never, ever going to see their utopia, it won't happen--like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument that you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to grow up first. They're not there yet. I'm being patient.
For what it's worth, there's no rational argument to quit heroin either if you don't allow "human nature".
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society?
Since the term "civil" as in "within the state" has no meaning in an anarcho-capitalist framework, you don't. Just the same, it's not like we've had success stopping wars in any other political framework either. Anarcho-capitalism is different from many ideologies in that it does not profess to bring a utopian society. It does not promise things like democracy or communism have tried to do - it simply is what it is. An application of formal logic leads to the conclusion that it is more efficient than other governmental systems, however, so there is good reason to believe that sum prosperity would be higher and grow more quickly than in other forms of societal organisation. Just the same, there will always be a need for defensive uses of force and there will always be those who would seek to use force to make their ends.
Insurance companies would most likely be one of many key players, for example. Legitimate businessmenn would, as they do now, want to always mitigate risk in as many ways as possible. The role of the insurance company would be more important in such a society. Your access to collectives of protection - private defense agengies or insurance companies, would no doubt be proportional to the risk you brought to them. Criminals and other people with dangerous or aggressive histories would either be outright denied or priced out of the market - those wishing to do straight up honourable and legitimate business, however, according to the tenets of non-aggression and non-coercion, would pool their resources in such defensive and insurance companies. As much as an accident in a car raises your interest rates, so would criminal behaviour raise your rates for defensive services. What police force would have you as a client if you were the sort to go looking for trouble? Thus, for anyone who wished to have the protection and security of a defensive company they would also have to be low-risk people - good people, like most of us are. Financial considerations would be enough to keep most people from considering crime. You would lose everything - make yourself an easy victim of other criminals once you lost your purchased protections.
For the rest, you might argue that they could organise into an evil collective of organised criminals, but with no state and no laws against any sort of commerce - drugs, prostitution, whatever - there would be no natural business by which such a group could make money to sustain themselves. The black market provides funds for organised crime in the present, but only because the state allows them a force monopoly on the profits from those industries - by necessarily shutting out legitimate businesses from participating.
Any organised crime in an anarcho-capitalist world would have to seek funds on the open market just like anyone else. To make profits they would have to be competitive and to be competitive means to cut your costs. Maintaining an aggressive disposition means you are always incurring extra costs, either outsourced by higher fees to your defensive companies or absorbed internally through higher costs for weapons and protection, guards, etc. This would make your business revenues low, your margins thin, and such businesses would naturally starve for money to more agreeable companies.
You can expand this reasoning to any scale, really. Consider that the citizens of Saskachewan and Montana live in a state of anarchy with respect to each other. They each subscribe, by force, of course, to the defensive services provided by their respective states - this inclusive of a separate system of courts, police, and prisons. But still they can happily live next to each other and trade freely without great incident. If one citizen or the other commits a crime there are ways in which both systems of justice cooperate to deal with the situation. So if Saskachewan and Montana can live in a state of anarchy with respect to each other, why not citizens of different cities - or people within the same city. Why not shop for your defensive provider in the same way you shop for insurance or a car? Certainly it's not a change which can realistically happen overnight. Revolution always causes serious short-term problems and so this route would not be the ideal. Slow change is always preferable but there is no reason that this slow change cannot be in a direction which ultimately does away with things like borders and nation-states and coercive militaries and other such things.
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
I'm not sure I understand where he gets this idea of a "court" in anarcho-capitalism.
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for?
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism.
Anarcho-capitalism can have courts. All you need is a neutral arbitrator and a set of jurisprudence. There are government courts, religious courts, arbitration courts. It doesn't preclude secular courts. Many unions have their own private system. The only thing that is necessary is that all parties have to agree on which court.
But I see anarchy as an unstable system. Mostly because I'm not all that confident in mankind's ethical foundation. The primary purpose of government is governance, providing a moral anchor for society such that right and wrong and shades of gray can be decided. If society had a stable and largely uniform and sound ethical foundation, then anarchy would be a stable phenomenon.
But mankind has not developed a good set of ethics, yet, and it shows in activities of government around the world. In claiming the distinction of being the sole arbiter of morality, it enables the controllers of government to sanction rape and pillaging through violence as such was the way of the Romans or sanction stealing and wealth transfers as is the way of social democracies. While some may justify wealth transfers of the modern social democracy as goodwill and generosity of the fortunate, it's better characterize as sloth and greed of those on the receiving end. Those on the giving end are given no choice, and those on the receiving demagogue how they deserve the pay off.
While anarch-capitalism might be possible, the people of the world have generally deserved the government given to them. But to be more precise, the people given the government and the people deserving the government are different. The parents deserve the government. Their children are given that government. Only that is unfair.
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism.
I have this same problem talking to socialists. They think that just because socialism has failed and is failing everywhere it's implemented, it doesn't matter because it just hasn't been done "the right way" yet.
Realism never gets its proper place in political discussions, it seems.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors.
Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront.
Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is?
Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did.
If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then...
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for.
Nope. Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing.
And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources.
(Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7. The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL) But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals. How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified.
That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP)
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project?
Yes. And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with your argument on human nature; that if there is a will there is a way. While I do agree with it, I think you are leaving out the flip side of things, which is that laziness rubs out of the same as hard work ethic and going "above and beyond" rubs of on each other.
I'm guessing you've never had a shitty job before. By shitty job I don't mean the job itself but I mean that your fellow co-workers don't pull their share or at the very least, don't work up to their full potential. People then measure to themselves, is busting my ass to advance or possibly be promoted worth it if I have to pick up for the slack or work harder than everyone around me?
Does this sound like poor work ethic? Possibly but sometimes it's the reality of human nature. People aren't going exhaust themselves both physically or mentally unless it's necessary to create well-being and happiness for themselves. Whether they have a strong passion for what they do or they enjoy the capital gained from their hard work or they just need to make a living to survive.
Now I don't deny that it's possible , individuals such as scientists and engineers could collaborate their efforts to create the technological and military advances needed to thwart outside aggression (I don't believe it would be as quick and proactive as one guided be a government controlled effort). The real problem comes from funding such an expenditure. Corporations and companies who's monies were needed to protect their country and fund technological research would be forced judge themselves on how much to spend. If some companies did not understand the urgency of the situation they may feel reluctant to put forth resources. The more companies who refused to donate to the cause, the more companies would say; why should I jeopardize sacrificing our competitive gain over other companies by seemingly putting ourselves behind them financially by giving money away?
I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote: I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
I don't quite understand this idea. During World War II, the management of the war was run like a corporate dictatorship. The people of the US clearly did not have to vote on the Manhattan project. It was funded under the umbrella effort of war. The form of governance has no relation with the operation of war.
If you are thinking of peace time projects like the Apollo program, then all you need is a bunch of geeky scientists and someone with lots of funding. Apollo program probably wouldn't have happened though. It didn't accomplish nearly enough for its costs. The space program might still have been done in different form though. Without congressional approval for funding, you wouldn't need the boondoggle of constructing the space shuttle in over ten different states.
Actually, that's more like anarcho-communism or anarcho-syndicalism. Anarcho-capitalism retains all private functions that exist today, and creates new ones where the state didn't allow competition for.
You have to define your ideology. Clearly please. You can't just go rambling random things as it does not make sense. Since I pulled the definition from wikipedia, and you are saying it is incorrect. Explain yourself more clearly than what you just put there.
No, the wikipedia version is good. Sorry, I should have closed the quotes where it mattered I was answering to this by you: I'm imagining some hippie idea where everyone pitches in for the defense of the community. In regards to warlords taking over, there is no reason why the defense agencies that we already pay today can't keep being paid voluntarily if they deem to be necessary. It would probably be even better of course, because we (the people who want to pay for it) would be paying the market price, not a coercive monopolist price, which is the one overpriced today.
On August 31 2010 11:12 Sultan.P wrote:
The cops as they are today could very well just be privatized, and if they're efficient enough that no demand for competition arises, then it could be exactly the same as is. The multi-trillion military industrial complex would probably be liquidated, but that's not to say people can't organize and hire mercenaries or armies with their own money. If an invasion from a foreign power is imminent, then I don't see why people wouldn't be up to it, just like people voluntarily join the army in times of distress. No drafts would be legal of course, as that's just slavery.
When I read this, all I could think about how I hope I'm not wasting my time in this tread, as I enjoy a good exchange of ideas. My argument addresses something completely different then what you are talking about. I am saying that the theory fails because the person that would end up calling the shots would be the most ruthless and blood thirsty "mercenary," or whatever you want to call it. Your response addresses nothing of what I am talking about. How can you quote my argument and just write random things that make no sense to what I am talking about. Multi-trillion military industrial complex? Draft is slavery? Stay on point man!
Well, there are several reasons why this wouldn't happen. First of all, who would pay him, for how much, and how much do you think he could make by savaging ancap land? This of course depends on the strength that the free marketeers have in defending themselves. In a reactionary way
1- Mercenaries are a minority. 2- Mercenaries are in town, killing and looting. 3- Demand for defense increases as the mercenaries are clearly seen as unjustified, and people notice they would be better off without them. 4- Defense will be bought, as soon as possible, to stop the mercenaries.
And in a pro-active way
1-Mercenaries are an increasingly possible threat 2-Demand for defense increases 3-Defense will be bought, as much as people evaluate the safety is worth
Although I was extremely critical of your posts early in this thread, I must admit you take many of these criticisms rather reasonably. However in this specific post I think you are underestimating the amount of organization and resources that are needed to defend a country from outside aggressors.
Are you implying generals of a subsidized, socialized, and monopolized army are more competent than private militias? I reject upfront.
Even if there eventually can be a good general, and even if you discount for the inflexibility of adjustments in the hierarchy due to traditionalism, a monopolized army is still denying the rest of the entire population the ability to compete with it if an entrepreneur wished to invest and demonstrate he could do a better job for the customers.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Do you think that in world war 2 era united states, an anarcho-capitalist society would be able to collaborate their effects on a project of the proportion to lets say, the Manhattan project? People aren't battling and looting in towns with shotguns and pistols during a war anymore. Countries have entire airforces and weapons capable of instantly destroying a city in a split second. Do you really think an anarcho-capitalist society would be pro active enough to be able to deal with such a threat? Are there going to be groups willing enough to dedicate trillions of dollars along with years of some of the hardest, most technologically advanced man labor there is?
Yes. To think otherwise, is to say the central planners have a more adaptive, reactive intelligence, than all free society combined. They do not, for the multitude of reasons I keep exposing. You may feel that it is not the case now, when the government suppresses military intelligence efforts coming from private entities, and coercively monopolizes that market, but that is not to say that if government stopped, example again, taking peoples farms and making bread, that they aren't able to use those farms they had and make bread themselves - and even better than the government did.
If there is a demand for military weaponry, espionage, then...
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: An anarcho-capitalist society fuels itself on the production of capital. Sure a war can actually improve the economy; WW II put enough people to work to get us out of a depression. Now things have changed a lot since the 40's and as military technology has advanced, the cost for maintaining a pro-active armed force has increased dramatically. The arms race forced us to dedicate trillions of dollars to keeping an arsenal of ready-to-go weapons in surplus. Keeping an armed force up to par with today's technological standards is a giagantic vaccum of capitial, essentially going against everything the ano-cap theory stands for.
Nope. Dragging an unemployed man to war is no different than paying a bum to break windows. It's not a sustainable economical activity, because it does not increases wealth for both sides. It's stealing.
And it is arguable whether one needs to have tanks and jets at his disposal all the time. Many countries do not, and they're not constantly invaded, for one. The answer the free market gives is that if you want it, then go and get it, don't force other people to go with you. If you are correct, and people are going to die and lose everything if they don't chip in, then there are many venues on which you can convince them without having to coerce them. I reject coercion a-priori as the best solution. Jumping the gun.
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: Now before I sound like some war-hungry idiot, I'll agree with you before you even have to say it; we waste a lot of money on a military budget. I'll go as far as to say this is probably the single most wasteful part of our countries finances besides maybe our health care system (lol I can see you shaking your head as you read this right now). Regardless, townspeople becoming up in arms against a country with fighter jets raining missiles down on our cities from miles in the sky is not going to cut it. Simply not enough organization and resources.
(Military) Power isn't everything, perception is. Popularity, reputation. Those things enable you to enslave man more easily, and more efficiently, than a gun to his face 24/7. The US, with all its jets, nukes, tanks, has zero colonies under its control. (at least that I know of LOL) But it has under its command an army of 300 million of the most talented and working individuals. How? Because they see it's coercion over them as justified.
That's a hidden weapon much more dangerous and deterrent than any amount of nukes, one that I'm trying to expose. (under property rights theory+NAP)
On August 31 2010 13:18 kidcrash wrote: So I want you to at least answer one question directly and with an explanation if you could please. Do you think an anarcho-capitalist society could band together in WW II era USA, to create something on the scale of the Manhattan Project?
Yes. And in the case there's not enough demand, then no, but then it doesn't mean it should be done anyway.
I'm not sure I agree with your argument on human nature; that if there is a will there is a way. While I do agree with it, I think you are leaving out the flip side of things, which is that laziness rubs out of the same as hard work ethic and going "above and beyond" rubs of on each other.
Not an argument entirely on human nature (past the man will do what man wants to do), more of an argument of exchange, and micro-economics.
Man wants to be lazy to the extent that his other wishes are fulfilled. One that prioritizes lazyness over all other courses of action, will do nothing, not even eat, chew, or drink, and will die. Hardly an accurate depiction of human nature to say "man is lazy period" - there is a reason to be lazy, even if strictly biological or unconsciously.
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote: I'm guessing you've never had a shitty job before. By shitty job I don't mean the job itself but I mean that your fellow co-workers don't pull their share or at the very least, don't work up to their full potential. People then measure to themselves, is busting my ass to advance or possibly be promoted worth it if I have to pick up for the slack or work harder than everyone around me?
Does this sound like poor work ethic? Possibly but sometimes it's the reality of human nature. People aren't going exhaust themselves both physically or mentally unless it's necessary to create well-being and happiness for themselves. Whether they have a strong passion for what they do or they enjoy the capital gained from their hard work or they just need to make a living to survive.
A shitty job that one takes is still the best shitty job available for him. It will be worth for him if the cost-benefit is the best there is. And it's hardly poor work ethic when everyone does it. Poor compared to what? Altruistic and intelligent rulers that have never existed?
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote: Now I don't deny that it's possible , individuals such as scientists and engineers could collaborate their efforts to create the technological and military advances needed to thwart outside aggression (I don't believe it would be as quick and proactive as one guided be a government controlled effort). The real problem comes from funding such an expenditure. Corporations and companies who's monies were needed to protect their country and fund technological research would be forced judge themselves on how much to spend. If some companies did not understand the urgency of the situation they may feel reluctant to put forth resources. The more companies who refused to donate to the cause, the more companies would say; why should I jeopardize sacrificing our competitive gain over other companies by seemingly putting ourselves behind them financially by giving money away?
It is not a consideration of corporations - indeed they have no incentive to service or produce that which isn't paid to do. It is a consideration of the consumers, to evaluate the risks and seek to ease those worries. Just as you seek to ease your worries through the coercive state, people can seek to ease their worries through many voluntary means, which I argue are always more efficient, for it comes not at the cost of increasing someone else's dissatisfaction.
On September 01 2010 08:42 kidcrash wrote: I believe that if an anarcho-capitalist society were in need of putting together a collective effort the size of scale of the Manhattan project, the project would be delayed months if not years before the completion of the it (as compared to how fast the actual project was finished), due to the procrastination of companies donating money to protect their country. I could honestly say World War II would have gone of for another 2-3 years in the eastern front due to our unpreparedness to and lack of organization.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
On August 31 2010 11:41 jgad wrote: If there is one thing I've learned as an anarcho-capitalist, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. Society is not ready for it. Until states fall apart under their own weight it won't happen - like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to hit rock bottom first. We're not there yet. I'm being patient.
:D
If there is one thing I've learned as somebody who doesn't give a fuck, it's that it's not worth debating with other people about anarcho-capitalism. They're too stuck-up for it. Until they realize that they're never, ever going to see their utopia, it won't happen--like asking an addict to quit heroin. There is no rational argument that you can make that will make them change their mind. They just have to grow up first. They're not there yet. I'm being patient.
For what it's worth, there's no rational argument to quit heroin either if you don't allow "human nature".
I'm stuck up for saying central planners can't possibly plan society better than society itself? I think those who say they can are the stuck-ups. “The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design.” - Hayek
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: [ The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state.
coercion can indeed be profitable... see raiding in the Middle Ages... paying tribute to the raiding parties (ie being subject to coercion) is more profitable.
"millions for defense, and not one cent in tribute" is not profitable... and most people won't agree with it.
The only reason to not just pay tribute/tax is because you believe that the taxer will just charge you more and more.
So instead of focusing on eliminating coercion, people and organizations have been spending years trying to figure out how to design a society where the minimum tribute paid to the 'coercer' (the state) will win them the most freedom from Other forms of coercion (crime, invasion from other states) as well as allowing themselves to benefit from the coercion (welfare, slavery, etc.)
A culture that hated coercion might last... but that culture would eventually fade and disappear and coercion would start up again. And that society would have rejected the coercive means for that state to work
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for?
ok thanks, i read the link you gave but i still dont fully understand how this will work. from what i understand, every man can subscribe to a court of his choice, based on his interests. so optimally each man will subscribe to a court that represents his moral values. so far so good. now what i dont understand is what happens when a man from court A charges a person that is subscribed to court B. each man is certain that he is right, since he followed his moral values that are represented by the court he is subscribed to.. in your link they mention an Appeal Court. but this doesnt really solve this situation since we return to the original problem: how do we decide which Appeal Court will judge this case? like before, each man can favor a different appeal court that follows different moral values.
On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote: If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you.
Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
Are you not the monopoly of yourself? You're the only one who can offer the exact actions and labor you provide. You don't see this argument made much because there are arbitrary boundaries in what constitutes "the only provider of a service or product", that is, anything could be a "service or product", and if you don't differentiate what makes a series of products the same product, then every single product is unique - every single owner of a product, and provider of it, is a monopolist.
Therefore, there has to be additional definition into what constitutes an unique product or service. And that necessarily has to arbitrarily exclude out the types of products you don't have a problem with being monopolized, or more simply, exclusively controlled. It's ok to monopolize yourself. It's ok to monopolize the exact brand one sells. The inventions one is given patent by the government. The material given copyright by the government.
It's only not ok, when the government deems it's not ok. Soooo, an interventionist might as well define monopoly as "the private property which the government deems unlawful".
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote: From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
On September 01 2010 08:37 TanGeng wrote: Anarcho-capitalism can have courts. All you need is a neutral arbitrator and a set of jurisprudence. There are government courts, religious courts, arbitration courts. It doesn't preclude secular courts. Many unions have their own private system. The only thing that is necessary is that all parties have to agree on which court.
But I see anarchy as an unstable system. Mostly because I'm not all that confident in mankind's ethical foundation. The primary purpose of government is governance, providing a moral anchor for society such that right and wrong and shades of gray can be decided. If society had a stable and largely uniform and sound ethical foundation, then anarchy would be a stable phenomenon.
But mankind has not developed a good set of ethics, yet, and it shows in activities of government around the world. In claiming the distinction of being the sole arbiter of morality, it enables the controllers of government to sanction rape and pillaging through violence as such was the way of the Romans or sanction stealing and wealth transfers as is the way of social democracies. While some may justify wealth transfers of the modern social democracy as goodwill and generosity of the fortunate, it's better characterize as sloth and greed of those on the receiving end. Those on the giving end are given no choice, and those on the receiving demagogue how they deserve the pay off.
While anarch-capitalism might be possible, the people of the world have generally deserved the government given to them. But to be more precise, the people given the government and the people deserving the government are different. The parents deserve the government. Their children are given that government. Only that is unfair.
Contrary to popular thought, the state does not create morality, it does not give to man laws. Morality and law can arise spontaneously, and are demanded spontaneously by those who prefer to settle disputes non-violently. The state of today responds that demand, and formalizes that which man already felt right.
The laws that the state writes do not come from nowhere; the legislator has to have thunk up those silly words that command man to do things from somewhere, even if from within himself. The legislator is no god, he is a man. And like man, he has moral sentiments, and has an idea on how to make things just. Law is a guide for conflict resolution, not something that necessarily has to be preemptively shoved down people's throats - that part, is coercive.
If man has not thought up a good set of ethics, two things follow: that the state hasn't either, and that there is a demand for something better. Then how do you propose such ethics to be reached at? By coercion, or by freedom?
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote: From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
So you'd rather have violent takeovers every time someone decides they want control over a resource enough to fight for it?
Under the articles, a few of the new states almost went to war with each other over economic interests and the totally impotent federal government couldn't do a thing about it. You don't think similar scenarios would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world, but with different sides basically buying security firms and squaring them off against each other like mercenaries?
On August 31 2010 17:04 Tuneful wrote: Chiming in to say that further discussion isn't going to lead to anything actionable, as we've already strayed far away from empiricism, scholarship, and on the whole, reality.
Applicability to reality has never been the strong point of anarcho-anything, but that doesn't stop its legions of adherents from singing its praises to high heaven regardless.
The slave apologist could have said the same thing about abolitionists, in their time. Does it make them right? Appeals to tradition in the thread = I lost the count.
I wouldn't call it an appeal to tradition, more like an appeal to realism.
I have this same problem talking to socialists. They think that just because socialism has failed and is failing everywhere it's implemented, it doesn't matter because it just hasn't been done "the right way" yet.
Realism never gets its proper place in political discussions, it seems.
So do statists... Try to apply the arguments you use against others unto yourself. It's something I do a lot, and I feel has helped me become a little more consistent.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
On September 01 2010 09:34 Yurebis wrote: Contrary to popular thought, the state does not create morality, it does not give to man laws. Morality and law can arise spontaneously, and are demanded spontaneously by those who prefer to settle disputes non-violently. The state of today responds that demand, and formalizes that which man already felt right.
State claims to be the sole definition of morality. This is its defining characteristic. Everything else is merely coordination of resources, bureaucracy, management, and operational details.
By being able to define morality, governments are a combination of governance (morality and rule of law) and pillage (stealing, killing, corruption, and wealth transfers).
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: [ The focus on how much a man has produces is a total red-herring to what he truly does wrong. Coercion, coercion, coercion. And the state is the greatest coercer of all.
Coercion is only really "profitable" when it's not seen as coercion. See state.
coercion can indeed be profitable... see raiding in the Middle Ages... paying tribute to the raiding parties (ie being subject to coercion) is more profitable.
"millions for defense, and not one cent in tribute" is not profitable... and most people won't agree with it.
The only reason to not just pay tribute/tax is because you believe that the taxer will just charge you more and more.
So instead of focusing on eliminating coercion, people and organizations have been spending years trying to figure out how to design a society where the minimum tribute paid to the 'coercer' (the state) will win them the most freedom from Other forms of coercion (crime, invasion from other states) as well as allowing themselves to benefit from the coercion (welfare, slavery, etc.)
A culture that hated coercion might last... but that culture would eventually fade and disappear and coercion would start up again. And that society would have rejected the coercive means for that state to work
Okay, this is something I have a problem with myself. I say coercion is not profitable, and by that I invoke the Parable of the broken window, with which I mean to say, it may be profitable for the coercer, of course, he expects it to be profitable and he sometimes is; however, it is a losing game because the victim does not, and the victim will increasingly seek to stop the coercer. And then, even if the victim isn't able to stop the coercer, what happens is that they are both driven instinct, once the coercer has leeched off the victim, and has no one else to steal from.
So what I generally mean with "coercion isn't profitable", is that it is an unsustainable, short-profit, high-risk endeavor. Coercers leech off cooperativeness, and they may not leech enough that the victim dies, and I think that's exactly what the end of politics in a historical scope is, to know how to leech as much as it doesn't ruin your own civilization, yet still lets society prosper enough so the coercer can prosper too.
With that scope explained, I feel exactly the opposite as you do - once a less-coercive society is matured, all other more-coercive societies are increasingly also more obsolete, for they won't accumulate capital as fast. Defense is somewhat of an issue, yes, but less-coercive societies can top the more-coercive ones, and the un-coercive will top them all if allowed to mature.
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for?
ok thanks, i read the link you gave but i still dont fully understand how this will work. from what i understand, every man can subscribe to a court of his choice, based on his interests. so optimally each man will subscribe to a court that represents his moral values. so far so good. now what i dont understand is what happens when a man from court A charges a person that is subscribed to court B. each man is certain that he is right, since he followed his moral values that are represented by the court he is subscribed to.. in your link they mention an Appeal Court. but this doesnt really solve this situation since we return to the original problem: how do we decide which Appeal Court will judge this case? like before, each man can favor a different appeal court that follows different moral values.
Just as the men have agreed to even go to a court in the first place and not simply fight it out, it can be assumed that the two courts, who are professionals at dispute resolution, will manage to agree on a course of action to trial the case.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote: From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
So you'd rather have violent takeovers every time someone decides they want control over a resource enough to fight for it?
Under the articles, a few of the new states almost went to war with each other over economic interests and the totally impotent federal government couldn't do a thing about it. You don't think similar scenarios would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world, but with different sides basically buying security firms and squaring them off against each other like mercenaries?
I didn't say I prefer anything, just that the idea that a big coercive body is somewhat impossible to stop without a bigger one is demonstrably wrong.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
Large defense companies benefit from "reliability" in the economies of scale.
Large defense companies suffer from "cannibalization" in the dis economies of scale since they can threaten or destabilize its own members.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
On September 01 2010 09:34 Yurebis wrote: Contrary to popular thought, the state does not create morality, it does not give to man laws. Morality and law can arise spontaneously, and are demanded spontaneously by those who prefer to settle disputes non-violently. The state of today responds that demand, and formalizes that which man already felt right.
State claims to be the sole definition of morality. This is its defining characteristic. Everything else is merely coordination of resources, bureaucracy, management, and operational details.
By being able to define morality, governments are a combination of governance (morality and rule of law) and pillage (stealing, killing, corruption, and wealth transfers).
I don't think we have an argument.
The sole enforcer of morality, the sole legislator - the sole de-facto lawmaker, but it isn't the sole provider of morality. That's as valid as saying the pope is the sole provider of faith.
And no, it's semantics. But you're wrong. Lol. jk.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
Large defense companies benefit from "reliability" in the economies of scale.
Large defense companies suffer from "cannibalization" in the dis economies of scale since they can threaten or destabilize its own members.
can you elaborate on how customers are threatened or destabilized?
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote: From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
So you'd rather have violent takeovers every time someone decides they want control over a resource enough to fight for it?
Under the articles, a few of the new states almost went to war with each other over economic interests and the totally impotent federal government couldn't do a thing about it. You don't think similar scenarios would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world, but with different sides basically buying security firms and squaring them off against each other like mercenaries?
I didn't say I prefer anything, just that the idea that a big coercive body is somewhat impossible to stop without a bigger one is demonstrably wrong.
Well you still haven't answered my question. I propose civil war (ignoring the sketchy semantics of using the word civil) as a reason why anarcho-capitalism will not work. When defense and civility are enforced by mercenaries, people will use those mercenaries to fight each other.
Arguing that state governments can and have been overthrown by violent revolution merely demonstrates a problem with other forms of government. It does nothing to propose a solution to this problem for yours.
On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote: If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you.
Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
Are you not the monopoly of yourself? You're the only one who can offer the exact actions and labor you provide. You don't see this argument made much because there are arbitrary boundaries in what constitutes "the only provider of a service or product", that is, anything could be a "service or product", and if you don't differentiate what makes a series of products the same product, then every single product is unique - every single owner of a product, and provider of it, is a monopolist.
Therefore, there has to be additional definition into what constitutes an unique product or service. And that necessarily has to arbitrarily exclude out the types of products you don't have a problem with being monopolized, or more simply, exclusively controlled. It's ok to monopolize yourself. It's ok to monopolize the exact brand one sells. The inventions one is given patent by the government. The material given copyright by the government.
It's only not ok, when the government deems it's not ok. Soooo, an interventionist might as well define monopoly as "the private property which the government deems unlawful".
i am not sure i agree with this... as far as economics go, i think you can define monopoly as the control of a single corporation over any group of products in such a way that prevents competition. and of course when there is no competition, the corporation can put any price it wants on those products, instead of letting the supply and demand determine those prices. do you not see that as a problem? the free market is based on supply and demand, and supply and demand are based on the assumption that several products can be similar (therefor, supply). when there is only one copy of a certain product (some man's body. the original mona-lisa. etc) there is nothing that you can do about it.. this product cant be duplicated any way, and its supply will not increase if we make it public. so the whole talk of monopoly in this situation is meaningless. but when a company can produce a certain item but is not willing to allow others to produce it because it will hurt its profits, then there is a monopoly.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
Just a few I can think of...
those are dealing with small criminals. when a PDA is defending you from attacks on a much larger scale... i'm going to an extreme here, but a PDA with ballistic missile defense and launches satellites for an advanced warning system is a much nicer product to have than a few police officers.
again, there is nothing intrinsic about a PDA that says there will be 10,000 competing PDAs and nothing about economies or diseconomies of scale that say there will be 1 or 10000. I'm sorry about using PDAs because this really applies to all industries. Pretend an oil monopoly gets established...and then the oil company decides to start its own PDA since all the PDAs are too small to meet its needs.
On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote: If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you.
Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
Are you not the monopoly of yourself? You're the only one who can offer the exact actions and labor you provide. You don't see this argument made much because there are arbitrary boundaries in what constitutes "the only provider of a service or product", that is, anything could be a "service or product", and if you don't differentiate what makes a series of products the same product, then every single product is unique - every single owner of a product, and provider of it, is a monopolist.
Therefore, there has to be additional definition into what constitutes an unique product or service. And that necessarily has to arbitrarily exclude out the types of products you don't have a problem with being monopolized, or more simply, exclusively controlled. It's ok to monopolize yourself. It's ok to monopolize the exact brand one sells. The inventions one is given patent by the government. The material given copyright by the government.
It's only not ok, when the government deems it's not ok. Soooo, an interventionist might as well define monopoly as "the private property which the government deems unlawful".
i am not sure i agree with this... as far as economics go, i think you can define monopoly as the control of a single corporation over any group of products in such a way that prevents competition. and of course when there is no competition, the corporation can put any price it wants on those products, instead of letting the supply and demand determine those prices. do you not see that as a problem? the free market is based on supply and demand, and supply and demand are based on the assumption that several products can be similar (therefor, supply). when there is only one copy of a certain product (some man's body. the original mona-lisa. etc) there is nothing that you can do about it.. this product cant be duplicated any way, and its supply will not increase if we make it public. so the whole talk of monopoly in this situation is meaningless. but when a company can produce a certain item but is not willing to allow others to produce it because it will hurt its profits, then there is a monopoly.
Monopoly is, by definition, impossible in a free market - at least as regards one which exploits what you are describing as the "monopoly price". No example of a true monopoly exists which was not directly or indirectly the product of government intervention.
If you prefer reading and are interested in an academic exploration of the subject I would suggest reading Man Economy and State :
Book Link Chapter 10 - Monopoly and Competition in particular : Section 3 - The Illusion of Monopoly Price
If you prefer moving pictures and lectures, I offer the following (1h:22m): + Show Spoiler +
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
On September 01 2010 06:56 Yurebis wrote: If it can't be owned, because it isn't homesteadable, it still can be taken to court, ostracized against, public outrage, boycott... many many ways, again, before using the gun.
this is something i dont really understand about anarcho-capitalism.. this court you are talking about, how does it enforce his decisions if not by the gun?
Anarcho-capitalism is predicated on natural law - the *initiation* of force is bad but defensive use of it is not. The reputation of the court would be its driving force. A court could only survive if it managed to retain clients. It would only retain clients if they felt it acted in their best interest. A court which passed unfair judgement would invite conflict from the judicial system of the defendant. This would incur extra costs and increase prices for their other, presumably legitimate subscribers. Increased costs would lose them business. Just the same, a court which failed to prosecute a legitimate criminal would also lose the confidence of its subscribers. They would want to know that their justice system would as much protect them from wrongful prosecution as it would prosecute those who had truly committed crimes. The natural driving forces would push competing defensive and judicial systems to be as fair and objective as possible. If you had a choice, what characteristics would you seek from a police and court service which you would pay money for?
ok thanks, i read the link you gave but i still dont fully understand how this will work. from what i understand, every man can subscribe to a court of his choice, based on his interests. so optimally each man will subscribe to a court that represents his moral values. so far so good. now what i dont understand is what happens when a man from court A charges a person that is subscribed to court B. each man is certain that he is right, since he followed his moral values that are represented by the court he is subscribed to.. in your link they mention an Appeal Court. but this doesnt really solve this situation since we return to the original problem: how do we decide which Appeal Court will judge this case? like before, each man can favor a different appeal court that follows different moral values.
Yes, but the man whose moral values require him to impose his will upon the free actions of other men will necessarily incur more conflicts than other men. By this virtue alone, a system of justice which defends purely those actions which are defensible by natural law - the principle of non-aggression - will have the least number of things to defend and will therefore be the least costly of all courts to subscribe to. In short, it will always be more expensive to impose your values on other rather than to simply embrace the fundamental principles of non-aggression. While you would always be free to fund such actions, it would ultimately be self defeating. These people would necessarily devote more of their money and effort into defending their own aggressive actions than those who chose to not be aggressive.
In short, they would be no different than a government which attempted to impose morality upon you by law - a force to be reckoned with, but one with the critical feature of NOT having a monopoly on the defensive and judicial services of the state. In a democracy, should they be in the majority, they would have total dictatorial control. In an anarchist society they would only have proportional contol. Always less bad than democracy unless you find yourself in the majority and craving the power granted by a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. In that case, all I can say is - tough shit. It's better that a majority can have only partial power instead of absolute power.
On September 01 2010 07:35 Biochemist wrote: From reading the wikipedia page on anarcho-capitalism, functionally it seems like it's pretty close to what the US had for the first hundred years or so (and especially under the articles of confederation).
Obviously the big difference is small state government vs no state government, but as far as the economics go it felt like I was reading a history book.
From this perspective: how do you prevent civil war in an anarcho-capitalist society? History has taught us that where money and competition are involved, people will fight to the bloody death over it unless someone bigger steps in and makes them stop.
If you deem necessary, that to topple a coercive body, a bigger coercive body needs to fight it, then how do you explain this?
So you'd rather have violent takeovers every time someone decides they want control over a resource enough to fight for it?
Under the articles, a few of the new states almost went to war with each other over economic interests and the totally impotent federal government couldn't do a thing about it. You don't think similar scenarios would happen in an anarcho-capitalist world, but with different sides basically buying security firms and squaring them off against each other like mercenaries?
I didn't say I prefer anything, just that the idea that a big coercive body is somewhat impossible to stop without a bigger one is demonstrably wrong.
Well you still haven't answered my question. I propose civil war (ignoring the sketchy semantics of using the word civil) as a reason why anarcho-capitalism will not work. When defense and civility are enforced by mercenaries, people will use those mercenaries to fight each other.
Arguing that state governments can and have been overthrown by violent revolution merely demonstrates a problem with other forms of government. It does nothing to propose a solution to this problem for yours.
Oh, ok. I'm sorry for misinterpreting.
Welp. There is nothing particularly 100% stopping anyone from doing anything, so I'd just like to turn the question into the proper "what deters" people from initiating force.
Few things... "you" being the mercenary group - tactical defensive advantage, makes offensive generally more costly - unpopularity ensued from you being ruled an aggressor, making yourself not defendable in the very own courts that ruled you to be an outlaw (lol why do you care). You shoud care, because that means no going back to civility. You and your employees are all outlaws, and your lives are as short as your current capital allows you to live. - your employees have a great incentive to just take their guns and leave, sell off your stuff on the market and make due with the courts, unless they're psychopaths in which case they probably enjoy killing people anyway. But psychopaths are very few, and it would be unlikely that you were fortunate enough to have that many in your company - Revolt by the part of those you subdue, and the ancap generation's understanding that what you do isn't cool. - In case you choose not to take hostages, meaning, just killing and ravaging every town neaby, your lives are even more at risk because message will go out and the towns around you will grow wearier and more armed, while your men and supplies shrink by the day. - Again, because you're an outlaw company with outlaw employees, bounty hunters could be hired to take you and your folks out (yes, I advocate bounty hunters to kill mass murderers like you, LOL) before you ravage any more towns. You aren't protected by anyone because you chose to swearing everyone, so you're estopped from begging mercy.
PDAs, knowing that, would most likely not do it. Some crazy rich investor could, but vis-a-vis, they could do it today even more easily, by employing the state. Iraqis being sodomized and raped by US military and contractors much? That's the go-to place for sociopaths and psychopaths.
Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[1][2] or “market anarchism”[3] or “free market anarchism”[4]) is a libertarian[5][6] and individualist anarchist[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market.
Rand Paul Personified
And who would guarantee your NAP or homesteading property rights? When I decide to come slit your throat in the middle of the night so I can live in your cottage and screw your wife, isn't that just the free market resource of my body deciding that the resource of your body would be better dead? Whatever don't bother answering. Over the government created infrastructure of the internet.
I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
On September 01 2010 06:34 Yurebis wrote: If monopolies are bad, then you have no right of your own body, as you are the monopolizer of you.
Lol holy fuck listen to yourself
Are you not the monopoly of yourself? You're the only one who can offer the exact actions and labor you provide. You don't see this argument made much because there are arbitrary boundaries in what constitutes "the only provider of a service or product", that is, anything could be a "service or product", and if you don't differentiate what makes a series of products the same product, then every single product is unique - every single owner of a product, and provider of it, is a monopolist.
Therefore, there has to be additional definition into what constitutes an unique product or service. And that necessarily has to arbitrarily exclude out the types of products you don't have a problem with being monopolized, or more simply, exclusively controlled. It's ok to monopolize yourself. It's ok to monopolize the exact brand one sells. The inventions one is given patent by the government. The material given copyright by the government.
It's only not ok, when the government deems it's not ok. Soooo, an interventionist might as well define monopoly as "the private property which the government deems unlawful".
i am not sure i agree with this... as far as economics go, i think you can define monopoly as the control of a single corporation over any group of products in such a way that prevents competition. and of course when there is no competition, the corporation can put any price it wants on those products, instead of letting the supply and demand determine those prices. do you not see that as a problem? the free market is based on supply and demand, and supply and demand are based on the assumption that several products can be similar (therefor, supply). when there is only one copy of a certain product (some man's body. the original mona-lisa. etc) there is nothing that you can do about it.. this product cant be duplicated any way, and its supply will not increase if we make it public. so the whole talk of monopoly in this situation is meaningless. but when a company can produce a certain item but is not willing to allow others to produce it because it will hurt its profits, then there is a monopoly.
Your definition of "meaningless" is arbitrary. Try defining monopoly that way then. "sole provider of a product of service that isn't a meaningless distinction"
And companies can't "disallow" others to compete. Outperforming isn't "disallowing" competition. The barriers of entry are open - only governments can close it. Or outlaw companies.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
Just a few I can think of...
those are dealing with small criminals. when a PDA is defending you from attacks on a much larger scale... i'm going to an extreme here, but a PDA with ballistic missile defense and launches satellites for an advanced warning system is a much nicer product to have than a few police officers.
again, there is nothing intrinsic about a PDA that says there will be 10,000 competing PDAs and nothing about economies or diseconomies of scale that say there will be 1 or 10000. I'm sorry about using PDAs because this really applies to all industries. Pretend an oil monopoly gets established...and then the oil company decides to start its own PDA since all the PDAs are too small to meet its needs.
Uh, how much is a missile worth, and how much crime does it deter? Even if it's cost-beneficial for having one missile, then how much benefit does the second missile give? The third? The fourth?
Diseconomies of scale are much more relevant than economies of scale, because there exists such a thing as diminishing returns. Economies of scale are almost always wrong, because resources aren't infinite, even if demand could arguiably be deemed infinite, so efficiency will always be capped on how many resources are available, and at what cost they come for.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it? It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.
#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...
On September 01 2010 10:42 nashface wrote: Anarcho-capitalism (also known as “libertarian anarchy”[1][2] or “market anarchism”[3] or “free market anarchism”[4]) is a libertarian[5][6] and individualist anarchist[7] political philosophy that advocates the elimination of the state and the elevation of the sovereign individual in a free market.
Rand Paul Personified
And who would guarantee your NAP or homesteading property rights? When I decide to come slit your throat in the middle of the night so I can live in your cottage and screw your wife, isn't that just the free market resource of my body deciding that the resource of your body would be better dead? Whatever don't bother answering. Over the government created infrastructure of the internet.
Free market by definition excludes coercive activity, so no, that isn't free market activity. Government created the internet, but only markets were able to commercialize it years later. Could I use the inventions made on russia during the communist era to justify communism too?
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
Then do it, I don't care. I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it? It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.
#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...
Serious how about this since you still can't seem to get it.
People don't believe in the Non-aggression principle.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
Just a few I can think of...
those are dealing with small criminals. when a PDA is defending you from attacks on a much larger scale... i'm going to an extreme here, but a PDA with ballistic missile defense and launches satellites for an advanced warning system is a much nicer product to have than a few police officers.
again, there is nothing intrinsic about a PDA that says there will be 10,000 competing PDAs and nothing about economies or diseconomies of scale that say there will be 1 or 10000. I'm sorry about using PDAs because this really applies to all industries. Pretend an oil monopoly gets established...and then the oil company decides to start its own PDA since all the PDAs are too small to meet its needs.
Uh, how much is a missile worth, and how much crime does it deter? Even if it's cost-beneficial for having one missile, then how much benefit does the second missile give? The third? The fourth?
Diseconomies of scale are much more relevant than economies of scale, because there exists such a thing as diminishing returns. Economies of scale are almost always wrong, because resources aren't infinite, even if demand could arguiably be deemed infinite, so efficiency will always be capped on how many resources are available, and at what cost they come for.
i think you're going off on a tangent with what ifs and focusing too much on scale and ignoring the essence of what i'm saying. i'm saying that monopolies can exist (and based on what i read anarchocapitalist say they have no problem with natural) and there's no inherent mechanism to prevent them from forming. Diseconomies of scale is not an anti-monopoly or anti-very few very big company measure. And if monopolies can exist, then monopolies in Defense exist. why would markets call for a big energy (or whatever) company (that can create a defence company) and not a big defence company?
again, saying there are diseconomies of scale does not limit the size of the company. especially since you can't say when diseconomies start happening.
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.
Yes it is ad hoc, but that doesn't make the analogy irrelevant or incorrect. See many other posts in this thread, for example the point about civil war that you are becoming very astute at ignoring.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it? It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.
#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...
Serious how about this since you still can't seem to get it.
People don't believe in the Non-aggression principle.
It's inconsistent to cry wolf if you're being aggressed then. It is inconsistent to both rape, and plead not to be raped. Kill, yet plead not to be killed. Read Kinsella on Estoppel
Also I'd make the argument that people do generally agree with the NAP, but I'm not in the mood of making empirical arguments for now. Just that, if they did not, then society could not sustain itself from all the killing. Humans could not evolve, social beings, etc., etc.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
Then do it, I don't care. I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.
Wow, way to miss the whole point..
Good luck finding a society filled with "cooperative human beings who do care." The very merits of capitalism are based on the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish individuals. By giving individuals the ability to advance themselves in society, you raise the level of society as a whole.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, these same greedy people are going to destroy each other, and competing PDAs will be in on the action from both sides, not stopping it like a responsible government would.
I hate socialism, and I'm all for the minimization of government, but doing away with it completely is just stupid.
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
Just a few I can think of...
those are dealing with small criminals. when a PDA is defending you from attacks on a much larger scale... i'm going to an extreme here, but a PDA with ballistic missile defense and launches satellites for an advanced warning system is a much nicer product to have than a few police officers.
again, there is nothing intrinsic about a PDA that says there will be 10,000 competing PDAs and nothing about economies or diseconomies of scale that say there will be 1 or 10000. I'm sorry about using PDAs because this really applies to all industries. Pretend an oil monopoly gets established...and then the oil company decides to start its own PDA since all the PDAs are too small to meet its needs.
Uh, how much is a missile worth, and how much crime does it deter? Even if it's cost-beneficial for having one missile, then how much benefit does the second missile give? The third? The fourth?
Diseconomies of scale are much more relevant than economies of scale, because there exists such a thing as diminishing returns. Economies of scale are almost always wrong, because resources aren't infinite, even if demand could arguiably be deemed infinite, so efficiency will always be capped on how many resources are available, and at what cost they come for.
i think you're going off on a tangent with what ifs and focusing too much on scale and ignoring the essence of what i'm saying. i'm saying that monopolies can exist (and based on what i read anarchocapitalist say they have no problem with natural) and there's no inherent mechanism to prevent them from forming. Diseconomies of scale is not an anti-monopoly or anti-very few very big company measure. And if monopolies can exist, then monopolies in Defense exist. why would markets call for a big energy (or whatever) company (that can create a defence company) and not a big defence company?
again, saying there are diseconomies of scale does not limit the size of the company. especially since you can't say when diseconomies start happening.
Uh, I reject the popular definition of monopoly, and I take it that by natural monopoly, you mean that it may be natural in some circumstances for a company to provide a certain service in some area that no other one does.
And second "uh", diseconomies of scale DO limit company size, that's exactly what the incentives do. If you read anything that I've written, that the wiki site of it says, and the wiki site on diminishing marginal utility, you'd understand there's a limit on how much a company spends or grows, and how much it profits.
There may come to be a big defense company, but that is somewhat irrelevant, and if you're afraid of them, I also already addressed why PDA (protection defense agencies) would not or could not turn to coercion, not nearly as much as the state can, and no matter how big. Basically, if you're worried about it, so would any anarchist be. The bigger a PDA gets, the more worrisome it's anarchic clients would get, and they'd either move out of the PDA, or they'd require it to give them assurances that it would not go unaccounted for any single bullet shot. Third parties could help with foresight. Insurance companies, actuaries, any type of predicative and investigating specialists could help satisfy that demand. And yes, fear asks for assurances, and assurance is a demand to be satisfied, at some cost of course.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.
Yes it is ad hoc, but that doesn't make the analogy irrelevant or incorrect. See many other posts in this thread, for example the point about civil war that you are becoming very astute at ignoring.
What the hell, I completely addressed civil wars. It's no different than the claim that PDAs will kill everyone, because PDAs are exactly the type of companies with the best means to start a civil war, and try to establish a state again. They have the most guns and able personnel to do it. If they won't do it, then who will? Grampa with a rifle? More inefficient militias? Why would they initiate force and risk being killed, to overthrow what?
The analogy is irrelevant because the same type of argument can be used against or for anything. It's an argument for moderation. Beating seems like a good idea, but no beating is bad; stealing seems like a good idea, but no stealing is bad; religion seems like a good idea, but no religion is bad;
You can say ANYTHING is bad by parting from a more "moderate" point of view. What is MODERATE is subjective, and so is the EXTREME. It's completely ad-hoc because you're working backwards to prove a preconceived value.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
Then do it, I don't care. I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.
Wow, way to miss the whole point..
Good luck finding a society filled with "cooperative human beings who do care." The very merits of capitalism are based on the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish individuals. By giving individuals the ability to advance themselves in society, you raise the level of society as a whole.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, these same greedy people are going to destroy each other, and competing PDAs will be in on the action from both sides, not stopping it like a responsible government would.
I hate socialism, and I'm all for the minimization of government, but doing away with it completely is just stupid.
Greedy and selfish doesn't mean they're sociopaths, and certainly doesn't mean they can't cooperate. Read up on egoism.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it? It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.
#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...
Serious how about this since you still can't seem to get it.
People don't believe in the Non-aggression principle.
It's inconsistent to cry wolf if you're being aggressed then. It is inconsistent to both rape, and plead not to be raped. Kill, yet plead not to be killed. Read Kinsella on Estoppel
Also I'd make the argument that people do generally agree with the NAP, but I'm not in the mood of making empirical arguments for now. Just that, if they did not, then society could not sustain itself from all the killing. Humans could not evolve, social beings, etc., etc.
Ugh.
It doesn't matter if you can make the argument that people do generally agree. It's rather that people don't wholly agree. Basically people in general will take advantage of others to certain degrees if given the chance and will form organizations that allow them to do so. They will do so freely even if they are the ones being conned because they are hopeful that they can out game the system. That's how the government combination of governance and pillaging formed in the first place. The anarcho-capitalist society is unstable because it will devolve into one that has government.
I wish I lived in a society that people wholly agreed with the non-aggression principle. All of them would be a whole lot nicer people.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
Then do it, I don't care. I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.
Wow, way to miss the whole point..
Good luck finding a society filled with "cooperative human beings who do care." The very merits of capitalism are based on the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish individuals. By giving individuals the ability to advance themselves in society, you raise the level of society as a whole.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, these same greedy people are going to destroy each other, and competing PDAs will be in on the action from both sides, not stopping it like a responsible government would.
I hate socialism, and I'm all for the minimization of government, but doing away with it completely is just stupid.
Greedy and selfish doesn't mean they're sociopaths, and certainly doesn't mean they can't cooperate. Read up on egoism.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
#2 You'd have to define what can be considered wealth, as that is entirely subjective; and how much wealth one has to have for it to be justifiably redistributed. If I evaluate one's ass to be worth one trillion dollars, do I have the right to smack it? It can be consistent, but ridiculously inefficient, as you'd have to rely on a central authority to define those things, and starting at that point, intellectual constraints limit how well society could otherwise organize. And that central authority itself would probably be inconsistent, because in its powers are invested the whole wealth of the world, so the central planning itself, should be redistributed.
#3 By how much? How can you quantify coercion to be beneficial? And how is that not subjective on your part? I think you'd need another central authority to figure that one out...
Serious how about this since you still can't seem to get it.
People don't believe in the Non-aggression principle.
It's inconsistent to cry wolf if you're being aggressed then. It is inconsistent to both rape, and plead not to be raped. Kill, yet plead not to be killed. Read Kinsella on Estoppel
Also I'd make the argument that people do generally agree with the NAP, but I'm not in the mood of making empirical arguments for now. Just that, if they did not, then society could not sustain itself from all the killing. Humans could not evolve, social beings, etc., etc.
Ugh.
It doesn't matter if you can make the argument that people do generally agree. It's rather that people don't wholly agree. Basically people in general will take advantage of others to certain degrees if given the chance and will form organizations that allow them to do so. They will do so freely even if they are the ones being conned because they are hopeful that they can out game the system. That's how the government combination of governance and pillaging formed in the first place. The anarcho-capitalist society is unstable because it will devolve into one that has government.
I wish I lived in a society that people wholly agreed with the non-aggression principle. All of them would be a whole lot nicer people.
Well the whole point of this ideological talk we're having here is to assert which courses of action are desirable, and which ones aren't. 1-people generally agree with the NAP 2-but people will coerce when they can anyway 3-therefore, the state exists, because it's getting away with coercion You are correct, which is exactly why I'm in this thread pointing out that the state is coercing, and it is coercive by nature - so that people don't let it, nor any future institution as such, get away with it!
On September 01 2010 12:14 TanGeng wrote: "cry wolf" - Do you know what that means?
I admit I picked the wrong words, however it still fits, in the sense that it would not be seen as aggression to others, as no one considered anything aggression.
On September 01 2010 10:23 TanGeng wrote: How about this for you Yurebis.
Anarcho-capitalism can't work because lots of people believe in one of the following: 1. Might makes right. Domination by force justifies taking and pillaging. 2. We should redistribute wealth and force wealthy individuals to give up their money to the rest of us. 3. When political elites aggrandize themselves at the expense of the common masses, the common masses actually benefits.
#1 Is a consistent description of reality, but it is an irrelevant discussion of social organization. Of course, people that can do stuff, can do stuff, completely disregarding other people's plans. Yet it doesn't follow that it is desirable, or the best course of action for a certain end. For the ends of being a sociopath, yes, I think it may be best to just think that way and disregard everything else. But for the purposes of human cooperation, it is very relevant to discuss what courses of action are desirable; what actions aren't tolerable, and what actions should follow them. It is a discussion of human interaction, not empty morality.
Why is it irrelevant? It's the best course of action for me, an amoral individual, if I want to acquire someone else's stuff. Anarcho-capitalism has no solution for this when applied on a large scale, and every time it's brought up you either totally dodge the issue (like this) or don't even reply (like when I brought it up a few hours ago).
Then do it, I don't care. I'm talking to cooperative human beings who do care.
Wow, way to miss the whole point..
Good luck finding a society filled with "cooperative human beings who do care." The very merits of capitalism are based on the fact that human beings are greedy, selfish individuals. By giving individuals the ability to advance themselves in society, you raise the level of society as a whole.
In an anarcho-capitalist society, these same greedy people are going to destroy each other, and competing PDAs will be in on the action from both sides, not stopping it like a responsible government would.
I hate socialism, and I'm all for the minimization of government, but doing away with it completely is just stupid.
Greedy and selfish doesn't mean they're sociopaths, and certainly doesn't mean they can't cooperate. Read up on egoism.
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
What about Paramilitary militias ?
Here in Brazil theres 2 kinds of poor neighboorhoods, the ones dominated by a drug gang, or the ones dominated by some form of paramilitary militia formed by police officers, fireman, security guards and the like, they brutally murder any kind of drug gang occupying the area and install their own policies, which seems to universally be.
Use drugs and you die.
Natural Gas, cable TV, internet, and a security tax, are all cheaper than the ones a rich man will pay for, but it doesnt help that they are paying it to the militia and the militia is illegaly imposing those fees, theres really no option.
You sit on your high hills in your first world cities thinking about anarchy, when it exists in the slums of many cities and it fucking suck balls, people are bound to come in all formats, and to think that the strong wont impose their will unpon the weak with the lack of law is foolish
We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.
Yes it is ad hoc, but that doesn't make the analogy irrelevant or incorrect. See many other posts in this thread, for example the point about civil war that you are becoming very astute at ignoring.
What the hell, I completely addressed civil wars. It's no different than the claim that PDAs will kill everyone, because PDAs are exactly the type of companies with the best means to start a civil war, and try to establish a state again. They have the most guns and able personnel to do it. If they won't do it, then who will? Grampa with a rifle? More inefficient militias? Why would they initiate force and risk being killed, to overthrow what?
The analogy is irrelevant because the same type of argument can be used against or for anything. It's an argument for moderation. Beating seems like a good idea, but no beating is bad; stealing seems like a good idea, but no stealing is bad; religion seems like a good idea, but no religion is bad;
You can say ANYTHING is bad by parting from a more "moderate" point of view. What is MODERATE is subjective, and so is the EXTREME. It's completely ad-hoc because you're working backwards to prove a preconceived value.
I feel like I'm talking to a computer program that spits out programmed responses when I say certain key words. You keep missing my point and spitting out empty rhetoric that totally fails to address anything that I'm actually saying.
I feel like saying your reading comprehension belongs on failblog, but you would probably just say something about ad homenim and use it as an excuse to ignore anything else in my post.
I did not say or imply that anything was bad because it was extreme. In fact I wasn't attempting to make an argument at all; I was simply summarizing my feelings about this idea after skimming though some of the first pages and reading your replies to various questions.
You clearly have no education or experience in political science, and seem to have learned all your ideas from another internet forum since you can't seem to answer questions with original thought.
Being very anti-left politically, I tried really hard to like this idea... but you guys haven't done anything but demonstrate to me how the supporters of this idea (at least on this forum) apparently don't live in the same world I do.
yadda yadda ad homenim yes, but there's no point in trying to engage what amounts to a computer script in any meaningful dialogue.
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
What about Paramilitary militias ?
Here in Brazil theres 2 kinds of poor neighboorhoods, the ones dominated by a drug gang, or the ones dominated by some form of paramilitary militia formed by police officers, fireman, security guards and the like, they brutally murder any kind of drug gang occupying the area and install their own policies, which seems to universally be.
Use drugs and you die.
Natural Gas, cable TV, internet, and a security tax, are all cheaper than the ones a rich man will pay for, but it doesnt help that they are paying it to the militia and the militia is illegaly imposing those fees, theres really no option.
You sit on your high hills in your first world cities thinking about anarchy, when it exists in the slums of many cities and it fucking suck balls, people are bound to come in all formats, and to think that the strong wont impose their will unpon the weak with the lack of law is foolish
Well again, anarchism of no kind implies a lack of law, only lack of rulers.
I think there's no question that governments everywhere exacerbate, if not create, the issue with drug lords, doesn't matter to me where, and you seem to understand what I mean by that so I won't explain again, even though I don't know if you agree or not.
Now about the paramilitary gangs... I don't know anything about them. Do their policies include taxation, or are they voluntarily paid for? Do they exploit the populace besides just killing other gangs and drug users (seems like a mimicking of the federal law)? I mean, if they're paid voluntarily, that is indeed a curious example of what could be considered a PDA. Very curious. Of course, they probably don't understand much about private property, since they kill people just for using drugs, which is pretty bad. But what do the residents think of them? Is it nearly unanimous that they should kill drug users? Perhaps they're afraid that drug users will draw the drug gangs and feds to town (oh I think I may have found something there)? If so, is it not the fed's fault for making drugs illegal?
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
I read through those links you provided me and they were quite interesting. In the list of 200 largest charities 13 of those provided a charitable donation of 1 billion dollars or more, the most being the mayo foundation with 4.8 billion in donations. It should be noted that most of these organizations receive 2-3% in government support and one in particular, catholic charities USA receives a whopping 61% in government support.
On the list of philathropists we have the top 5: Warren Buffett $30.7 billion Bill Gates $29 billion Li Ka-shing $10 billion George Soros $6 billion Howard Hughes $1.56 billion
Li Ka and George Soros are not US citizens therefore I doubt they would contribute to any sort of American social service, or at least very much. Howard Hughes died in 1976 so he's out of the picture as well. Bill and Warren are in the top 3 wealthiest people in the world. Here's an interesting link with some information in regards to how their wealth compares to the total net worth of the US population.
I'll post the key points for anyone who doesn't want to click.
The top 1% of Americans own as much wealth as the bottom 95% percent.
The total wealth of the top 60% of Americans is 500 times the total wealth of the bottom 40%.
The bottom 40% of households own one-fifth of 1% (or 0.2%) of the nation's wealth.
Bill Gates alone has more wealth than 40% of the U.S. population combined, or 120 million people.
From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
On September 01 2010 12:56 mint_julep wrote: The US government is virtually nothing more than an agent of industry at this point. The state doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. + Show Spoiler +
We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +
In any other sense this discussion is meaningless.
Edit: "argument" changed to "discussion"
Uh...That's called corporatism, if anything. Anacho-capitalists are just as opposed as you seem to be, but not because corporations are wealthy - there is nothing wealth alone can do to harm anyone. Money doesn't go out of people's wallets and bite them in the nose. Man chooses to coerce, and man is to be called out on it. Corporations use the state, yes, but you have to note that it is the state that does the coercion. Corporations cannot coerce nearly as well without the subsidized and monopolized police, courts, law, roads, army, whatever else they do. Corporations by themselves would have to raise their own courts, police, army, etc. etc. to do the same. It would cost at least tens of billions - but they can do it for a few million by lobbying.
This discussion is not meaningless. What is meaningless however, is blobbing together everyone you don't like, and blame them all for the ills of the world. Justify why each person who does what they do are wrong. Every group. Being 'rich' is not an evil.
On September 01 2010 10:42 Biochemist wrote: I'm new to this whole idea, but the more I think about it and read the posts of those defending it, the more I realize that this is a textbook example of taking a good idea to an extreme where it is no longer a good idea.
I'll make you a table:
Good idea ------------------------------------- Bad extreme
Don't eat unhealthy stuff ------------------- Only eat raw food Don't ingest random chemicals --------- Don't vaccinate your kids Free market capitalism -------------------- Anarcho-Capitalism
Extremes are arbitrary, ad-hoc argument And I can make them too.
Slavery -------- State ------------- Freedom War ---------- some war ----------- Peace Bad -------- Average ----------- Good
Meaningless.
It's not meaningless. This whole idea is simply taking the idea of free market capitalism and taking it to it's total and complete extreme. I was making some analogies to help illustrate how taking good ideas to these extremes are usually bad, but apparently the meaning was lost on you.
And you can make the argument against anything else as long as you put them on the extreme side. It's completely ad-hoc, and doesn't address the merits of the action or product themselves.
Yes it is ad hoc, but that doesn't make the analogy irrelevant or incorrect. See many other posts in this thread, for example the point about civil war that you are becoming very astute at ignoring.
What the hell, I completely addressed civil wars. It's no different than the claim that PDAs will kill everyone, because PDAs are exactly the type of companies with the best means to start a civil war, and try to establish a state again. They have the most guns and able personnel to do it. If they won't do it, then who will? Grampa with a rifle? More inefficient militias? Why would they initiate force and risk being killed, to overthrow what?
The analogy is irrelevant because the same type of argument can be used against or for anything. It's an argument for moderation. Beating seems like a good idea, but no beating is bad; stealing seems like a good idea, but no stealing is bad; religion seems like a good idea, but no religion is bad;
You can say ANYTHING is bad by parting from a more "moderate" point of view. What is MODERATE is subjective, and so is the EXTREME. It's completely ad-hoc because you're working backwards to prove a preconceived value.
I feel like I'm talking to a computer program that spits out programmed responses when I say certain key words. You keep missing my point and spitting out empty rhetoric that totally fails to address anything that I'm actually saying.
I feel like saying your reading comprehension belongs on failblog, but you would probably just say something about ad homenim and use it as an excuse to ignore anything else in my post.
I did not say or imply that anything was bad because it was extreme. In fact I wasn't attempting to make an argument at all; I was simply summarizing my feelings about this idea after skimming though some of the first pages and reading your replies to various questions.
You clearly have no education or experience in political science, and seem to have learned all your ideas from another internet forum since you can't seem to answer questions with original thought.
Being very anti-left politically, I tried really hard to like this idea... but you guys haven't done anything but demonstrate to me how the supporters of this idea (at least on this forum) apparently don't live in the same world I do.
yadda yadda ad homenim yes, but there's no point in trying to engage what amounts to a computer script in any meaningful dialogue.
That's really kind of you. Sorry for not being any use. (A)bort, (R)etry, (I)gnore?
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
What about Paramilitary militias ?
Here in Brazil theres 2 kinds of poor neighboorhoods, the ones dominated by a drug gang, or the ones dominated by some form of paramilitary militia formed by police officers, fireman, security guards and the like, they brutally murder any kind of drug gang occupying the area and install their own policies, which seems to universally be.
Use drugs and you die.
Natural Gas, cable TV, internet, and a security tax, are all cheaper than the ones a rich man will pay for, but it doesnt help that they are paying it to the militia and the militia is illegaly imposing those fees, theres really no option.
You sit on your high hills in your first world cities thinking about anarchy, when it exists in the slums of many cities and it fucking suck balls, people are bound to come in all formats, and to think that the strong wont impose their will unpon the weak with the lack of law is foolish
Well again, anarchism of no kind implies a lack of law, only lack of rulers.
I think there's no question that governments everywhere exacerbate, if not create, the issue with drug lords, doesn't matter to me where, and you seem to understand what I mean by that so I won't explain again, even though I don't know if you agree or not.
Now about the paramilitary gangs... I don't know anything about them. Do their policies include taxation, or are they voluntarily paid for? Do they exploit the populace besides just killing other gangs and drug users (seems like a mimicking of the federal law)? I mean, if they're paid voluntarily, that is indeed a curious example of what could be considered a PDA. Very curious. Of course, they probably don't understand much about private property, since they kill people just for using drugs, which is pretty bad. But what do the residents think of them? Is it nearly unanimous that they should kill drug users? Perhaps they're afraid that drug users will draw the drug gangs and feds to town (oh I think I may have found something there)? If so, is it not the fed's fault for making drugs illegal?
Sorry if I have assumed too much.
Its imposed by force (if you buy it, it has to be from them) most people like them tho since neighboorhoods with militias (as they are called) have almost 0 violence.
Eventually they become the law of the land and handle any problems of the neighboorhood.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
On August 31 2010 12:56 D10 wrote: sounds impossible, I think its way easier to have a UED than that
Why.
There is no purity of ideology anywhere, you see communists who are capitalists, liberals who are conservative.
If states collapsed there would be a ton of fringe groups in line with big guns just waiting to take control and impose their set of views on society, from drug gangs to paramilitary militias, things would suck much harder for everyone, there is no real freedom other than death
Perhaps the communist who is a capitalist, or the liberal who is conservative, isn't one of the two; perhaps the theory are indeed inconsistent with itself; but the correct way to assert that is by elaborating why, not just saying it
And I've explained how anarcho-capitalism doesn't degrade to the mainstream presentation of anarchism. Transitional anarchy is not what I'm talking about.
Also I've touched on how drug lords are not entirely formed because of the free market, but actually facilitated by the state. For an empirical case, see the history on prohibition on alcohol, and how "alcohol-lords" if I may call them that, both risen and disappeared, correlated with the prohibition of such product. The same could also be said for druglords, for drugs weren't illegal some decades ago - but it is not as a closed case since the prohibition of those still go on.
What about Paramilitary militias ?
Here in Brazil theres 2 kinds of poor neighboorhoods, the ones dominated by a drug gang, or the ones dominated by some form of paramilitary militia formed by police officers, fireman, security guards and the like, they brutally murder any kind of drug gang occupying the area and install their own policies, which seems to universally be.
Use drugs and you die.
Natural Gas, cable TV, internet, and a security tax, are all cheaper than the ones a rich man will pay for, but it doesnt help that they are paying it to the militia and the militia is illegaly imposing those fees, theres really no option.
You sit on your high hills in your first world cities thinking about anarchy, when it exists in the slums of many cities and it fucking suck balls, people are bound to come in all formats, and to think that the strong wont impose their will unpon the weak with the lack of law is foolish
Well again, anarchism of no kind implies a lack of law, only lack of rulers.
I think there's no question that governments everywhere exacerbate, if not create, the issue with drug lords, doesn't matter to me where, and you seem to understand what I mean by that so I won't explain again, even though I don't know if you agree or not.
Now about the paramilitary gangs... I don't know anything about them. Do their policies include taxation, or are they voluntarily paid for? Do they exploit the populace besides just killing other gangs and drug users (seems like a mimicking of the federal law)? I mean, if they're paid voluntarily, that is indeed a curious example of what could be considered a PDA. Very curious. Of course, they probably don't understand much about private property, since they kill people just for using drugs, which is pretty bad. But what do the residents think of them? Is it nearly unanimous that they should kill drug users? Perhaps they're afraid that drug users will draw the drug gangs and feds to town (oh I think I may have found something there)? If so, is it not the fed's fault for making drugs illegal?
Sorry if I have assumed too much.
Its imposed by force (if you buy it, it has to be from them) most people like them tho since neighboorhoods with militias (as they are called) have almost 0 violence.
Eventually they become the law of the land and handle any problems of the neighboorhood.
Oh I see. So they basically tariff everything, and pay themselves that way. Hmmmmm. And do they have shoot-outs with the feds, or the feds don't even go there?
the feds see it as a pacified zone with no need for intereference and dont go there... some feds live there btw.
militias were born of the necessity to live cheaply and not get murdered by drug gangs that kill cops.
cops started to unite and clear neighboorhoods so they could live without fear.
forming those militias, in most of these neighboorhoods, cable TV, internet is illegally stole from the main grid, they charge you a modest price to install it illegally on your house a cheap montly payment and they make of point of being the only guys selling gas to people they also charge a mandatory security tax, and generally make the neighboorhood much less violent, problem is when they are sort of bullish themselves and look to cause trouble with small time troublemakers ...
On September 01 2010 09:30 geometryb wrote: Is there a mechanism to maintain market competition? What prevents businesses from merging with each other to form super companies?
The point i'm trying to make is there is no way to tell if there will be one, ten, or 10,000 PDAs (i'm leaning towards 1). For example, is it possible that a company comes up with a product so good that others can't compete. And mergers/acquisitions provides the means for several companies to combine into a few. Are there purely market forces that would prevent defense companies from joining together. Especially defense companies, which gain significant benefits from pooling resources.
And I don't think defense companies always benefit from growing larger. Even if they did, at which point it becomes worrisome for the customer, then he can seek smaller ones. There are people who go to moms and pops even with Walmart open half a mile away, meaning, price isn't always everything even in the free market.
it's not about price. it's about who can provide the best protection or the best product. as a customer, i do not worry about the size of the company that gives the product, only the quality of the product and the price they sell it at. i would argue that a large defense company can provide better protection than a smaller one.
it's not very clear to me how a defense company can have diseconomies of scale. can you elaborate?
Every time I compare price, it's implied I'm referring to equally serviceable products, products that provide the same benefit.
A PDA (private defense agency) would not benefit from increased size... examples: -Additional policemen do not deter crime any better past a certain density. Having one policeman per street corner is hardly necessary, you're paying the next police officer $40000 for an expected return of much, much less in stopping crimes-a-year. -Additional guns, same deal -Distance, it is increasingly harder for a company to have adaptive presence in an area the further away from it's headquarters it is (mitigated by technology but still, what isn't). Local PDAs can best know what is needed in the area.
Just a few I can think of...
those are dealing with small criminals. when a PDA is defending you from attacks on a much larger scale... i'm going to an extreme here, but a PDA with ballistic missile defense and launches satellites for an advanced warning system is a much nicer product to have than a few police officers.
again, there is nothing intrinsic about a PDA that says there will be 10,000 competing PDAs and nothing about economies or diseconomies of scale that say there will be 1 or 10000. I'm sorry about using PDAs because this really applies to all industries. Pretend an oil monopoly gets established...and then the oil company decides to start its own PDA since all the PDAs are too small to meet its needs.
Uh, how much is a missile worth, and how much crime does it deter? Even if it's cost-beneficial for having one missile, then how much benefit does the second missile give? The third? The fourth?
Diseconomies of scale are much more relevant than economies of scale, because there exists such a thing as diminishing returns. Economies of scale are almost always wrong, because resources aren't infinite, even if demand could arguiably be deemed infinite, so efficiency will always be capped on how many resources are available, and at what cost they come for.
i think you're going off on a tangent with what ifs and focusing too much on scale and ignoring the essence of what i'm saying. i'm saying that monopolies can exist (and based on what i read anarchocapitalist say they have no problem with natural) and there's no inherent mechanism to prevent them from forming. Diseconomies of scale is not an anti-monopoly or anti-very few very big company measure. And if monopolies can exist, then monopolies in Defense exist. why would markets call for a big energy (or whatever) company (that can create a defence company) and not a big defence company?
again, saying there are diseconomies of scale does not limit the size of the company. especially since you can't say when diseconomies start happening.
Uh, I reject the popular definition of monopoly, and I take it that by natural monopoly, you mean that it may be natural in some circumstances for a company to provide a certain service in some area that no other one does.
And second "uh", diseconomies of scale DO limit company size, that's exactly what the incentives do. If you read anything that I've written, that the wiki site of it says, and the wiki site on diminishing marginal utility, you'd understand there's a limit on how much a company spends or grows, and how much it profits.
There may come to be a big defense company, but that is somewhat irrelevant, and if you're afraid of them, I also already addressed why PDA (protection defense agencies) would not or could not turn to coercion, not nearly as much as the state can, and no matter how big. Basically, if you're worried about it, so would any anarchist be. The bigger a PDA gets, the more worrisome it's anarchic clients would get, and they'd either move out of the PDA, or they'd require it to give them assurances that it would not go unaccounted for any single bullet shot. Third parties could help with foresight. Insurance companies, actuaries, any type of predicative and investigating specialists could help satisfy that demand. And yes, fear asks for assurances, and assurance is a demand to be satisfied, at some cost of course.
I still don't think you understand my point.
i didn't say diseconomies of scale didn't exist, you just don't know when they set in (exxon mobile can probably make more money than exxon). I dont think you can make an assumption and make it arbitrarily low for PDAs.
You acknowledge that there can be a big defense company. additionally, there is no way to gaurantee a perfectly competitive market with many firms.
the mechanism you create for preventing the growth of PDAs is "that people worry that it grows too big and leave." As the service you are purchasing is gets better, you want to move to an inferior service? I dont think that makes since. I would argue the opposite. As my business grows and i can accumulate more resources, I would want more security. The simplest market solution is for other PDAs improve their own capabilities through mergers. The defense market slowly gets smaller and smaller. Also, even if there is a demand for security that limits itself, there will likewise be demand for security that does not--you cant control what people want.
Furthermore, there's no mechanism for preventing businesses that control a lot of resources to enter the security market. There's no rule in capitalism that say businesses have to be profit maximizing...they can be utility maximizing. Companies can decide to take a loss in order to build their security forces and become state-like. They can't find a market for large defense system, so they build their own. So you can have a security company backed by the largest companies.
I would think very few very large security forces are bad for anarchy. A market failure in the defense industry would probably mean an end to anarchy.
tldr- no way to say when diseconomies of scale set in. no way to gaurantee many small security companies. no way to stop security companies backed by large businesses.
On September 01 2010 14:17 D10 wrote: the feds see it as a pacified zone with no need for intereference and dont go there... some feds live there btw.
militias were born of the necessity to live cheaply and not get murdered by drug gangs that kill cops.
cops started to unite and clear neighboorhoods so they could live without fear.
forming those militias, in most of these neighboorhoods, cable TV, internet is illegally stole from the main grid, they charge you a modest price to install it illegally on your house a cheap montly payment and they make of point of being the only guys selling gas to people [pic] they also charge a mandatory security tax, and generally make the neighboorhood much less violent, problem is when they are sort of bullish themselves and look to cause trouble with small time troublemakers ...
Oh Ok so they tariff gas, tax, and the feds won't go there. They also wire stuff illegally. Okay. That is a very daring little gang. It is kind of like a PDA in the sense that it arose spontaneously, and it seems to provide at least some services voluntarily, but the main one, defense, is not.
It may have arisen because the government subsidizes if not also monopolizes the defense market, in that it does not allow competing cops to exist (certainly not the kind that goes by the streets shooting drug dealers), but their own cops barely defend anything. It would make sense then for a defense company to emerge, to fill the demand gap for defense. However it doesn't explain why they are coercively paid... perhaps because it is an illegal practice to start with? And that they basically have to be violent, to show the feds how they're tough, and that they will shoot them down too if they come in the province?
It is just a guess, but it is not a stretch to say, that the same thing that happens in the black market of drugs, can happen in a black market of defense. And that's basically what I think that is. If the federal government were to allow competing police, perhaps they wouldn't have to be coercive. A bit of a stretch, and I don't even know the place, I know, but that's the theory I can think of right now.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
just to reiterate my point, a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome.
a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms. just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: just to reiterate my point, a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome.
By failure you mean, they decide to go initiate some force into those silly ancaps right? It would indeed be somewhat of a failure.
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms. just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
There are no guarantees in government either, first off. The correct question to ask is, which one is less likely to coerce? Well, actually that's quite the biased question since the PDA wins by default... eheh... well, let's not compare then.
Within the free market, everyone is aware of that possibility. People will be more weary of buying the services of a large PDA, and that PDA's services will carry that weigh and risk with them. Would you buy into a cheaper service that has a higher chance of backstabbing, defraud you, or will you choose the more expensive one that has no such risk? I don't know, depends by how much, right? But there is an incentive to back off big PDAs, even if diseconomies of scale don't hold them back. The larger it gets, the higher the risk of backstabbing, and the more it will either have to better address the transparency issues like you said, or will have to shrink/stale.
Systems of checks and balances aren't impossible to be made in the free market either. That's what insurance companies are famous for - perhaps they themselves could be the proxy of risk, with all it's actuaries. Instead of buying into PDAs directly, anarcho-capitalists could hire them through insurance companies that both made the services cheaper for less troublesome clients, and more expensive for violent individuals. These insurance companies would also be hiring PDAs either on-demand or on short-term contracts to attend their customers in need. The PDAs chosen and paid would immediately be put into considerations of risk, just as the customers are. Bigger PDAs would be paid less or hired less if they're increasingly shady, and more transparent or smaller PDAs would be hired more, even if it comes at an increase. PDAs could be required to report to the insurance companies everything they've done. There could be made anonymous or private phone lines where people and members report issues they've had with PDAs, or tips on whether a PDA could be planning something, and the insurance companies would take those into account, perhaps hiring third party investigators to know what's up. The insurance companies however are just an additional layer, and it does ultimately come down to the customer wanting more transparency, less risk, at a cost of course.
Government is indeed a bit freer in that regard, they can bust down any doors and wire any lines, however at what cost? and who keeps an eye on government itself? There is always more to it when you talk about government being good at anything. Think of the externalities and limitations.
Well, why don't you elaborate on how the Manhattan Project was something so ingeniously managed that no single market actor could compete with it, let alone top it, if not stolen the opportunity?
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
On September 01 2010 09:41 kidcrash wrote: [quote]
Coming from the person who said that our entire economic principle should be based on greed. It's not that no single market actor could compete with it, but why should they feel the need to? If they did feel the need to, who's to say they would work at the pace and urgency needed to get the project done in time?
Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need. Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
"I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
additionally, i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
On September 01 2010 09:59 Yurebis wrote: [quote] Who's to say government workers do work on time? How can government know what the time is? How can it know how much to tax for it? How many bombs to make? How many scientists to hire? How much to pay them?
It's far more arbitrary and inefficient. I just doubt it was the case that what they did was something so fantastic, that no free man could have done.
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
Things you demand. hint hint wink wink
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: "I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
On September 01 2010 15:19 geometryb wrote: additionally, i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
A- Yes. B- No. C- Court time. Lol
edit: My answer would indeed change on the assessment of the risks and consequences involved.
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: [quote]
Because when you are pro-active in fund-making and hire specialists, things get done quicker. I gave one specific example about advancements in military technology and large scale operations. However I truly believe that the ana-cap private "donation" fund replacements for all currently state funded programs would be inadequate. I strongly disagree with depending on "if there is a will there is a way" to accomplish large scale tasks that produce little to know profit in compensation. Benefits for the disabled and veterans? What about road maintenance and things like that?
I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
On September 01 2010 11:19 kidcrash wrote: Let me give you an example of how laziness rubs off on the ones around you. I want you do then give me your estimated opinion on the percentage of people this applies to.
At your job you frequently open the store in the morning for your shift. You notice that the people who close the night before often leave with the closers tasks undone. You end up having to finish it for them when you get there in the morning and it's hard because you are the only one there for the first few hours. You aren't sure if it's because they are lazy, or they just don't have enough time but the truth is, it's a combination of both. Your boss tells them it's okay to stay passed close in order to make sure everything is wrapped up before they leave.
Next month when one of the closers quits, you are forced to cover a swing shift, working both the morning shift and the night shift, where you will be closing the store. When closing you decide that the most fair option is to leave each night after you've finished an amount of tasks equal to what the other closers finish when they close the store and you open the next day. Your boss continues to tell all closers to stay after in order to finish everything that needs to be done, however your boss is also never pointing anything he/she sees in the morning that's left over and unacceptable to them.
I do not want your opinion on what a person should or should not to in the situation, that is irrelevant. I want to know what percentage of the population you think would go above and beyond their fellow co-workers work habits and what percentage do you think would work equally as hard as they see their co-workers themselves working. Getting a promotion should not be factored into this calculation.
The key point of this scenario is, the person is not being coerced, exploited, or guided into anything and has to choice to make any decision that they want. When you give someone the option to make sacrifices or to not make sacrifices, it's much harder to give them the will to accomplish something. "If there is a will there is a way" takes a back seat to "procrastination over sacrifice". The results are a system that struggles to find a pro-active reason to accomplish anything.
Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: "I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
On September 01 2010 11:42 Yurebis wrote: [quote] I didn't disagree that proactivity can be better, I was just noting that it isn't always the case. If it were always the case, you'd be preparing for anything that even has a remote chance of happening. You'd carry an umbrella on a sunny day, tranquilizing rifles to the office in case a wild animal appears, wearing seatbelts to go to the convenience store at the corner. It's an evaluation of how to face risk, cost and benefit. Just because you think it was proper of the state to steal from everyone to avoid a certain menace, in HINDSIGHT, might I add, doesn't mean it was 1- justified at the time, and 2- the best means to prevent it.
Why do you think there's a need for a veteran to receive benefits? Any more than any other government employee? Because it's done now? Veterans, assuming they weren't drafted, were aware of the contractual benefits and obligations on his part. To say that an employee of any type deserves more than that which he already had agreed to receive... is as equal of a claim that the employer deserves more work from the employee past what was contractually decided and agreed on.
Disabled.. disabled aren't to be treated as a special class just because they're disabled. No one is entitled to another man working and giving money to him for free. If you want to be taken care of, then do it voluntarily. Have charities, ask family, neighbors, anything, but please god stop jumping for the damn gun(verment).
Road maintenance.. who owns the road? Who paid for it to be built? And who pays for the road to be maintained? How can a business model be made around roads? Think a little yourself. Might as well have asked "who will make the bread that I buy at the grocery". Search Walter Block on roads...
[quote] Uh, you know that argument for lazyness is way, way more appliable to the state, right? The state officer has way less incentives to do his work... I've explored the incentives vis-a-vis multiple times in this thread. Not only can the bureaucrat not possibly know how to best serve a demand, but he can indeed be more laid back, and work just enough to get reelected.
If you think government is more proactive than businesses.. I really don't know what to say. They may be more proactive at bombing third world countries, and using the military industrial complex for their own shady reasons, I'll give you that much.
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
Things you demand. hint hint wink wink
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: "I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
Ohh so you meant THAT for so long. Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use. The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist. The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls. Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah.
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: [quote]
There would be zero incentive for anyone to start a fund for handicap people or any social service. These things would not happen or if they did happen they would be inadequate. Your saying a government official that is being paid and who's job is based essentially on a popularity contest has less incentive to get these things done than a company ceo who has no incentive or motive to donate money to a road construction and maintenance fund or for a fund for the disabled or for a military budget, other than just out of the kindest of their heart?
On September 01 2010 12:03 kidcrash wrote: You're saying a person who is being paid and needs to make a good public impression has less incentive than company executives who you expect to just give their money away for zero compensation. What about jails and a police force and a judicial system? Are you going to tell companies, you can help pay for these things if you want, but we aren't going to force you? Judges and police officers would probably receive like a 50% pay cut.
Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
Things you demand. hint hint wink wink
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: "I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
Ohh so you meant THAT for so long. Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use. The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist. The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls. Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah.
LOL yeah wow I was talking about that the whole time, it's okay probably my fault for not being specific enough at times. Okay I'll just take what we discussed and take some time to contemplate whether it's feasible or not because some of these concepts I don't know as much as I thought I did about. I guess I was just a bit misinformed but it's always good to learn something new and raise discussion.
[quote] Hm, you're right in that governments may donate more, or have more incentives to donate more, I had not thought of that. But who do they donate to? How can they access which charity to donate will best satisfy the altruistic feeling of the people he robbed? Even with the incentive, he cannot choose the right ones all the time. He could donate to the big foundations who make TV adverts, and the well known institutions, but it can never access who needs it most, as good as the population itself would.
AAaand, again, it is hardly charity to do anything with stolen property. If a thief is to steal your car, then tell you that he's using it to drive orphans to the school, does that make the thief exempt from repercussion? No, that's a ridiculous excuse to support coercion. Let people donate as they want, and don't try to save face with that. Let people keep what they earn, and then perhaps little to no donations are needed at all.
It's not stealing because you're living in the country and using the roads and services in return. I will agree that property tax kind of crosses the line between that which is reasonably being given in compensation for our taxes. I've always agreed with the libertarian view on property rights. If you honestly think that you could live without things like a police station and road construction than you do have a choice to either become homeless and jobless or just leave the country.
You can argue the principle behind taxes and whether it's stealing or not, but if you need the service they are giving in return for taxes, it becomes a non-issue. Utilitarianism overrides the principle. The only thing you can do is debate whether the specific services the state provides are worth paying the taxes or whether they are a waste. I'll agree our system isn't perfect but your are underestimating the task the corporate state would have to take on and the amount of coorporation and funding (voluntary) needed to make up for a lack of taxation system.
Actually, I do wish to pay for things like police and roads. I however, prefer choosing to pay, not being stolen to pay.
If a thief robs you $50, gives you back $40, and you use those $40, does that mean the thief is justified...? Absolutely not, that's post-fact rationale, and can't be right before-the-fact, when the stealing took place.
My answer to this is from a utilitarian point of view, we need most of the services given to us from the state so instead of debating whether it's stealing or we should be debating which services are needed and which ones are a waste. You have to ignore the principle in this situation to create the greatest amount of good. Utilitarianism always overrides the principle. If you kill one person to save 10 you ignore the principle.
On September 01 2010 13:43 kidcrash wrote: From what I've collected from the sites you showed me and the one I provided, I don't think there would be even close to enough funds to take over government services. The US military budget is 663.8 billion. I'll agree we could to stand to cut that down quite a bit for the sake of eliminating wastefulness. Let's say we were able to make enough cuts to bring that total to half of it's current total: 330 billion. If all the top philanthropists and charitable organizations just dropped their current charities and put forth their efforts to support the US military budget, we would still be short. But of course we wouldn't want to use those donations for anything other than their intended purposes (lol at taking money from aids foundation and giving it to bomb manufacturing) so we'd have to look elsewhere.
Now I'd agree that companies would have more capital due to the removal of the taxation system. However I think we can predict what a company is willing to donate simply by looking at the numbers above. These totals only seem to show that companies only donate once they've accumulated a ridiculous amount of money. This is a result of the fact that companies tend to hoard money. If we don't tax them for it, there is no guarantee they'd be willing to give what was needed to maintain the public services and projects necessary for every day life.
It's not just the companies that would be richer... the middle class too, the lower class, and the dirty-poor class. Companies that have their taxes levied would have a huge profit margin to work down in competition. Products and services would be cheaper - everyone benefits...
Have you heard of the phrase that "taxing the rich is taxing the poor by proxy"? It is very much true. The opposite is also true... when taxes go down, the rich have to put prices down, or else they'll be outcompeted by those who will.
Absolutely, everyone would have more money at all social classes. You'd still have to hope the people with the most money were going to be willing to donate to the things we need to form a stable society. Why create an economic theory which places so much risk on hoping for something to happen? Utilitarianism will show you that our current system "in theory" is doing the same thing as an ana-cap system, without the risk of "well I hope enough people donate to these funds that we need even though they have zero incentive". Without the risk of "well i hope my neighborhood is still safe even though we had to cut half the police force".
Utilitarianism always overrides such arbitrary principles as "taxation is stealing". It may be stealing, but is it effective and is it worth the price? If not, how can we fix it to make it less wasteful?
I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? I don't think so. Charity plays some role, and again, has the demand for it, but I don't think it's intrinsic for society's well-being. Just because you or the state thinks more donations are "necessary" (for what again?), it is not enough of a justification to steal from everyone.
A central planner can't know if it's "worth the price", because he's not acting on market forces. He's acting on what he thinks is ideal, and at best, acting on what he thinks other people think is ideal, which is still subpar to simply.. let people act on their own subjective values, to the best of their ability.
Again, a central planner, even if elected on the promise that he will take 10% of all people's income and donate to charity, disallows people from choosing what charities to donate to, disallows them from using the money in what could be productive things that raise the standards of living for everyone and consequently the poor, disabled, orphaned; disallows them from donating at a certain other time - perhaps after an investment starts giving returns - which would be preferable to them, because they'd be able to donate more and have more left for himself as well.
So many externalities are created that, again, no matter what the planner does with the money, is a net 0 benefit for society at the very very best.
You're not getting my point. Market forces? Things like a police force, road construction, funds for the disabled, a military budget don't rely on market forces... they are things we need.
Things you demand. hint hint wink wink
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Look at how much the richest companies and organizations in the country are willing to donate to a charity in our current society. Even if eliminating the taxation system lead to doubling those donation amounts, you might barely be able to cover just our country's military budgets alone.
So what? Are they more obliged to donate as they are to do anything else? Why do you feel anyone is obliged to do exactly what you think must be done? I could just as much say that they should be giving their money to metal bands, or coke addicts, or the department of education. It doesn't matter what is for, and it doesn't matter who it comes from. Every time you steal from one to give to another, you have to think of the consequences, and it goes way beyond than "Person A= -$1000, Person B = +$900". Think of the moral hazards, think of what does that incentivize for person A, for person B, for the state, for everyone watching. Is playing a shell game with people's capital beneficial to society? Why, how, if it always comes at the expense of someone's voluntarily obtained capital? It's a zero-sum game, at best. Not at all what I call progress
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: "I don't have to hope anything, I'm not in need of donations right now. Does society rely on charity? "
No, you will be hoping that a company will donate to your local cities police fund when you are relying on them to protect you from criminals. My point is, look at how generous companies are now. You will be relying on this same generousness to provide for you the things the the current state is providing you with. Will it be enough? Is it worth the risk to rely on companies to be generous?
You think the police is funded by companies...? Even if it were the case, who pays the companies? Aren't you picking on companies a tad too much? You're completely ignoring the capital structure which makes them exist, and completely ignoring the gun in the room... perhaps people's wealth are blinding your judgments of what is right or wrong?
On September 01 2010 15:16 kidcrash wrote: Can we rely on generosity to mold a stable society? I'm sorry but I don't have that much faith.
I make no such assumption. You seem to be implying society relies on donations... I kind of wish the government would be funded on donations though, it would make it incredibly smaller. And non-coercive, of course.
I don't understand. How would a police force be funded in an anarcho-capitalist society if not by donations? I'm sorry for demanding roads and the safety of a police force/fire department/military, I guess this is too much to ask.
Ohh so you meant THAT for so long. Okay, haha. No, stuff isn't paid by donation, they are paid by use. The simplest model for roads would be tolls. Others models exist. The simplest model for defense, would be insurance. And the insurance company contracts PDAs. Road defense however would be mostly paid by the road owners themselves, which is again passed on to tolls. Fire departments could be called on-demand, military could have their own insurance plans OR be jointly paid with the common defense plans. It would come at an extra cost, how much, and whether it's feasible, I don't know, but yeah.
LOL yeah wow I was talking about that the whole time, it's okay probably my fault for not being specific enough at times. Okay I'll just take what we discussed and take some time to contemplate whether it's feasible or not because some of these concepts I don't know as much as I thought I did about. I guess I was just a bit misinformed but it's always good to learn something new and raise discussion.
On September 01 2010 12:56 mint_julep wrote: The US government is virtually nothing more than an agent of industry at this point. The state doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. + Show Spoiler +
We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +
In any other sense this discussion is meaningless.
Edit: "argument" changed to "discussion"
Uh...That's called corporatism, if anything. Anacho-capitalists are just as opposed as you seem to be, but not because corporations are wealthy - there is nothing wealth alone can do to harm anyone. Money doesn't go out of people's wallets and bite them in the nose. Man chooses to coerce, and man is to be called out on it. Corporations use the state, yes, but you have to note that it is the state that does the coercion. Corporations cannot coerce nearly as well without the subsidized and monopolized police, courts, law, roads, army, whatever else they do. Corporations by themselves would have to raise their own courts, police, army, etc. etc. to do the same. It would cost at least tens of billions - but they can do it for a few million by lobbying.
This discussion is not meaningless. What is meaningless however, is blobbing together everyone you don't like, and blame them all for the ills of the world. Justify why each person who does what they do are wrong. Every group. Being 'rich' is not an evil.
Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not.
Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously.
Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully.
Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
On September 01 2010 17:35 mint_julep wrote: Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not.
Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously.
Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully.
Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
Either the state doesn't exist or corporations use the state for their ends. It can't be both. Corporations having influence over the machinery of the state is not the definition of ancap that we are using. Although we both agree that it is happening. The word anarchism as we are using it simply means that there is no state, and crucially that no organisation has the supposed moral right to initiate violence.
On September 01 2010 15:19 geometryb wrote: additionally, i dont know if this was touched upon but...people mentioned manhatten projects and weapons earlier.
suppose there was a company that announced it was developing a nuclear weapon.
would people have the right to pre-emptively attack them if a) you knew the company would use the weapon to ransom everyone else b) you knew the company would only use the weapon as a deterrent c) you were unsure of the motives
does your answer change if it was another type of weapon that was not as powerful?
Meh, look at what happened in the real world - the more the merrier. Everyone races to get them and the more people who have them the less likely it is that anyone actually uses them. Eventually those who didn't buy them end up richer than those who did and they end up being sold around as just another form of capital to pay off debts. Finally they're stripped down and used to run power plants which, at least, have practical uses and actually make you money.
On September 01 2010 12:56 mint_julep wrote: The US government is virtually nothing more than an agent of industry at this point. The state doesn't exist in any meaningful sense. + Show Spoiler +
We (in the US) live in anarcho-capitalism. It works in the sense that it literally "works". It is happening. It does not work in the sense that the disparity of wealth in this country is extreme and the people are generally unhappy with the governance of their lives. + Show Spoiler +
In any other sense this discussion is meaningless.
Edit: "argument" changed to "discussion"
Uh...That's called corporatism, if anything. Anacho-capitalists are just as opposed as you seem to be, but not because corporations are wealthy - there is nothing wealth alone can do to harm anyone. Money doesn't go out of people's wallets and bite them in the nose. Man chooses to coerce, and man is to be called out on it. Corporations use the state, yes, but you have to note that it is the state that does the coercion. Corporations cannot coerce nearly as well without the subsidized and monopolized police, courts, law, roads, army, whatever else they do. Corporations by themselves would have to raise their own courts, police, army, etc. etc. to do the same. It would cost at least tens of billions - but they can do it for a few million by lobbying.
This discussion is not meaningless. What is meaningless however, is blobbing together everyone you don't like, and blame them all for the ills of the world. Justify why each person who does what they do are wrong. Every group. Being 'rich' is not an evil.
Causes and effects confused tend to distort arguments. In this case I am arguing that corporatism has led directly to anarcho-capitalism in the US, not that they are one in the same. Please don't accuse me of misusing terms when I'm not.
Your second point is as useless as arguing that gun wielding bank robbers do not kill people, it is the guns they carry that do so. Wealth does not not directly cause harm any more than guns do. Users of guns are the instigators, in the sense of the proverb 'power corrupts'. It is not the power that harms, but the corrupted, obviously.
Clearly what I'm saying is that corporations have no need to 'raise their own courts, police, army etc, etc. to do the same' when they can simply gain control of an external set of these powers. i.e. the state. and that is exactly what they have done, Successfully.
Anarcho-capitalism (along with anarcho-anythingism) will generally have the same end objectives as I have. The majority of any arguments at that point will lay at strategy as this one does. I think that this strategy is weak, and that is my argument.
The cause and effect of corporate interference in government may be easy to assert, to the point that I agree with you, corporations do use government, generally. But to take any legal proceedings into dismantling them, requires you to prove which ones, and to what extent, they conspired with government. Prove it in court, and matters shall be settled. I had already answered a question in this thread that yes, it would be possible to sue corporations in bed with government after government itself has fallen.
is it just me that thinks anarchy does nothing but generate a bunch of different small pockets of state like militias and the like? You will never have your perfect anarchy because thousands of small groups of people are gonna start little dictatorships, if there is a body large enough and ethical enough to prevent that from happening, isnt that a government already ?
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: just to reiterate my point, a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome.
By failure you mean, they decide to go initiate some force into those silly ancaps right? It would indeed be somewhat of a failure.
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms. just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
There are no guarantees in government either, first off. The correct question to ask is, which one is less likely to coerce? Well, actually that's quite the biased question since the PDA wins by default... eheh... well, let's not compare then.
Within the free market, everyone is aware of that possibility. People will be more weary of buying the services of a large PDA, and that PDA's services will carry that weigh and risk with them. Would you buy into a cheaper service that has a higher chance of backstabbing, defraud you, or will you choose the more expensive one that has no such risk? I don't know, depends by how much, right? But there is an incentive to back off big PDAs, even if diseconomies of scale don't hold them back. The larger it gets, the higher the risk of backstabbing, and the more it will either have to better address the transparency issues like you said, or will have to shrink/stale.
Systems of checks and balances aren't impossible to be made in the free market either. That's what insurance companies are famous for - perhaps they themselves could be the proxy of risk, with all it's actuaries. Instead of buying into PDAs directly, anarcho-capitalists could hire them through insurance companies that both made the services cheaper for less troublesome clients, and more expensive for violent individuals. These insurance companies would also be hiring PDAs either on-demand or on short-term contracts to attend their customers in need. The PDAs chosen and paid would immediately be put into considerations of risk, just as the customers are. Bigger PDAs would be paid less or hired less if they're increasingly shady, and more transparent or smaller PDAs would be hired more, even if it comes at an increase. PDAs could be required to report to the insurance companies everything they've done. There could be made anonymous or private phone lines where people and members report issues they've had with PDAs, or tips on whether a PDA could be planning something, and the insurance companies would take those into account, perhaps hiring third party investigators to know what's up. The insurance companies however are just an additional layer, and it does ultimately come down to the customer wanting more transparency, less risk, at a cost of course.
Government is indeed a bit freer in that regard, they can bust down any doors and wire any lines, however at what cost? and who keeps an eye on government itself? There is always more to it when you talk about government being good at anything. Think of the externalities and limitations.
No problem, below.
People demand a trustworthy security company because they are worried about the company turning on them. People demand a large security company because they are worried about external threats. A large company does not necessarily mean untrustworthy. I believe that a company can satisfy both demands through the implementation of its business strategy and the product it sells. For example, every purchaser of the service automatically becomes a shareholder and have rotating leadership. Even if that's not satisfactory, i believe there can be a way to engineer a defense company that is trustworthy to its customers no matter how large.
Furthermore, another major market failure would arise since security companies do not have to be profitable. Customers moving away is not that worrisome (if that's the only means of controlling size) since businesses can live off investor money forever. Some businesses never make a profit.
It is impossible to judge whether a business is using resources to form an offensive capability or improve its defensive services. The problem is that once a business develops the technology to make nuclear power plants, developing nuclear weapons isn't that much harder. Once a business develops the rocketry to launch communication satellites into orbit, developing long range missiles is not that much harder. Being able to pre-emptively deny people you do not like those capabilities is a form of coercion. Insurance companies will never be able to accurately assess peoples' intentions. "it's for good stuff, it's for defense, it's for...oh wait"
On September 02 2010 06:19 D10 wrote: is it just me that thinks anarchy does nothing but generate a bunch of different small pockets of state like militias and the like? You will never have your perfect anarchy because thousands of small groups of people are gonna start little dictatorships, if there is a body large enough and ethical enough to prevent that from happening, isnt that a government already ?
No, it's not just you, and no, it doesn't have to be coercive to deter coercion. The framework of private property allows for legislative and enforcement systems to be non-coercive if they ever were allowed to mature.
I thought I had already explained why the gang-protected slums in Brazil aren't an example of a free market emergence of defense. Do you or do you not you agree with my theory? The feds' presence alone does not allow people to choose between voluntary services in the market, they choose whatever gang is the least coercive (feds included). In that sense, it is somewhat competitive, but it isn't a full capitalist market, because private property is not understood nor respected. The market participants are both required and allowed to have some level of coercion in their businesses, at the expense of capital accumulation. If a city or town were allowed to even begin the process of non-coercive defense, then that city or town would flock with businesses and greater prosperity, but they can't, because everywhere around them and above them, there are gangs with an established and respected presence by the part of its subjugates. You yourself said people preferred to be ruled by one gang or the other - of course it's a mini-state then, that's what states do. Legitimized monopolies on coercion. Even Somalia is more advanced in that sense, and they have their own traditional setbacks and shitty neighbors still, but at least, no common authority above them.
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: just to reiterate my point, a failure in the security industry would mean an end to anarchy because very few organization with a lot of power have the "power corrupts" syndrome.
By failure you mean, they decide to go initiate some force into those silly ancaps right? It would indeed be somewhat of a failure.
On September 01 2010 14:40 geometryb wrote: a failure in the security industry can occur because there is no gaurantee on a competitive market. There is no way to look at the number of firms. just another thought that is less important -- imperfect information. the inherent secrecy behind security capabilities (you dont want others to know your vulnerabilities) will not allow people to audit out of control firms.
There are no guarantees in government either, first off. The correct question to ask is, which one is less likely to coerce? Well, actually that's quite the biased question since the PDA wins by default... eheh... well, let's not compare then.
Within the free market, everyone is aware of that possibility. People will be more weary of buying the services of a large PDA, and that PDA's services will carry that weigh and risk with them. Would you buy into a cheaper service that has a higher chance of backstabbing, defraud you, or will you choose the more expensive one that has no such risk? I don't know, depends by how much, right? But there is an incentive to back off big PDAs, even if diseconomies of scale don't hold them back. The larger it gets, the higher the risk of backstabbing, and the more it will either have to better address the transparency issues like you said, or will have to shrink/stale.
Systems of checks and balances aren't impossible to be made in the free market either. That's what insurance companies are famous for - perhaps they themselves could be the proxy of risk, with all it's actuaries. Instead of buying into PDAs directly, anarcho-capitalists could hire them through insurance companies that both made the services cheaper for less troublesome clients, and more expensive for violent individuals. These insurance companies would also be hiring PDAs either on-demand or on short-term contracts to attend their customers in need. The PDAs chosen and paid would immediately be put into considerations of risk, just as the customers are. Bigger PDAs would be paid less or hired less if they're increasingly shady, and more transparent or smaller PDAs would be hired more, even if it comes at an increase. PDAs could be required to report to the insurance companies everything they've done. There could be made anonymous or private phone lines where people and members report issues they've had with PDAs, or tips on whether a PDA could be planning something, and the insurance companies would take those into account, perhaps hiring third party investigators to know what's up. The insurance companies however are just an additional layer, and it does ultimately come down to the customer wanting more transparency, less risk, at a cost of course.
Government is indeed a bit freer in that regard, they can bust down any doors and wire any lines, however at what cost? and who keeps an eye on government itself? There is always more to it when you talk about government being good at anything. Think of the externalities and limitations.
No problem, below.
People demand a trustworthy security company because they are worried about the company turning on them. People demand a large security company because they are worried about external threats. A large company does not necessarily mean untrustworthy. I believe that a company can satisfy both demands through the implementation of its business strategy and the product it sells. For example, every purchaser of the service automatically becomes a shareholder and have rotating leadership. Even if that's not satisfactory, i believe there can be a way to engineer a defense company that is trustworthy to its customers no matter how large.
Why are you agreeing with me all of the sudden?
On September 02 2010 07:52 geometryb wrote: Furthermore, another major market failure would arise since security companies do not have to be profitable. Customers moving away is not that worrisome (if that's the only means of controlling size) since businesses can live off investor money forever. Some businesses never make a profit.
And they die off, and their investors lose their investment. Clearly, it is much more painful for them to lose everything, than it is for a president to lose stranger's lives and taxpayer money. Hence, it will happen less.
On September 02 2010 07:52 geometryb wrote: It is impossible to judge whether a business is using resources to form an offensive capability or improve its defensive services. The problem is that once a business develops the technology to make nuclear power plants, developing nuclear weapons isn't that much harder. Once a business develops the rocketry to launch communication satellites into orbit, developing long range missiles is not that much harder. Being able to pre-emptively deny people you do not like those capabilities is a form of coercion. Insurance companies will never be able to accurately assess peoples' intentions. "it's for good stuff, it's for defense, it's for...oh wait"
So no one's going to notice if they round up civilians or fire some missiles? And why are you contradicting yourself in the first paragraph? If people demand assurance, assurance will be supplied, better than the state could, for the various reasons I won't repeat... Insurance companies can more than likely assess risks than any bureaucrat or state representative auditing ... the state itself.
So what would happen in a an anarcho-capitalist world where a large group of people decide to form a nation-state with a ruling government, and then the nation-state decides to start invading everyone else and starts successfully taking over their lands and resources due to the anarchists' lack of comparable unity.
On September 02 2010 09:42 blue_arrow wrote: So what would happen in a an anarcho-capitalist world where a large group of people decide to form a nation-state with a ruling government, and then the nation-state decides to start invading everyone else and starts successfully taking over their lands and resources due to the anarchists' lack of comparable unity.
What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter, a deterrent to it, and will make it at least unprofitable for you to do it, if not impossible. It would be easier to kill everyone than to subjugate the free men back into slavery, that much I'm sure.
34 pages is too long for me to go read thoroughly so forgive me if I go over something already mentioned. There are way to many items to discuss about anarcho-capitalism if you truly want to discuss it properly, so i'll just mention a few.
The whole discussion of why can/can't anarcho-capitalism "work" revolves around the definition of work. Work for who? In relation to what? It all has to do with values. If you value meritocracy, you'd have a problem with the "capitalist" part of anarcho-capitalism. If you value equality, you might have similar objections. If you value stability, you might object to the anarchist part. Anyway...
* Disclaimer * I am not supporting the legitimacy of the state.
1. Would there be a stock market in anarcho-capitalism? If so, then you do a short sale on a companies stock. Then, you hire a "defense" company and use violent means to destroy the company and make a profit.
2. Fraud. Life grows complex. Even in the last 50 years, the volume of information that people need to process to accurately make good decisions has increased tremendously. An increase in complexity, information asymmetry, and the limited ability for humans to process information makes fraud very easy.
3.
Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery.
Who says violence is naturally unpopular? For most people, it is, but it violence isn't something related to popularity. All it takes is one person to fund it for it to exist. One of the reasons inequality exists today is that the government uses its monopoly on power to protect private property. People are naturally jealous when they are poor and there are super wealthy people around. In anarchy, nothing's stopping the average joe from picking up a gun and shooting Bill Gates or the like. Bill Gates is going to want to protect his private property, so he might as well pay for the establishment of some sort of state. It only takes ONE wealthy person who wants the existence of the state to make coercive states viable. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has the means and the funds to do such.
***
On Anarchy. Anarchy is a system which depends on the existence of tabula rasa. If man is purely a product of the environment, then government can move from a physical entity to an intangible idea. Yet it still is a government. i.e. governing principle. Under the tabula rasa idea, anarchy is possible under many forms. One way is to condition everyone to act like a hive drone and make them completely constrained by feelings of not wanting to be socially ostracized by the community. That results in the non-existence of government without freedom. Another way is to have a completely educated population. Law is a substitute for rational thought. It is a shortcut that allows people who can't think rationally to come to semi-rational conclusions. Of course, law is abusable because it is arbitrary, open to interpretation, and hard to adapt to the situation at hand. Therefore, a society that has collectively achieved the highest level of education can operate without laws. Of course, the whole conflict is how you define education and rational thought. Rational for who? For individual self interest? Collective interest? A mix of all of them?
Of course if tabula rasa doesn't exist, then anarchy doesn't work. The OP bypasses this by acknowledging that anarchy doesn't work in the presence of "human nature", but then neither do states. This is a cop-out. The OP should just have denied the existence of human nature and went straight for the gut with tabula rasa. Oh well.
The thing is, if "human nature" exists, then there is no possible way to create a system of government or non-government that is perfect because the word system implies that it should work regardless of who is in power (or not in power). Since you can't know who is benevolent and who is not, you cannot make a foolproof system. The idea of checks and balances tries to mitigate the damage that one person can do, but all that did was a) make it hard for good people to do good things, b) make it hard to react to a crisis, and c) remove the extreme good/bad decisions and fill government with mediocre decisions. If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote: I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
Shall everybody live in poverty, so that no-one will have "power"? Yay for communism!
Just how does money bring power exactly? The power to trade? Wealth only brings the power of oppression when there is a vehicle of oppressive power to buy at a low cost, which is kind of the whole point. Would companies fund the enforcement of arbitrary, oppressive dictats out of pocket? Consider how huge the cost would be to them, and for what benefit?
All this talk about private companies becoming the next state is kind of missing the point. The state has presupposed authority. States face little resistance because of the false meme that the state has legitimacy. Private companies do not have presupposed legitimacy. They could not offload the cost of oppression to the taxpayer, AND the cost would be much greater overall because people would actually defend themselves against the oppression where there is no presupposed legitimacy.
How could Coca Cola possibly become the next state? Makes little sense. And where would their money come from if not from voluntary trade in the first place?
When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot. After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
"What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter"
This is the kind of wide eyed talk which economics students love because it sounds great when you draw it out on a while board and it has little to do with the real world. I think the key assumption is that somehow the free market is completely free of human intervention, that it operates outside of man made laws and simply allows a kind of evolution to take over. The fact is that a free market requires private property laws in order to operate, laws which are entirely man made and require man made solutions to keep them operating.
I'm living in Anarcho-capitalist heaven and someone came to my house and took my T.V. he then sat outside my house and tried to sell it to passers by. What now? Well now we have courts and police. Perhaps we can avoid government by having them privately owned and operated. Unfortunately the guy who stole my T.V. is the son of the guy that owns and operates my local law enforcement department. What now? Now we need larger and more elaborate means of arbitrating these kind of disputes. What would that look like?
“[The market] will at least make it unprofitable for you to do it”
Another important assumption made by the An-Cap crazies is that every agent in the market acts in their own interest at all times, that is, that every individual in the system attempts to maximise their own profit at all times. This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own, it also assumes that there is no stupidity, that is no one does anything which they THINK will increase their own profit but actually has the reverse effect.
The whole movement is a dangerous joke, a joke because it's so obviously flawed and dangerous because there's a lot of people who use it to push the corporate agenda which has nothing to do with advancing human civilisation, which is what the best wrong headed an-caps have in mind.
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote: When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot.
Correct, but I don't call you a state. I call you a thug. But that's not exactly what the state is. If it was simply this, none of us would rationally attempt to defend the state. Nobody would rationally claim that it was necessary for peace, because it would instead be clear that it is violating peace. Does this make sense? You see, the government is not merely a bunch of thugs; they are a bunch of thugs with false presupposed legitimacy. So even if you are unfortunately correct, and it is inevitable that a bunch of thugs are going to take ultimate control, are you going defend them and claim that it's necessary?
But of course, my argument is that this recognition makes up all the difference practically to whether or not those thugs can have any genuine power over the population. Their power comes not from their mere ability to coerce, but from the idea that they have the moral right to initiate force. Take that false meme away and the state vanishes by itself. They would have no power to coerce others if people didn't falsely believe that are doing it legitimately. You see, states don't need to literally wage war on their citizens to extract taxes from them. If they were required to wage war, it simply wouldn't be feasible. In fact, states can simply draft citizens into their army because PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THEIR PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL DUTY TO COMPLY.
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote: After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
I recommend you watch this, because he goes into it in more detail than I could hope to cover here.
I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
Interesting read. Not going to lie though, I have no idea what you guys are talking about and I've had to go and look up some terms I've never heard before.
I'm gonna go play with my math books to feel better
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
In the civilized world I don't know of any country who locks away a hippie for 5 years just because he smoked weed. But in those same countries there are certainly individuals and even groups of people who think that hippies should be locked away forever. Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote: Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!?
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
I agree with you on the weed. It is ridiculous how the USA currently handles that. I've read various stories on how the issue is politicized and that's a big minus on the government side of the balance.
The state, as I see it, is granted authority thanks to it being given by the individuals. Of course I should be able to take its authority away if I would want to, but I would have to be part of a majority for that to happen. Perhaps if 50% or more would vote blank, that would be the situation for government to pack its bags. I do have an issue with how current media and government interoperates in all of this.
Getting weed legalized, you have to fight two problems. Problem one is that the majority is happy with the status quo on most things and doesn't want to be bothered. Problem two is the image of weed in the media and culture. Or rather, how media and politics have cultured the usa to think bad about weed. A different political system would of course give you a different perspective on how to change such problems. I could say that in an ancap system, hypothetically, there could be a huge and insurmountable taboo (including severe penalties) for masturbation or sneezing in public (just to name something ridiculous). You would have a tough time to change the local culture just as you would with your weed example.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
Excuse me if I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to say. I think this is taking the anarcho-capitalist economic theory and pointing out it's inefficiencies through utilitarian measures.
Ana-capitalists believe stealing in any form is wrong. Taxation is essentially a form of stealing, therefore ana-cap believe the concept of a government state is based on an ethically "wrong" principle.
The state then tries to justify the need for taxation by saying it's to provide safety for the common citizen. The ana-cap rebuttal is that a free-market security force would be more efficient than a state owned one. However without checks and balances nothing is stopping a corporate owned and operated security force from abusing their power. Could "capital and competitive interest" prevent this from happening? I'd say it would be a gamble and risk, especially when looking back on history and seeing what kind of mistakes "human nature" has made. It doesn't even have to be a worst case scenario. It doesn't have to be to the scale of a tragedy like the holocaust to be a complete failure. Civil war is basically a lose-lose situation and I could see something in the vain of the American civil war stemming from an attempt at anarco-capitalist society.
When I read other people's opinion on ethics in our society, I lose a little faith in mankind. These news stories about people becoming upset because they are building a mosque near ground zero. I don't think I could live in a country where we'd just have to hope that a powerful and violent group wouldn't take control, or in the very least pose a threat to us. Should it even have to come to that?
Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote: Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!?
I don't know what your hang up about weed is, but my whole point is that the same immorality could happen in an ancap society and certainly would happen as long as there are enough people who would consider it sinful, harmful or detrimental to their well-being. I personally think that weed should be legalized and am also sure that it will with the time. Nonetheless, in principal it is meaningful that some substances are classified as "dangerous", the question is only which ones and what should be done about it. Ancap does nothing to solve this issue.
On September 02 2010 19:54 Badjas wrote: The state, as I see it, is granted authority thanks to it being given by the individuals. Of course I should be able to take its authority away if I would want to, but I would have to be part of a majority for that to happen. Perhaps if 50% or more would vote blank, that would be the situation for government to pack its bags. I do have an issue with how current media and government interoperates in all of this.
But, that's either missing my point or ignoring it. The argument is that citizens are granting the government the authority to act on their behalf. But if they don't even have the authority to act on their own behalf, how can they grant authority to the government by voting? Or by any other mechanism? Just what is the mechanism? And again, I use the word authority in the sense of 'legitimacy' or 'moral right', etc. I don't just mean it as 'having the means do do so'.
On September 02 2010 19:54 Badjas wrote: Getting weed legalized, you have to fight two problems. Problem one is that the majority is happy with the status quo on most things and doesn't want to be bothered. Problem two is the image of weed in the media and culture. Or rather, how media and politics have cultured the usa to think bad about weed. A different political system would of course give you a different perspective on how to change such problems. I could say that in an ancap system, hypothetically, there could be a huge and insurmountable taboo (including severe penalties) for masturbation or sneezing in public (just to name something ridiculous). You would have a tough time to change the local culture just as you would with your weed example.
Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit.
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
You are correct, a crime being victimless does not automatically make an action morally and ethically right or wrong. It is a portion of what we look at, however, in determining whether an action is ethically bad.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
Pragmatism, although more than likely just a common denominator between laws and not usually a prerequisite, does come into play from time to time. Gambling laws are one example which comes to mind.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
I would argue the same, but that is not the point. It is an obvious fallacy to point at any law which doesn't "float your boat" and blame "the state". Especially the drug laws are enacted because there are sufficient people who consider drugs dangerous - in actuality for the drug user and in potential for those around him. Whether I agree or not it is a fact about the people around me and if it were different drug laws would be abolished.
On September 02 2010 20:18 dvide wrote:
Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit.
EDIT: I didn't read properly, so the following is obsolete. Sorry! <s>(You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it. Would those people magically change their views in an ancap society? Or is your whole point that it might be more difficult to reasonably enforce any law in an ancap society (including those which you don't like)?)</s>
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
How is it loaded? Is it not a valid way to differentiate between crimes that have caused damage to others and supposed "crimes" that have not? I would argue that victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and that would certainly be the case under natural law. I think that's an incredibly important distinction. So it has no meaning in statist law courts? So what?
Your TNT example could potentially do harm, assuming your cellar is an irresponsible place to store tonnes of TNT. It would only take one guy with a dramatic suicide wish to break in and destroy the whole neighbourhood, along with himself. So in principle I agree with you; we have to be responsible with our actions and that responsibility needs to be demonstrable to others so as not to cause fear.
And because your actions would cause panic in the neighbourhood, it could be considered a valid non-victimless crime. After all, all would rationally understand that you were responsible for creating the fear in others (assuming your cellar is not a safe and secure place to store tonnes of TNT). But even then, I wouldn't throw you in a cage for it, assuming that you even did it in the first place. There are other ways to solve problems. I cannot see how it would ever come down to locking you up in a cage.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
So?
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Why do moral arguments not apply to laws? I think what you're saying here is that because pragmatic arguments are used for justifying laws, moral arguments do not apply. But those things are not mutually exclusive. I can still argue that it's wrong to coerce others even if it's a necessary component to achieve some utilitarian end goal.
And again, your consent or the consent of the majority is meaningless. Unless you contend that if the majority consented to the Mafia then it would be somehow morally acceptable for them to extort from others. Is this your contention?
On September 02 2010 20:34 MiraMax wrote: You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it.
I was responding to this absurdity brought up by somebody else.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote:This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own
This is because you insist on thinking of "profit" as "money". When someone speaks of "the market" maximizing "profit", at least in the Austrian anarcho-capitalist framework, really it means that people making free choices will always attempt maximize their own happiness - and that their happiness is the only profit to consider.
To a Buddhist monk "profit" is more free time to sit on a mountain and meditate - he does this because it makes him happy.
To a generous person, profit is the act of giving - it gives them pleasure, makes them happy, to see their own actions helping another. This is why they do it, and being free to do it makes them happy.
When left to their own actions, humans will always seek to do what makes them happy. If nothing made you happy or there was nothing you wanted then you wouldn't do anything. You would just expire and cease to be a living human being.
The ultimate point is that happiness and goals are different for all people and imposing burdens on them which seek to meet your goals at the expense of allowing them to meet theirs ultimately is the greedier act and the more destructive of total happiness - total profit.
On September 02 2010 20:03 kidcrash wrote: Ana-capitalists believe stealing in any form is wrong. Taxation is essentially a form of stealing, therefore ana-cap believe the concept of a government state is based on an ethically "wrong" principle.
Many libertarians have some sympathy with this argument. I personally don't see why we should morally condemn stealing but find taxation a virtue - for me, it could at best be called a "necessary evil". However, the moral argument is not the only argument against taxation. If you're interested, I could expound on what's called the "deadweight loss" of taxation.
(In a nutshell, the act of taxation itself already causes a loss to society. So if the government raises $1M in taxes, the loss to society is considerably more than $1M. This means that, for the taxation to be a net gain, the government should be considerably more efficient than the market in spending that money. That is a tough standard to beat, and most government programs we have today probably do not.)
The state then tries to justify the need for taxation by saying it's to provide safety for the common citizen.
As you well know, our government today does a lot more than simply protect the citizens, and all of its activities are funded by direct or indirect taxes.
The ana-cap rebuttal is that a free-market security force would be more efficient than a state owned one. However without checks and balances nothing is stopping a corporate owned and operated security force from abusing their power.
"Nothing" is too big of word to use here. There are a lot of factors that contribute make the outcome you described unlikely. If you are willing to say nothing stops a protection agency from abusing their power, you should also be willing to say that nothing stops the government from abusing its power - there are probably less forces keeping the government in check than there would be forces keeping private protection agencies in check.
Could "capital and competitive interest" prevent this from happening? I'd say it would be a gamble and risk, especially when looking back on history and seeing what kind of mistakes "human nature" has made. It doesn't even have to be a worst case scenario. It doesn't have to be to the scale of a tragedy like the holocaust to be a complete failure.
I think the holocaust is a very good example of the risk a government poses - I'm not sure how you intend it as an example against anarcho-capitalist institutions. There is good reason to expect violence in an anarcho-capitalist society - if it breaks out - to be on a very much smaller scale than violence we have seen by governments.
Civil war is basically a lose-lose situation and I could see something in the vain of the American civil war stemming from an attempt at anarco-capitalist society.
This is a very real risk. But if we expect anarcho-capitalist institutions to be reasonably stable, this would still be an improvement over government. There are good reasons to expect civil wars under anarcho-capitalism to be uncommon, short-lived and small in scale. If you want, we can discuss them.
A similar real risk under government is a costly, large-scale war. If you disagree this is a real risk, consider that the US is currently involved in the aftermath of two wars that have cost millions of people their lives and the American taxpayers trillions of dollars. Consider that the history of governments interacting has produced a multitude of large-scale, expensive wars in the last couple of centuries and that this seems to be a trend rather than a rare occurrence.
When I read other people's opinion on ethics in our society, I lose a little faith in mankind. These news stories about people becoming upset because they are building a mosque near ground zero. I don't think I could live in a country where we'd just have to hope that a powerful and violent group wouldn't take control, or in the very least pose a threat to us. Should it even have to come to that?
I mostly agree with you. I just want to add that the risk of dying to a terrorist attack is insignificant compared to the risk of dying in a traffic accident. Terrorism has mostly been an excuse for government to expand its power beyond its previous bounds. Islam may well be, as some say, a dangerous ideology and a threat to our society, but the cure has been worse than the disease.
The many Muslim people that I know all are great people that follow only the peaceful edicts in Islam (much like Christians and the Bible). I would not object to a mosque being built - objecting to that sends a message that the people that will go to the mosque are of the same kind as the people that committed the horrible acts of terrorism. That is a message I wholeheartedly disapprove of.
Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
The way to make it as efficient as possible and to find the greatest amount of good (tongue in cheek) is to break up the government in multiple competing entities and taking away its privilege of taxation.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
How is it loaded? Is it not a valid way to differentiate between crimes that have caused damage to others and supposed "crimes" that have not? I would argue that victimless crimes are not crimes at all, and that would certainly be the case under natural law. I think that's an incredibly important distinction. So it has no meaning in statist law courts? So what?
Your TNT example could potentially do harm, assuming your cellar is an irresponsible place to store tonnes of TNT. It would only take one guy with a dramatic suicide wish to break in and destroy the whole neighbourhood, along with himself. So in principle I agree with you; we have to be responsible with our actions and that responsibility needs to be demonstrable to others so as not to cause fear.
And because your actions would cause panic in the neighbourhood, it could be considered a valid non-victimless crime. After all, all would rationally understand that you were responsible for creating the fear in others (assuming your cellar is not a safe and secure place to store tonnes of TNT). But even then, I wouldn't throw you in a cage for it, assuming that you even did it in the first place. There are other ways to solve problems. I cannot see how it would ever come down to locking you up in a cage.
It is loaded, because the definition of "victimless" already denies its counter argument. You rightfully say that me storing TNT can potentially cause harm and might cause "panic". However, what if nobody knows about it? Then there is no direct harm left and no "victim", only "potential harm" and "potential victims". Well, drug laws proponents claim the same thing! It is a statistical fact that drug users (in general) commit significantly more crimes and these crimes are often directly motivated by the need for more drugs. They claim that cannabis acts as an entry drug and thus brings a lot of "potential harm" with lots of "potential victims". I think in the case of cannabis they are wrong, but the line of argument is not principally flawed (and that's my only point).
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Why do moral arguments not apply to laws? I think what you're saying here is that because pragmatic arguments are used for justifying laws, moral arguments do not apply. But those things are not mutually exclusive. I can still argue that it's wrong to coerce others even if it's a necessary component to achieve some utilitarian end goal.
And again, your consent or the consent of the majority is meaningless. Unless you contend that if the majority consented to the Mafia then it would be somehow morally acceptable for them to extort from others. Is this your contention?
No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that. In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many and that the rules are formalized, so that they can be applied to each and everybody equally. This consent needs to be organised. The organisation of consent is the task of the political system (also a subsystem of society).
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: It is loaded, because the definition of "victimless" already denies its counter argument. You rightfully say that me storing TNT can potentially cause harm and might cause "panic". However, what if nobody knows about it? Then there is no direct harm left and no "victim", only "potential harm" and "potential victims".
So if nobody knows about it anyway then how does the government come to solve it? It's no different, unless the government should have the legal right to come into people's homes against their wishes and audit their property for TNT. But I'm guessing you don't advocate that.
I have no idea what this has to do with the principle of victimless crimes, because it has nothing to do with knowledge, luck, happenstance or whatever. It's not about applying it to situations in which one merely gets lucky whilst performing irresponsible acts, and thus afterwards saying that because there was no victim the acts were never wrong in the first place. It's only applied to acts where it is recognised that nobody was ever in danger, like for instance by storing TNT in a demonstrably safe and secure facility. If TNT itself were blanket banned, then even this act would be considered a crime and would be punishable when it it is clear that nobody was ever in danger from it at all. That is when "victimless crime" is invoked. So I wouldn't call that loaded language.
It's the same as saying that driving around after having consumed 5 litres of tequila is a victimless crime too, so long as you don't cause an accident and that nobody discovers that you were even drunk in the first place. Well, it's still a hugely irresponsible act, and people would still hold you responsible for that in some way. Maybe not by throwing you in a cage, but certainly by cutting off any dealings with you, reporting you to your DRO or whatever.
It's the fact that you COULD have caused harm that truly matters. So not many people, including myself, would ever argue that this act was perfectly acceptable just because it happened out that it was victimless in the end. I think that we actually agree on this, so it's just a semantic dispute, if anything.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: Well, drug laws proponents claim the same thing! It is a statistical fact that drug users (in general) commit significantly more crimes and these crimes are often directly motivated by the need for more drugs. They claim that cannabis acts as an entry drug and thus brings a lot of "potential harm" with lots of "potential victims". I think in the case of cannabis they are wrong, but the line of argument is not principally flawed (and that's my only point).
But, for example, I never claimed that merely owning TNT was irresponsible. Clearly it depends on all of the circumstances involved. So again, if you own a safe and secure facility with tall barbed-wire covered walls and security guards dotted all around the place, then it's obviously not going to be irresponsible of you to store TNT there. In the same way, nobody would accept that just smoking cannabis by itself is somehow a hugely irresponsible and dangerous act. And especially no more than drinking alcohol would be considered dangerous.
I mean, if we can both agree that there is no genuine problem from pot smokers, then why would people just invent a problem and pay enormous amounts for its solution? Now, maybe you argue that the harm from the statist drug ban will carry over into an anarchic society, as people will carry their ex-post facto justifications for it with them. But that's not a criticism of anarchy. It's a criticism of the lasting damage that the state can do. So because it's not examining anarchy in a vacuum, it's not exactly fair.
Now if there is a cannabis user driving or something, then they might be seen as being irresponsible for sure. But it's not merely that they happen to smoke pot. If I smoke pot in my house and I lock all the doors, who would ever argue that I pose a risk to anybody else by doing so? Now, I'm not saying that all pot users should have to do that, but my point is that blanket drug bans couldn't possibly be valid from the "potential harm" argument. It ignores circumstance entirely.
And in fact, with drug laws it's not even consuming the drug that is illegal, but merely owning it. So I can't even hold cannabis in my hands, even though I wouldn't consume it. Ridiculous. How is that possibly going to be dangerous to anybody? And as an aside, I don't actually know if driving while high from cannabis is dangerous. I only guess that it probably is, but I have no idea.
So let's get your argument straight. Your point is that because most people see drugs as being dangerous in a democracy (because the government bans it today), this is evidence that people will happily to pay for "security" forces in an anarchic society in order to effectively ban drugs there too. And people, on the whole, will not consider this a breach of the peace, but in fact as a means of keeping the peace and so will have no objections to it. Well, firstly that's assuming that voting has any real influence over the system, and that people actually voted for the drug war and aren't just coming up with ex-post facto justifications for it. I mean, just because the government banned alcohol at one point doesn't mean that private individuals would have ever dreamed of doing the same thing with their own money. But let's say that you're right about that.
Are you saying that in an ancap society, it's just obvious that there will emerge private forces that would break up peaceful hippies around camp-fires singing Kumbayah, and locking up all the pot smokers that were present? And are you saying people would actually look at that action being committed by private individuals and think that it's actually appropriately "keeping the peace". Surely it would be clear that it is actually violating the peace that was already there? But with the state, the exact same scenario goes relatively unquestioned and unchallenged.
After all, those hippies around the camp-fire were "breaking the law". And so 99% of people argue that even if they personally agree with the hippies, and think that the law itself should be changed, you still have to follow the laws while they're around. And so the police officers were "in the right" to do what they did. You see, presupposed legitimacy. It's not the same with private forces arresting pot smokers, even if you're right that they would exist. But I don't think people would ever voluntarily agree to pay their own money for "security" forces to arrest peaceful people. In-fact, I would pay money to defend people against that. Maybe we disagree on this, but even so I don't see how it justifies the state even if you're right. If anything it's just saying that evil is inevitable, not that it is somehow transforms it into being virtuous.
And that's ignoring your whole argument about the statistical fact that drug users commit more crimes. This is because they're already considered criminals and so have no protection from the monopoly law. So what difference does it make to them if they commit other crimes when they're already considered criminals? The argument was the same for alcohol prohibition, but that in fact served to create more crime as drinking alcohol became illegal, as we now know.
And finally, it's missing my whole initial point. That locking people up in cages for smoking weed on your lawn is clearly immoral. That is the case even if you've banned it from your property. We can hopefully all clearly see that it's overreacting, right? So even if I am a landlord and I have a no-weed allowed rule in the contract, and I catch one of my voluntarily agreeing rent payers smoking weed in the house, I still can't morally lock them in a cage.
And it doesn't matter the amount of time that I lock them in a cage for. Be it for 5 years or for 1 month. If I personally locked up a pot smoker on my property for even a week, it is clearly wrong. But it's this false meme of presupposed legitimacy that changes the perception of the exact same action when it is done by the state, and in the exact same circumstances. Assuming the state even owns the land in the first place, which it doesn't. So this "my house, my rules" argument that I've heard here many times just fails on all fronts.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that.
I absolutely agree, but I don't understand how you get from A to B here. Why are morals inapplicable? Are you saying that once a social system develops "rules" (either implicitly, explicitly, formalised or otherwise), any act is therefore justified? Again, it's not even mutually exclusive. Surely we can examine slavery in the context of moral justification, even if the developed opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of monitories/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in the development of owning other human beings in the codes of conduct in a social system. Do you see what I mean?
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many
So in other words, what you're saying here is that 'the consent of the governed' is a really just a pleasant euphemism for 'might makes right'? That people just tend to prefer to think their consent matters, even though it's really just the power to coerce that makes the coercion 'legitimate'? I'm guessing this isn't actually what you're saying, but it sure sounds like it.
I feel like you're muddying the waters. Let's just keep it really simple. If I consent to the Mafia, surely it's still applicable to say that the Mafia itself is an immoral organisation and has no legitimacy to extort others. Would you say morality is not applicable here? Regardless of consent at all, whether it be the majority who consents or whatever. It doesn't defer authority to the Mafia to extort others, because the individuals who consented had no authority to extort others either. Where exactly is this authority magically created along this process of consenting?
On September 02 2010 13:17 Incognito wrote: When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot.
Correct, but I don't call you a state. I call you a thug. But that's not exactly what the state is. If it was simply this, none of us would rationally attempt to defend the state. Nobody would rationally claim that it was necessary for peace, because it would instead be clear that it is violating peace. Does this make sense? You see, the government is not merely a bunch of thugs; they are a bunch of thugs with false presupposed legitimacy. So even if you are unfortunately correct, and it is inevitable that a bunch of thugs are going to take ultimate control, are you going defend them and claim that it's necessary?
But of course, my argument is that this recognition makes up all the difference practically to whether or not those thugs can have any genuine power over the population. Their power comes not from their mere ability to coerce, but from the idea that they have the moral right to initiate force. Take that false meme away and the state vanishes by itself. They would have no power to coerce others if people didn't falsely believe that are doing it legitimately. You see, states don't need to literally wage war on their citizens to extract taxes from them. If they were required to wage war, it simply wouldn't be feasible. In fact, states can simply draft citizens into their army because PEOPLE ACTUALLY THINK IT'S THEIR PATRIOTIC AND NATIONAL DUTY TO COMPLY.
I never said that said thugs = state. But the fact that you do have thugs running around attempting to coerce people is not something I'd like to have around. I think you overestimate the power of legitimacy. And you ignore some other factors that can support the success of the state. There are probably more factors, but I'll list the two most obvious. One is terror. Suppose instead of pointing a gun at you, I mutilate your body and hang it up in front of my corporate office. Sure, some people will get enraged and will be provoked to fight me, but a lot of other people will be quiet and accept that I have the power to make their lives miserable. We call this a reign of terror. Usually a reign of terror isn't solely a reign of terror though. While it can be immensely useful, it also usually needs something else to back it up.
Which comes to the second factor: political support. Although you argue that government is coercive to everyone and that everyone should have reasons to despise the state, the simple fact is government confers a huge amount of benefit on portions of its population in order to maintain its legitimacy. Government is hugely beneficial to certain interest groups, like corporations who use the power of the state to protect their unnatural oligopolies. Or the welfare mother, who can leech off of society at large without having to contribute anything. On all sides of the argument there are people who benefit from the coercive properties of government. This principle is common in the system we like to call democracy. Is the government going to get away with some ridiculous law like "we are going to kill everyone's firstborn son"? No. That brings benefit to nobody. On the other hand, while nobody likes taxation in itself, a majority of people like the benefits it brings them that they are willing to comply. If the government says "We need taxes in order to pay for your free health care". That is something people will support, especially if that person is poor and cannot afford to pay for health care himself. Consider socialism. Of course if I will get a bunch of support if I say that I would like to destroy the top 1% on behalf of the bottom 99%. Its like the wolf and lamb analogy. Two wolves and a lamb vote on what to have for lunch. Is this morally legitimate? No. But the wolves don't care about moral legitimacy. Quite frankly lunch trumps morality. Are you going to seek to destroy the entity that protects your saftey? Or the entity that protects your business from fair competition? Or the entity that provides you with your living? No, you wouldn't. If you think that any "thug" that decides to use coercive measures to establish a state will attempt to do it alone, then you're missing something. The thug pointing his gun at you doesn't have to point it at everyone. As long as he gains the political support of key interest groups, he does have the practical power to control other aspects of society. Your whole argument rests upon assumptions of morality (wow! and people think anarchists/libertarians are immoral) while the fact is that people take practical factors under consideration in addition to morals. The whole basis of anarcho-capitalism is the assumption that everyone values freedom [as much as the anarcho-capitalist does]. And while yes, people do value freedom, they also value a lot of other things. Running around and yelling YAY FREEDOM isn't going to convince that many people who think that the benefits of government outweigh the loss of freedom it brings. The existence of government has little to do with any moral authority, but rather widespread sense of political support.
I recommend you watch this, because he goes into it in more detail than I could hope to cover here.
If you're trying to make an argument, state the key points. Don't expect people to watch 30 minute videos. Note: I watched the first two minutes, noticed it has nothing to do with the quote you are supposedly trying to respond to, and then stopped watching.
One thing I would like to congratulate you on is your ability to convince people that the issue at hand is legitimacy. You even managed to get people to post a whole page of debate arguing on your premises, which is an admirable feat.
Waiting to see how you respond, I'll go on the assumption that what you DON'T say is going to be more telling than what you do. Prove me wrong.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
Excuse me if I'm misinterpreting what you are trying to say. I think this is taking the anarcho-capitalist economic theory and pointing out it's inefficiencies through utilitarian measures.
No I meant to say that if you accept the premise that human nature exits (i.e., man inherently has certain characteristics/dispositions and is not purely a product of the environment), then it is futile to be discussing which FORM of government is good. The point is that you cannot propose a form or system of government that will address the issue at hand because a form/system must be objective. Unless you have a perfect being that can transcend human error (i.e. God), then you cannot have a perfect government. If humans are to govern themselves, than any imperfections in human nature cannot be eliminated by the use of human government. Its like trying to build a perfect system with imperfect building blocks. Its not going to happen.
On a little side note:
But I don't think people would ever voluntarily agree to pay their own money for "security" forces to arrest peaceful people. In-fact, I would pay money to defend people against that.
So how exactly is it efficient if two people are paying money to support opposing goals?
So even if I am a landlord and I have a no-weed allowed rule in the contract, and I catch one of my voluntarily agreeing rent payers smoking weed in the house, I still can't morally lock them in a cage.
What if the contract said "if you smoke weed I have the right to lock you up in a cage?"
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: The whole discussion of why can/can't anarcho-capitalism "work" revolves around the definition of work. Work for who? In relation to what? It all has to do with values. If you value meritocracy, you'd have a problem with the "capitalist" part of anarcho-capitalism. If you value equality, you might have similar objections. If you value stability, you might object to the anarchist part. Anyway...
I value stability, and would rather not have the instability of a state that can shape the life of millions at the stroke of a pen. And you are right on the value subjectivism. People who want to coerce will probably find the state appreciable too.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: * Disclaimer * I am not supporting the legitimacy of the state.
Is it not implied that coercion is the 'only way' when you say that voluntary action can't do what you want to do? Seems to me like an implied support. "I'd love to make peace with the middle-east but it just doesn't seem possible..."
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: 1. Would there be a stock market in anarcho-capitalism? If so, then you do a short sale on a companies stock. Then, you hire a "defense" company and use violent means to destroy the company and make a profit.
Yes. The PDAs (private defense agencies) can do such a thing, but because you know and I know that they can do such a thing, people will have prepared something to deal with it. Their contracts will be voided, they will be considered outlaws by everyone, anyone can arrest you and/or the PDAs employers, or kill you if you are pillaging. The PDA would have everything to lose, its own employers could turn get bounties+some amnesty if they manage to kill/arrest the management. Hitman businesses are pretty expensive if they're not legitimized, especially if it includes sustaining your own hierarchy, coercing big groups of people, and going against the whole society. The state can do it because it's a state, not because of the number of tanks or cops they have. If even 10% of the population today would see them for what they are, no amount of ammunition or fiat money would save them.
And I doubt you could trade in the stock market with an outlaw firm anyway lol.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: 2. Fraud. Life grows complex. Even in the last 50 years, the volume of information that people need to process to accurately make good decisions has increased tremendously. An increase in complexity, information asymmetry, and the limited ability for humans to process information makes fraud very easy.
Uh, people individually can't know everything, yeah. But even the relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market. The right way to think of it is not "what wrong can happen" but how do you best prevent such wrongs. I think the most fraud that exists in the world today is by the part of a state. I don't think all private scams in history added together get to the trillions of dollars stolen and indebted by the part of governments. And that's because the bureaucrat is much more sheltered from market interaction, and the bureaucrats have to be paid by law. Hell, any scammer would love to be in the position of government - he doesn't even have to fool the people into buying, he is paid no matter what!
Violence is naturally unpopular, therefore is hard to use massively if it's recognized as such. If the state is to ever fall and not come back for a while, people will instantly know what is up if someone tries to set up a new state. No one will pay for that failed experiment, just as much as America today won't go back to slavery.
Who says violence is naturally unpopular? For most people, it is, but it violence isn't something related to popularity. All it takes is one person to fund it for it to exist. One of the reasons inequality exists today is that the government uses its monopoly on power to protect private property. People are naturally jealous when they are poor and there are super wealthy people around. In anarchy, nothing's stopping the average joe from picking up a gun and shooting Bill Gates or the like. Bill Gates is going to want to protect his private property, so he might as well pay for the establishment of some sort of state. It only takes ONE wealthy person who wants the existence of the state to make coercive states viable. I'm pretty sure Bill Gates has the means and the funds to do such.
Are you saying the state has prevented the assassination of Bill Gates lol? Please, has the government made the grass grow too? When the government 1-steals from everyone 2- establishes a service like police and law enforcement and 3- prohibits anyone else from providing such a service, you can't say that if it weren't for it there would be no security nor law, because they are monopolizing it! It is the same thing as a proletariat waiting at bread lines in communism saying that there would be no one to give him bread in a free market! Ridiculous. A service is a service, and men are men. The men giving you security now (and doing the shittiest job at it shoud I add) would be no different than in anarchism, if not better. Because they'd be forced to compete for once, they'd be paid what the market is willing to pay, and they'd be as susceptible to the law as anyone else.
Bill Gates does not have either the funds nor the mental capacity to run a more successful state. Nor is it particularly efficient to invade property rights to protect property rights. Bill Gates would spend the necessary amount to protect his property and no more - that way he remains both popular and efficient.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: On Anarchy. Anarchy is a system which depends on the existence of tabula rasa. If man is purely a product of the environment, then government can move from a physical entity to an intangible idea. Yet it still is a government. i.e. governing principle. Under the tabula rasa idea, anarchy is possible under many forms. One way is to condition everyone to act like a hive drone and make them completely constrained by feelings of not wanting to be socially ostracized by the community. That results in the non-existence of government without freedom. Another way is to have a completely educated population. Law is a substitute for rational thought. It is a shortcut that allows people who can't think rationally to come to semi-rational conclusions. Of course, law is abusable because it is arbitrary, open to interpretation, and hard to adapt to the situation at hand. Therefore, a society that has collectively achieved the highest level of education can operate without laws. Of course, the whole conflict is how you define education and rational thought. Rational for who? For individual self interest? Collective interest? A mix of all of them?
Of course if tabula rasa doesn't exist, then anarchy doesn't work. The OP bypasses this by acknowledging that anarchy doesn't work in the presence of "human nature", but then neither do states. This is a cop-out. The OP should just have denied the existence of human nature and went straight for the gut with tabula rasa. Oh well.
The thing is, if "human nature" exists, then there is no possible way to create a system of government or non-government that is perfect because the word system implies that it should work regardless of who is in power (or not in power). Since you can't know who is benevolent and who is not, you cannot make a foolproof system. The idea of checks and balances tries to mitigate the damage that one person can do, but all that did was a) make it hard for good people to do good things, b) make it hard to react to a crisis, and c) remove the extreme good/bad decisions and fill government with mediocre decisions. If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
You don't need everyone to be geniuses as much as today you'd need everyone to be geniuses so they can choose competent rulers. Anarchism is not about taking all responsibilities of the current economy into each individual, it's about letting each individual transfer their own responsibilities to those he chooses, instead of taking it for some collectivist cause (which btw, doesn't exist. Collectivism has no conscience, collectivism makes no decisions. Man makes decisions, and in statism, some man will have to make decisions for people, or more precisely, steal from them the ability to make decisions themselves).
Read a bit on how can market law work in anarcho-capitalism. I'm not gonna link, and I'm not going to explain for the seventh time. There is no assumption of tabula rasa.
On August 29 2010 08:05 Sl4ktarN wrote: I am an anarchist, however I dont digg anarcho capitalism ONE BIT. Reason? With money comes power, with power comes opression, with opression comes fascism.
Shall everybody live in poverty, so that no-one will have "power"? Yay for communism!
Just how does money bring power exactly? The power to trade? Wealth only brings the power of oppression when there is a vehicle of oppressive power to buy at a low cost, which is kind of the whole point. Would companies fund the enforcement of arbitrary, oppressive dictats out of pocket? Consider how huge the cost would be to them, and for what benefit?
All this talk about private companies becoming the next state is kind of missing the point. The state has presupposed authority. States face little resistance because of the false meme that the state has legitimacy. Private companies do not have presupposed legitimacy. They could not offload the cost of oppression to the taxpayer, AND the cost would be much greater overall because people would actually defend themselves against the oppression where there is no presupposed legitimacy.
How could Coca Cola possibly become the next state? Makes little sense. And where would their money come from if not from voluntary trade in the first place?
When I spy on you and point a gun at you, you're going not going to worry if I have presupposed legitimacy or not, you're just going to do what I say or get shot. After you get a monopoly/start building your own private corporate military, all notions of voluntary trade go out the window. Sure, you may have originally built your commercial empire through voluntary trade, but after a point you can enforce your power.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote: "What happens is, that for every evil, infallible plan you can think of, the free market has already thought of a counter"
This is the kind of wide eyed talk which economics students love because it sounds great when you draw it out on a while board and it has little to do with the real world. I think the key assumption is that somehow the free market is completely free of human intervention, that it operates outside of man made laws and simply allows a kind of evolution to take over. The fact is that a free market requires private property laws in order to operate, laws which are entirely man made and require man made solutions to keep them operating.
I'm living in Anarcho-capitalist heaven and someone came to my house and took my T.V. he then sat outside my house and tried to sell it to passers by. What now? Well now we have courts and police. Perhaps we can avoid government by having them privately owned and operated. Unfortunately the guy who stole my T.V. is the son of the guy that owns and operates my local law enforcement department. What now? Now we need larger and more elaborate means of arbitrating these kind of disputes. What would that look like?
On the scenario: you could call the cops on him; go outside and take the tv back; if he aggresses you can aggress back; if you suspect he has a gun you can point a gun at him; if he has physically assaulted you you can smack him back (which arguiably you can already do since he broke into your property) etc. etc. etc. Not that much different from today.
And of course free market relies on private property. It goes with capitalism.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote: “[The market] will at least make it unprofitable for you to do it”
Another important assumption made by the An-Cap crazies is that every agent in the market acts in their own interest at all times, that is, that every individual in the system attempts to maximise their own profit at all times. This is demonstrably untrue and not just when it comes to people “being nice”, that is reducing profit in order to help someone else margin, it also goes for spite, that is decreasing someone else's profit even if it decreases your own, it also assumes that there is no stupidity, that is no one does anything which they THINK will increase their own profit but actually has the reverse effect.
I've noticed that people keep making that argument, and I have to say it has to be because of neoclassical economics that only assume profit maximization in exchange prices without taking anything else into consideration. And that's a valid criticism... to mainstream microeconomics. Austrian economics takes everything into consideration, because man takes everything he knows into consideration. People are "nice" for a number of reasons, and I hardly doubt the state has any part in that. Does the state makes people be nice to their friends and spouses? Does the state forces the retailer to be nice to its customers? Please, being nice is also a function of profit. Being nice is a demanded aspect of business. Being nice is a demanded behavior in social life. Sure people can not deliver "niceness", but it comes at a cost to them, and that much you ignore as much as neoclassicists ignore the benefits.
On September 02 2010 13:44 Dapper_Cad wrote: The whole movement is a dangerous joke, a joke because it's so obviously flawed and dangerous because there's a lot of people who use it to push the corporate agenda which has nothing to do with advancing human civilisation, which is what the best wrong headed an-caps have in mind.
I think you should get familiar with the joke before you start laughing at it. Because if people ask you if you got it, you'd have to answer what the joke is.. and then you may become the joke instead.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
In the civilized world I don't know of any country who locks away a hippie for 5 years just because he smoked weed. But in those same countries there are certainly individuals and even groups of people who think that hippies should be locked away forever. Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
That is why your example fails to prove anything.
Is the army really making a profit by holding some innocent person up when they are risking so much more through lawsuits and ostracism? The retaliation that ensues is always going to be proportional to the crime, and while the aggressor may have won something in the short run, the vast majority of the market will look to punish him. The guy's family neighbors, friends, and family, would notify the media, the courts, the other PDA and military agencies of what those guys are doing. They would be demanded to release him, and appear in court. If they don't, GL HF 1v99999 BO1. And you, as the conspirator, would be as liable too, when found out.
What you also don't realize is that rich evil guys already do that kind of stuff today, using the state's privileges and secret agencies. There is a vast vast black history of government hijacking, killing, "suiciding" people around the world, and including some of it's own citizens.
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: If human nature exists, it is futile debating the merits of different forms of government. You'd be better off debating what rules should/should not be enforced and how they should be enforced.
Checks and balances can be mediocre at times. It can also be inefficient at times as well. I think we'd be better off trying to find ways to make it as efficient as possible and finding "The greatest amount of good" than relying on an economic and moral principle that stealing is always bad in any form; which along with this principle, we run the risk of jeopardizing our safety and comfort by relying on human nature and "market justice".
I don't think you have read anything about market justice. Because if you did, you'd notice that it would be just as efficient, if not more, than this pitiful monopolized system. Postal-office-level of efficiency.
You take a Sunday hike in the forest. A robber approaches you, put a knife at you back and shouts "give me all your money".
Is this stealing? Definitely yes.
Do you know he has done something wrong? Yes.
Do you have the right to defended yourself? Yes.
But what if the robber takes his arm over your shoulders and says "let go for a walk”. He explains that you have no right to defend yourself; that you are obligated to give him your money and that you have to love him no matter what. That he is a hell of a guy.
Of cause the robber is a parable of the state. I have to pay taxes; I have no right to defend myself against this thievery, and the state still thinks I have to love him.
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
And guess what the difference is, you can prove that a lot of damage to other people's private property can ensue from storing that huge amount of chemical power. But you can't prove the same for some guy getting stonned and passing out in his living room.
Market law would NOT sue or hold you or a PDA liable from invading people's property that you can prove in court to be dangerous to yourself or the neighbors. No actions would be taken period, judges would just read the news "oh some retard just asked to be raided, thats cool".
Anyone can sue for anything of course but cases like these are too obvious to see what the verdict would be.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
I've heard of how it fails once the thugs in office are able to get around it.
On September 02 2010 20:05 MiraMax wrote: Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
Morality is an applicable concept in dispute resolution. Law is a collection of pragmatic concepts that have worked consistently in multiple disputes to the best of all parties satisfaction. The state doesn't make itself legitimate, the people recognize it as legitimate, and aggregately, it can be said the state is legitimate. The state can't legitimize itself anymore than a referee in a game legitimizes itself. If the referee were to make blatant mistakes in favor of some team, and everyone knew about it, people that watched games would instantly know whatever match there's that referee in it, is going to be a bullshit match with an irrelevant score. The referee would either have to be dismissed, or he would drive all the fans away.
On September 02 2010 19:21 MiraMax wrote: Well, in an ancap society I could pay an armed force for locking the guy away for 5 years (or longer if I am willing to pay more). Who would stop me from doing so? What would be my moral right to do this?
You ask what would be your moral right to do this? NOTHING. And that's the point! Unlike with the state, I implore you to find even ONE person who would recognise YOUR moral right (not the state's moral right, BUT YOURS ALONE) to throw a pot smoker on your lawn into a cage in your basement for 5 years. That's true even if he is trespassing and even if you have a rule on your property that weed is banned. I think we can all understand how immoral it would be, which is the very POINT.
Those groups might even be willing to pay a fortune or take measures in their own hand just to be sure that they will never encounter a hippie on their lawn...
Oh come on. Utterly preposterous notion. What an utter waste of a "fortune". Do you think rich people are so stupid with their money? Oh, and even if they did pay a "fortune", would they merely kick them off their lawn or would THEY LOCK THEM IN A CAGE!?
I don't know what your hang up about weed is, but my whole point is that the same immorality could happen in an ancap society and certainly would happen as long as there are enough people who would consider it sinful, harmful or detrimental to their well-being. I personally think that weed should be legalized and am also sure that it will with the time. Nonetheless, in principal it is meaningful that some substances are classified as "dangerous", the question is only which ones and what should be done about it. Ancap does nothing to solve this issue.
Not with a solid understanding of private rights, and without them paying fully for the raiding of drug users, dealers, and makers. It is a huge expense for something that is no threat to them, and in a private property law code, they would have to pay even more to defend against all lawsuits, while saving face.
Would be much harder than to have the state simply say "it's illegal, and now we'll use the money we steal from you to pay for the arbitrary, highly debated, and not that much demanded, enforcement of this law." Doesn't look market-viable to me.
Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
On September 02 2010 19:09 Badjas wrote: Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
I agree that they don't actually own all the land. I was addressing those who have argued this.
But ok, we agree that the government has no legitimate claim to the land. But let me ask you the same question again. If not from land ownership, where does the government get the right to lock somebody up for 5 years for smoking weed? Are you arguing that democracy gives the state the moral right to do this, so long there is a majority consensus? Remember that it is a victimless "crime".
Again, how does the act of voting magically defer authority to the state that I don't even have myself? Please explain this to me, because I always end up asking this in ancap debates and yet I've literally never had anybody even address it. If you think it's a loaded question, which might be the case, then say so. But please address it. Because clearly I don't have the right to throw people into cages for smoking weed, right? I think we can agree on this. So my 'consent' (even if I give it) is ultimately meaningless.
The whole concept of "victimless crimes" is loaded, has no meaning in law and is therefore irrelevant. Storing tons of TNT in my cellar does no harm to anybody, but we might agree that it is a bad idea and that imposing rules on people to not do it, could be a good idea, as long as the dangers associated with it, greatly outweigh the benefits.
Now who should impose this rule or any rule for that manner? In most modern states it is the legislative who decides on which rule should be passed, the executive who controls that rules are abided and the judiciary to punish non-compliance and to resolve conflicts. This is known as seperation of powers and probably you've heard of it.
Morality is not an applicable concept in all of the rules/laws that are passed, some are simply pragmatic and the same applies to an ancap society (or any society for that matter). Legitimacy, however, directly follows from the construction of the state, which is primarily based on consent, our only guidance for deciding what should be considered harmful and what not.
You are correct, a crime being victimless does not automatically make an action morally and ethically right or wrong. It is a portion of what we look at, however, in determining whether an action is ethically bad.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
Pragmatism, although more than likely just a common denominator between laws and not usually a prerequisite, does come into play from time to time. Gambling laws are one example which comes to mind.
The problem with victimless crimes is that there's no plaintiff to sue. So, there is no issue in court. Unless the neighbors want to make an issue out of it. In the case that they feel the smell, and see passed out people in the frontyard next door every day, there in fact MAY be such a case to be made. But NOT if the drug user is keeping to himself and not perturbing anyone with it.
Does smoking weed harm others? If not, than does it have the potential to harm others? I would argue no to both cases.
I would argue the same, but that is not the point. It is an obvious fallacy to point at any law which doesn't "float your boat" and blame "the state". Especially the drug laws are enacted because there are sufficient people who consider drugs dangerous - in actuality for the drug user and in potential for those around him. Whether I agree or not it is a fact about the people around me and if it were different drug laws would be abolished.
That's BS. If there were a drug that made people go out on the streets and shoot or beat up random passersby, then MAYBE you'd have a case. But no drug that I know of does that. Most drugs make the user too passed out or too hyped up to consistently both make them want to do stupid shit and retain nervous control to consistently do stupid shit.
If you wonder about drunk or drugged driving, the streets are privately owned so their owners can still retain the privilege of not allowing people to drunk drive, and enforce it in the best way he finds efficient. But it probably wouldn't even be prohibited in most places TBH.
On September 02 2010 20:18 dvide wrote: Who would voluntarily pay to enforce action against masturbators and lock them up in cages? That is, without having the machinery of the state to offload the cost to everybody, of course. And who would claim to have the moral right to do it, other than the state? Again, I just think you're bringing up far off, out there hypothetical scare scenarios that have no genuine basis in reality, and which aren't even solved by having a state as you yourself freely seem to admit.
EDIT: I didn't read properly, so the following is obsolete. Sorry! <s>(You get more and more absurd!? Which civilized country "locks masturbators up in cages" and do you really think it is, because there is a "state" and not because of the people living in it. Would those people magically change their views in an ancap society? Or is your whole point that it might be more difficult to reasonably enforce any law in an ancap society (including those which you don't like)?)</s>
It will be more difficult both to pay for such enforcement and to coerce others into helping you enforce such stupid laws. I sure wouldn't pay a dime to it, and help the drug users myself even though I'm somewhat of a straight-edger.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that. In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many and that the rules are formalized, so that they can be applied to each and everybody equally. This consent needs to be organised. The organisation of consent is the task of the political system (also a subsystem of society).
Ancap can't change that if people deem it proper not to go to court and instead kill themselves, then they'll be killing themselves. But the difference with statism is, that instead of people -> social contract -> government guessing what people want -> monopolized law -> monopolized enforcement it is simply people -> courts -> law -> enforcement Such a more direct approach to law better supplies the demand for it, more accurately to the locality's culture, and more accurately to people's moral sentiment.
Well it is annoying to come back after several days and having to read all those pages but as far as I see this is the last relevant post concerning my argumentation.
On August 31 2010 08:37 Yurebis wrote: By the same argument, the thug on the backalley is always a normal company as well. Please test your arguments instead of having me point obvious flaws. The thug isn't a normal company, and by normal I hope you mean voluntary, because it does not act under the NAP (non aggression principle). So a company that is not voluntary cannot be said to be voluntary.
Sorry no obvious flaw there to me. Ok so you define every entity that does not act under the NAP as "not normal company" that's fine by me, let's just call them companies altogether (normal+not-normal). Because obviously the thug is in a sense a company, this is exactly what you are arguing: Even the thug will work in the framework of risk and benefit and he has a business model.
But a company that intimidates and coerces remains a company. The reason why we don't call the mafia a company is only because in the framework of a state it is none, if you take away the state or take away it's legitimacy the mafia automatically becomes as legitimate as everything else. Or if you like you can define away it's legitimacy through your own moral code but until these morals are universally accepted this remains hollow semantics.
It is of concern of the company, because non-aggression is popular, and all the courts would support retaliation against an initiator of violence. If a PDA (protection agency) or not even a defense agency at all, fucks somebody up, does not appear in court when called, it is automatically deemed a violent company, and won't be protected by reputable courts nor any PDA. The employees all lose their insurance, are required restitution for any breach of contracts, and can be aggressed against easily by any lawful organization or person, because he would have the backing of no one. The employee would rather steal capital from it's own aggressing company and leave, before his reputation goes down with, so the profit motive can even destroy the company from within.
The only way that an aggressing company could kill and steal, and get away with it without going to reputable courts, that I can imagine, would be for being the largest of all, and becoming a state indeed. But I doubt that would happen for several reasons that I won't elaborate until we're even past lowly criminals and 6-pool builds. Which is a shame, that after 20 pages I still haven't got past that point. Though I have only myself to blame, I guess.
This is not about theorycrafting what will most likely happen according to your view of human nature. I don't care about that, all that matters is that the state can be validly seen as company or entity acting in an AnCap world if you don't want to use this particular word.
Of course it's fraudulent, by any theory of private property. There is absolutely no justification for the state to be a-priori entitled to a fraction of you labor; your house; any capital that itself has not contributed anything into producing. Absolutely no private property theory, even those that claim everyone has an equal share to every resource in the world; the government goes way beyond that and the taxation schemes are plain exploitation.
Hats off to you Yurebis, i've accepted ancap for quite a while now but i've never had the patience to argue with people online about my position for longer than a page or two. After i've made a few points I usually stop posting. Huge kudos to the work you do here, the patience, the step by step logic, the civil manner. 36 Pages and still going strong. Thanks for broadcasting the message, I dont think there is any other way to right social injustices.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: [averagely sized wall of text]
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument. It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote: Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
The state doesn't have an evil agenda when it plans where to put a highway. The police doesn't have an evil agenda when it decides how many people should investigate heavy crimes. The public housing corporation doesn't plot against you in its policies. Grants aren't given on a basis of corruption.
Yes, there is some amount of corruption and the other issues you mention, at various level of politics and public services. You're exaggerating when you claim it's all that bad. The free market mechanisms you mention are just as prone to human wrongdoing. Which is, they are prone to human wrongdoing, 100% true, as is government. You can't quantify it don't try it. This point has been mentioned a lot of times, but alas you won't believe it.
The free market methodology of regulating the use of public space may be more efficient. I think that a body of governance would do better in various circumstances when regarding the interest of the overall population, whereas the free market approach would always favor the interest of the most wealthy and influential (individual or interest group).
On September 03 2010 04:31 silynxer wrote: Well it is annoying to come back after several days and having to read all those pages but as far as I see this is the last relevant post concerning my argumentation.
On August 31 2010 08:37 Yurebis wrote: By the same argument, the thug on the backalley is always a normal company as well. Please test your arguments instead of having me point obvious flaws. The thug isn't a normal company, and by normal I hope you mean voluntary, because it does not act under the NAP (non aggression principle). So a company that is not voluntary cannot be said to be voluntary.
Sorry no obvious flaw there to me. Ok so you define every entity that does not act under the NAP as "not normal company" that's fine by me, let's just call them companies altogether (normal+not-normal). Because obviously the thug is in a sense a company,
A classification is useless if includes every possible entity in it, so it must be either disregarded as inconsistent or irrelevant. I discern voluntary, cooperative beings from violent, coercive ones.
On September 03 2010 04:31 silynxer wrote: this is exactly what you are arguing: Even the thug will work in the framework of risk and benefit and he has a business model.
Not what I would call a business model for reasons above. But of course, the thug is acting on what he expects to be the best actions for his ends... (if everyone was well versed in praxeology I really would not have to write 3/4 of the things I do...)
On September 03 2010 04:31 silynxer wrote: But a company that intimidates and coerces remains a company. The reason why we don't call the mafia a company is only because in the framework of a state it is none, if you take away the state or take away it's legitimacy the mafia automatically becomes as legitimate as everything else. Or if you like you can define away it's legitimacy through your own moral code but until these morals are universally accepted this remains hollow semantics.
No, it's not semantics, it's the whole point. In the realm of private property, a company that engages in obviously private-property-invading behavior, is an outlaw. It will be seen as illegitimate, will lose business, will be retaliated upon, and will not be protected by other law-abiding entities. It puts itself in a situation of great risk, and is most commonly attributed to lowly criminals because lowly criminals have much less to subjectively lose.
It is of concern of the company, because non-aggression is popular, and all the courts would support retaliation against an initiator of violence. If a PDA (protection agency) or not even a defense agency at all, fucks somebody up, does not appear in court when called, it is automatically deemed a violent company, and won't be protected by reputable courts nor any PDA. The employees all lose their insurance, are required restitution for any breach of contracts, and can be aggressed against easily by any lawful organization or person, because he would have the backing of no one. The employee would rather steal capital from it's own aggressing company and leave, before his reputation goes down with, so the profit motive can even destroy the company from within.
The only way that an aggressing company could kill and steal, and get away with it without going to reputable courts, that I can imagine, would be for being the largest of all, and becoming a state indeed. But I doubt that would happen for several reasons that I won't elaborate until we're even past lowly criminals and 6-pool builds. Which is a shame, that after 20 pages I still haven't got past that point. Though I have only myself to blame, I guess.
This is not about theorycrafting what will most likely happen according to your view of human nature. I don't care about that, all that matters is that the state can be validly seen as company or entity acting in an AnCap world if you don't want to use this particular word.
By definition it cannot. It would not have the "An" nor the "Cap" element anymore. If you mean that ancap can revert back to less-free states, then yes it can, but I deem unlikely once it matured.
On September 03 2010 04:32 Railxp wrote: Hats off to you Yurebis, i've accepted ancap for quite a while now but i've never had the patience to argue with people online about my position for longer than a page or two. After i've made a few points I usually stop posting. Huge kudos to the work you do here, the patience, the step by step logic, the civil manner. 36 Pages and still going strong. Thanks for broadcasting the message, I dont think there is any other way to right social injustices.
Hats off to your kind sir, for being honest with yourself.
No, it's not semantics, it's the whole point. In the realm of private property, a company that engages in obviously private-property-invading behavior, is an outlaw. It will be seen as illegitimate, will lose business, will be retaliated upon, and will not be protected by other law-abiding entities. It puts itself in a situation of great risk, and is most commonly attributed to lowly criminals because lowly criminals have much less to subjectively lose.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
The state doesn't have an evil agenda when it plans where to put a highway. The police doesn't have an evil agenda when it decides how many people should investigate heavy crimes. The public housing corporation doesn't plot against you in its policies. Grants aren't given on a basis of corruption.
Their intents may not be evil. But that's irrelevant in the scope of intelligence that I was referring to. The state cannot do all those things even if it set up with the best intentions in the universe, and had the most energetic personnel. They can't do all that because they aren't equipped with the market mechanisms that allow an entrepreneur to do the same. An entrepreneur is heavily interested in whether his project will be profitable, and by profitable I mean it will supply an unprecedented and unsatisfied demand in society; by how much; how much will he spend out of his pocket, and how much will people willingly pay him back; how can he devise the best business model to reduce redundancy at the maximum; how can he better support specializations within that model. These are many questions that the state bureaucrat does not have to nor could answer if he wanted. He can only copy what the market is already doing or had already done. at which point his measures are outdated; or create his own arbitrary measures that will never be as accurate as the entrepreneur's, because the people using the service aren't being free to choose it. Aaand shit, I've went for too long on entrepreneurship again.
Basically, the state can't know how many people it puts on each case, it only acts on its own hunchism devoid of market demand. Tax as much as they want, spend as much as they want, as long as they've got just enough people to vote them in next election.
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: Yes, there is some amount of corruption and the other issues you mention, at various level of politics and public services. You're exaggerating when you claim it's all that bad. The free market mechanisms you mention are just as prone to human wrongdoing. Which is, they are prone to human wrongdoing, 100% true, as is government. You can't quantify it don't try it. This point has been mentioned a lot of times, but alas you won't believe it.
Yes, now tell me, is it easier to corrupt a few senators, or multiple courts all over the country? The answer should tell you which model is more prone to corruption.
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: The free market methodology of regulating the use of public space may be more efficient. I think that a body of governance would do better in various circumstances when regarding the interest of the overall population, whereas the free market approach would always favor the interest of the most wealthy and influential (individual or interest group).
How can it know what the interest of the overall population are? And why do you think it can know better than businesses trying to satisfy those demands and profit off them themselves? The central planner is just one entity, there are thousands if not tens of thousands times the number of entrepreneurs compared to bureaucrats.
No, it's not semantics, it's the whole point. In the realm of private property, a company that engages in obviously private-property-invading behavior, is an outlaw. It will be seen as illegitimate, will lose business, will be retaliated upon, and will not be protected by other law-abiding entities. It puts itself in a situation of great risk, and is most commonly attributed to lowly criminals because lowly criminals have much less to subjectively lose.
Outlaw or not is it still a company?
It is an outlaw company; it will be sued against, its employers have all their contracts void, insurances void, anyone can rob them because the courts won't hear them; anyone can kill them or arrest them if they have killed and are still killing and robbing about.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: I never said that said thugs = state. But the fact that you do have thugs running around attempting to coerce people is not something I'd like to have around.
I know. That's kind of my point, because nobody says thugs = state. Now states ARE just thugs in reality, but most people think states != thugs and instead states = angels. That's the whole point. That's what makes a state work. It's merely a false meme. It's a cultural thing that states are not only inevitable, but required and are virtuous, moral entities that protect you. In the same way that slavery was once considered legitimate, we now all understand that it's not and we rationally oppose it.
And so even in a pure democracy, people aren't going to vote for slavery of the minorities just because the majority would benefit from it. It's not going to happen, because society has progressed and we have abolished slavery on moral grounds. We all 99% of us understand that there is no moral way to own another human being. Do you see what I mean? The fact that some people get political benefits from the state is true, and I don't discount it as being significant. It serves to make our job of convincing people that much harder. But in the same way that we now all rationally oppose slavery, I don't think that it's completely insurmountable.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: I think you overestimate the power of legitimacy. And you ignore some other factors that can support the success of the state. There are probably more factors, but I'll list the two most obvious. One is terror. Suppose instead of pointing a gun at you, I mutilate your body and hang it up in front of my corporate office. Sure, some people will get enraged and will be provoked to fight me, but a lot of other people will be quiet and accept that I have the power to make their lives miserable. We call this a reign of terror. Usually a reign of terror isn't solely a reign of terror though. While it can be immensely useful, it also usually needs something else to back it up.
I really don't think I overestimate it. I think that 99% of people support the state's use of initiatory violence, and actively defend it in arguments. This is contrasted with 99% of people opposing state's use of initiatory violence, and actively attacking it. I think that difference is huge and creates a very large practical difference on whether the state can feasibly exist. But maybe we can agree to disagree here. I've made this point as best I can a million times already and I really don't want to try again. If I haven't yet changed anybody's mind then it's not going to make a difference.
But your point about terror. It's true that states terrorise their citizens, and it's true that this can lower opposition to them. Duly noted. But again I don't think it's insurmountable. And I doubt that if you truly did something like that, that nobody would hold you to task for it. This would not allow you to become the next state; in-fact I would argue it would only serve you to achieve the opposite of your intended effect. Do you think the mere fact that my mutilated body hangs at your corporate office means that THE REST OF SOCIETY are all going to bow down and pay you taxes? No. If anything it would only show them how bat-shit criminally insane you are and increase opposition to your "company".
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: Consider socialism. Of course if I will get a bunch of support if I say that I would like to destroy the top 1% on behalf of the bottom 99%.
So surely the same logic applies if I say that I would like to enslave the bottom 1% of income earners on behalf of the top 99%. Of course, I will get a bunch of support, right! No I wouldn't, because slavery is morally opposed by everybody! That's the whole point! Who would support me? And even if over 51% of the hypothetical people would support me, at least WE REAL PEOPLE can all understand that it still doesn't make it right, or moral or legitimate.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: Are you going to seek to destroy the entity that protects your saftey? Or the entity that protects your business from fair competition?
It doesn't protect my safety; it hinders my safety and initiates aggression against me. It doesn't protect my business from fair competition; it restricts my business from fairly competing with those few that are politically connected.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: Running around and yelling YAY FREEDOM isn't going to convince that many people who think that the benefits of government outweigh the loss of freedom it brings. The existence of government has little to do with any moral authority, but rather widespread sense of political support.
That's why I'm trying my best to address everything in detail in order to best convince people, instead of merely yelling YAY FREEDOM. Maybe you're right that widespread political support is insurmountable, but I don't think that it is so I will try. The same argument could be made for giving women the right to vote, or equal rights for blacks, or something like that. It's not insurmountable to have a major paradigm shift of political opinion in culture, and to have cultural progress in the understanding of freedom. As it has happened many times before in history. Or do you content that our current political system is somehow the pinnacle of human political progress, and no more widespread cultural political views can ever possibly be changed from this point in time? I think that's a genuine mistake.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: If you're trying to make an argument, state the key points. Don't expect people to watch 30 minute videos. Note: I watched the first two minutes, noticed it has nothing to do with the quote you are supposedly trying to respond to, and then stopped watching.
I don't expect anything of you. If you don't want to watch it I honestly don't care. I link it for anybody that is interested enough.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: Waiting to see how you respond, I'll go on the assumption that what you DON'T say is going to be more telling than what you do. Prove me wrong.
I'm not sure what you want me to do here.
On September 03 2010 03:07 Incognito wrote: What if the contract said "if you smoke weed I have the right to lock you up in a cage?"
Then nobody would accept the terms of that contract. And even if they did, IT'S STILL IMMORAL. Oh yes, I went and said it. I don't think contracts are binding to such ridiculous extremes. If that were true, then members of the Scientology sea org are actually bound to employment for a billion years. But thankfully we can all recognise it as being ridiculous.
I value stability, and would rather not have the instability of a state that can shape the life of millions at the stroke of a pen. And you are right on the value subjectivism. People who want to coerce will probably find the state appreciable too.
This says nothing. Just because the state has the ability to shape millions of lives with the stroke of a pen doesn't mean that necessarily makes it unstable. Plenty of people don't care about politics because they dont think it affects them that much. Does it? Well doesnt really matter because if they don't think it does, then its stable enough for them. Also rent-seeking megacorporations may not like the instability of the states ability to change rules at a whim, but then again, they have massive lobbying power. They aren't that worried. Your hand waving statement merely shows an underlying fear of the potential power of the state. Either that or it shows that you're someone who is very much affected by the state (small businessperson). There is institutionalized instability, and then there's bottom up instability. Most people are more concerned about the thugs than they are about Uncle Sam. Reason? Maybe its because they suppose Uncle Sam to be legitimate, but more likely is because they like the benefits government confers on them. Government may be a large source of evil, but it does good things to some people as I explained in another of my posts.
Is it not implied that coercion is the 'only way' when you say that voluntary action can't do what you want to do? Seems to me like an implied support. "I'd love to make peace with the middle-east but it just doesn't seem possible..."
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict. The entire discussion of freedom is warped, because then you have questions like "what are you free from?" Also the example you mention about the middle east brings up another point: Throw religious fundamentalists into the mix and you have a group of people who seemingly act irrationally. I don't think you're really going to convince fundamentalists to do things with market incentives.
Yes. The PDAs (private defense agencies) can do such a thing, but because you know and I know that they can do such a thing, people will have prepared something to deal with it. Their contracts will be voided, they will be considered outlaws by everyone, anyone can arrest you and/or the PDAs employers, or kill you if you are pillaging. The PDA would have everything to lose, its own employers could turn get bounties+some amnesty if they manage to kill/arrest the management. Hitman businesses are pretty expensive if they're not legitimized, especially if it includes sustaining your own hierarchy, coercing big groups of people, and going against the whole society. The state can do it because it's a state, not because of the number of tanks or cops they have. If even 10% of the population today would see them for what they are, no amount of ammunition or fiat money would save them.
Assuming people are prepared is one thing Even going past that assumption, you can't say they will be considered outlaws by everyone. Obviously the company you're trying to destroy has enemies, esp if its not a monopoly (which likely wouldn't happen without the presence of a state - large accumulations of capital likewise probably wouldn't exist). They could even ignore the fact completely instead of siding with the PDA to avoid public scrutiny. Also its not like everyone cares if company X is driven into the ground and disappears from the face of the earth. Some people might, but not all. Hardly enough to justify everyone taking action to combat the PDA. Assuming everyone has FORESIGHT, then maybe yes, you could get enough individuals to combat the PDA's behavior. The question is whether you have enough resources to do so. Thats a quantitative question, not a qualitative one.
Feudalism was expensive. But it also worked, partly because of lack of transportation/geographical isolation/information asymmetry/a largely uneducated populace. So in essence anarcho-capitalism relies on the ability of people to quickly mobilize resources to respond to a threat. That has been helped by inventions such as the internet, transportation improvements, etc. Whether you have enough political willpower to execute a certain order of business is an entirely different matter. You have to get people who care. Political will still exists even without an official government. There are also non-market forces that influence people to certain actions.
Behavior economics says that people are irrational and do not always follow pure logic with regards to market decisions. It is often much cheaper to buy things in the context of social interaction/social favors etc than it is through the market. There are also things that people would do as a friendly favor that they wouldn't do for a small sum of money. Money isn't everything people care about. It also isn't the most efficient method to do things in some cases. So yes, of course its expensive to pay off people to stop them from interfering with your devious plans. But its much easier to do it with social norms.
Actually the state can do it because it comes in a big bundle. The state is all or nothing. You buy the whole package, or you don't. They can do it because people can't get rid of the things they hate about government while keeping the things they like. People like getting food stamps and other things. Bread and circuses ftw. Government essentially works by pacifying the masses. It probably contributes to the reason why public education is so bad.
* I see coercion here * - the truth is you can't escape coercion even in an anarcho-capitalist society. Its just not a formally institutionalized entity.
Uh, people individually can't know everything, yeah. But even the relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market. The right way to think of it is not "what wrong can happen" but how do you best prevent such wrongs. I think the most fraud that exists in the world today is by the part of a state. I don't think all private scams in history added together get to the trillions of dollars stolen and indebted by the part of governments. And that's because the bureaucrat is much more sheltered from market interaction, and the bureaucrats have to be paid by law. Hell, any scammer would love to be in the position of government - he doesn't even have to fool the people into buying, he is paid no matter what!
Explain how relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market?
So if the right way to think is how do you prevent such wrongs, then how would you answer that question? Pure market forces?
The biggest fraud is the fraud that is fractional reserve banking, so yes, that is a product of the state. But it doesnt really matter how BIG the scam is. All that has to happen is that it ruins one person's life. You can defraud wealthy individuals of large sums of money, or you can defraud a poor person of their meager means of living, its still fraud. Its easier to defraud uneducated people than educated people. So another reason why anarchism requires a high average level of competence/education.
Maybe the bottom line here is that anarcho-capitalism relies on a set of interlocking forces which constrain individuals to follow certain patterns of behavior. In which case if one of those forces is seen as invalid by the individual, the system breaks and said individual commits an "illogical" act. The problem is not everyone has the same goals and not everyone is in it for profit.
Are you saying the state has prevented the assassination of Bill Gates lol? Please, has the government made the grass grow too? When the government 1-steals from everyone 2- establishes a service like police and law enforcement and 3- prohibits anyone else from providing such a service, you can't say that if it weren't for it there would be no security nor law, because they are monopolizing it! It is the same thing as a proletariat waiting at bread lines in communism saying that there would be no one to give him bread in a free market! Ridiculous. A service is a service, and men are men. The men giving you security now (and doing the shittiest job at it shoud I add) would be no different than in anarchism, if not better. Because they'd be forced to compete for once, they'd be paid what the market is willing to pay, and they'd be as susceptible to the law as anyone else.
Bill Gates does not have either the funds nor the mental capacity to run a more successful state. Nor is it particularly efficient to invade property rights to protect property rights. Bill Gates would spend the necessary amount to protect his property and no more - that way he remains both popular and efficient.
First off I should probably qualify my statement and say that in anarchism theres nothing stopping the average joe from NOT killing Bill Gates. The difference is the reasons. Anyway...
The state has not physically prevented the assassination of Bill Gates, no. But there are many potential state reasons why this has not occured, namely, that poor people who would be socialists think that the government will help them get Bill Gate's wealth after he dies. Karl Marx originally said that class struggle would lead to violent revolution. The truth is that government evolved to accommodate these fears. When the welfare state came about, the class struggle theory lost its fangs because the working class is no longer "oppressed" like they supposedly would have been. Its bread and circuses again like I have mentioned. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, the poor person is not starving and in desperate need of killing Bill Gates. At least in the current system the poor person (thinks) that Bill Gates is paying for his food/clothing/shelter via the welfare state.
The rest of your paragraph is incoherrent. I dont think I said anywhere that there would be no defense/bread providing services in anarchism. So the only thing I'll say here is: would everyone be able to afford these services? Or would I have to be a wage slave to someone in order to get food/protection? On second thought, how would Police charge for services? Monthly fees? What if in a community of 10 ppl 8 people decided to pay for the service and two didn't?
Hmm well yes Bill Gates probably wouldn't need to fund a whole state, only a defense part. My bad.
You don't need everyone to be geniuses as much as today you'd need everyone to be geniuses so they can choose competent rulers. Anarchism is not about taking all responsibilities of the current economy into each individual, it's about letting each individual transfer their own responsibilities to those he chooses, instead of taking it for some collectivist cause (which btw, doesn't exist. Collectivism has no conscience, collectivism makes no decisions. Man makes decisions, and in statism, some man will have to make decisions for people, or more precisely, steal from them the ability to make decisions themselves).
The whole paragraph is confusing and seems to bypass everything I said. I don't even know if it was meant to be in response to anything I said. But then again since its so confusing I don't know if it did bypass anything. This is probably one of the paragraphs that tells me more by what ISN'T said than by what is said. However, I don't think I ever said anything about support for a collectivist cause, so my guess is that you are throwing around rhetoric in order to easily dismiss the points.
I can agree and support the idea that Anarchism allows people to transfer responsibilities to anyone he chooses, the only problem is that anarchism does much more than that. This still doesnt address many other issues including some forms of rational malevolence, irrational malevolence (terrorism), non-market forces, education levels, subjectivity of value, freedoms, information asymmetry, etc.
The main error in anarcho-capitalism is the capitalism part, not necessarily the anarchism part. But thats a whole other discussion (with tabula rasa included).
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
The state doesn't have an evil agenda when it plans where to put a highway. The police doesn't have an evil agenda when it decides how many people should investigate heavy crimes. The public housing corporation doesn't plot against you in its policies. Grants aren't given on a basis of corruption.
Their intents may not be evil. But that's irrelevant in the scope of intelligence that I was referring to. The state cannot do all those things even if it set up with the best intentions in the universe, and had the most energetic personnel. They can't do all that because they aren't equipped with the market mechanisms that allow an entrepreneur to do the same. An entrepreneur is heavily interested in whether his project will be profitable, and by profitable I mean it will supply an unprecedented and unsatisfied demand in society; by how much; how much will he spend out of his pocket, and how much will people willingly pay him back; how can he devise the best business model to reduce redundancy at the maximum; how can he better support specializations within that model. These are many questions that the state bureaucrat does not have to nor could answer if he wanted. He can only copy what the market is already doing or had already done. at which point his measures are outdated; or create his own arbitrary measures that will never be as accurate as the entrepreneur's, because the people using the service aren't being free to choose it. Aaand shit, I've went for too long on entrepreneurship again.
Yes, you did. I don't need my government to be 100% most efficient to various measurements. I prefer it to be fair towards me. I don't have any guarantees in a free market, none. Entrepreneurs are free to ignore me. You say that I'll be a nice customer, I say that I might not be worth their efforts as I get out-competed in the demand market (will hold true for various kinds of markets, false for any other markets that you would use in an example to counter my point).
On September 03 2010 05:19 Yurebis wrote: Basically, the state can't know how many people it puts on each case, it only acts on its own hunchism devoid of market demand. Tax as much as they want, spend as much as they want, as long as they've got just enough people to vote them in next election.
Responding to market demand is also reactive, not pro-active. Hunchism doesn't exist, it is fine-tuning based on a feedback loop.
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: Yes, there is some amount of corruption and the other issues you mention, at various level of politics and public services. You're exaggerating when you claim it's all that bad. The free market mechanisms you mention are just as prone to human wrongdoing. Which is, they are prone to human wrongdoing, 100% true, as is government. You can't quantify it don't try it. This point has been mentioned a lot of times, but alas you won't believe it.
Yes, now tell me, is it easier to corrupt a few senators, or multiple courts all over the country? The answer should tell you which model is more prone to corruption.
I only need to corrupt one or two local courts as they affect me. Seems easier than corrupting a senator. And some other guy a 100 miles away will do the same for the court there.
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: The free market methodology of regulating the use of public space may be more efficient. I think that a body of governance would do better in various circumstances when regarding the interest of the overall population, whereas the free market approach would always favor the interest of the most wealthy and influential (individual or interest group).
How can it know what the interest of the overall population are? And why do you think it can know better than businesses trying to satisfy those demands and profit off them themselves? The central planner is just one entity, there are thousands if not tens of thousands times the number of entrepreneurs compared to bureaucrats.
It is the governments' job to find out what it does not know. There are companies that perform surveys and measurements at the behest of government agencies. There are statistics oriented government bodies to help make policy. The government isn't blind, and you presenting it as such makes your whole argumentation lose credibility.
@Yurebis: Then my point remains: the states right now are exactly an (in your view outlaw and criminal) company. If people act as you describe they should act so right now against the government.
As to dvide: Unlike Yurebis at least you offer a way to differntiate between government and company. But it's an incredible wonky way because it only lies in the perception of the population. It is not quantifiable (or perhaps you can convince me otherwise) and you get all sorts of associated problems. Consider an ethnic minority living in a rather remote area feeling to be not legitimately ruled by the respective government. Do they live in AnCap? The government surely has no authority over them in your sense but only power, shouldn't it be seen at least to them as an equivalent to an AnCap entity acting "unlawful"?
On September 03 2010 04:31 silynxer wrote: But a company that intimidates and coerces remains a company. The reason why we don't call the mafia a company is only because in the framework of a state it is none, if you take away the state or take away it's legitimacy the mafia automatically becomes as legitimate as everything else. Or if you like you can define away it's legitimacy through your own moral code but until these morals are universally accepted this remains hollow semantics.
Really? The Mafia becomes legitimate just because the state's legitimacy is taken away? That makes no sense. Who would actually believe that? Ok, so let's just imagine you're right about relative moral codes, universality of morality and such. Who would actually believe that the Mafia gains the moral right to extort others if the state disappears? Find anybody who accepts this and I will give you a cookie =)
[EDIT]: Btw a very interesting point you raise there: One of the reasons the mafia in Italy is so hard to come by is because in certain areas it's very deeply rooted and accepted in society.
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
On September 03 2010 05:52 silynxer wrote: As to dvide: Unlike Yurebis at least you offer a way to differntiate between government and company. But it's an incredible wonky way because it only lies in the perception of the population. It is not quantifiable (or perhaps you can convince me otherwise) and you get all sorts of associated problems.
But I'm not really interested in just the semantics of this argument. I'm interested in the material differences. If that difference lies in the perception of the population then so be it. The fact that there is a difference in perception is a TRUE FACT, so how can it be wonky? If it's a wonky way to define something then I don't really care, because I don't care about semantics. Words are always inter-subjectively defined; that's a fact of language.
Where as you seem to be arguing that there is no semantic difference anywhere, and so we obviously already live in anarchy. So we should just stop complaining because we're already living in our desired utopia. It's nonsense. There is a material difference that I am proposing, so I don't already live in my desired utopia. But all you're doing is attempting to redefine everything in such a way for the sake of propagandising for the state, by equating it with productive businesses.
On September 03 2010 05:52 silynxer wrote: Consider an ethnic minority living in a rather remote area feeling to be not legitimately ruled by the respective government. Do they live in AnCap? The government surely has no authority over them in your sense but only power, shouldn't it be seen at least to them as an equivalent to an AnCap entity acting "unlawful"?
I suppose, if everybody else agrees too. It's not just one opinion that matters most; it's an entire cultural paradigm shift that makes up the difference that I am proposing.
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
I've already written about this "wage slavery" type argument before in this thread. But I watched this good video about it today so I thought I'd share it with you since you bring it up again:
I value stability, and would rather not have the instability of a state that can shape the life of millions at the stroke of a pen. And you are right on the value subjectivism. People who want to coerce will probably find the state appreciable too.
This says nothing. Just because the state has the ability to shape millions of lives with the stroke of a pen doesn't mean that necessarily makes it unstable. Plenty of people don't care about politics because they dont think it affects them that much. Does it? Well doesnt really matter because if they don't think it does, then its stable enough for them. Also rent-seeking megacorporations may not like the instability of the states ability to change rules at a whim, but then again, they have massive lobbying power. They aren't that worried. Your hand waving statement merely shows an underlying fear of the potential power of the state. Either that or it shows that you're someone who is very much affected by the state (small businessperson). There is institutionalized instability, and then there's bottom up instability. Most people are more concerned about the thugs than they are about Uncle Sam. Reason? Maybe its because they suppose Uncle Sam to be legitimate, but more likely is because they like the benefits government confers on them. Government may be a large source of evil, but it does good things to some people as I explained in another of my posts.
Is it not implied that coercion is the 'only way' when you say that voluntary action can't do what you want to do? Seems to me like an implied support. "I'd love to make peace with the middle-east but it just doesn't seem possible..."
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict. The entire discussion of freedom is warped, because then you have questions like "what are you free from?" Also the example you mention about the middle east brings up another point: Throw religious fundamentalists into the mix and you have a group of people who seemingly act irrationally. I don't think you're really going to convince fundamentalists to do things with market incentives.
I've had that talk with someone else trying to mud the waters. Look, it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead. I can trade my products and services with other people's products and services...
Social forces aren't coercion. Taxes are coercion, for the state claims a portion of my services and products it has no part of in creating. Dying from hunger isn't coercion because there isn't a coercer who to blame. Nature isn't a rational entity that even matters in the scope of human action, nor in private property. When libertarians say they wand "freedom", of course it means freedom from something. In that case, it is from coercion, from the initiation of force, fraud, and murder. Because these are human actions that violate private property theory and NAP, non-aggression principle.
I would say the fundamentalist is the one supporting violence against non-engaging middle-easterners, perpetuating a cycle of violence that the U.S. (state) itself has started.
Yes. The PDAs (private defense agencies) can do such a thing, but because you know and I know that they can do such a thing, people will have prepared something to deal with it. Their contracts will be voided, they will be considered outlaws by everyone, anyone can arrest you and/or the PDAs employers, or kill you if you are pillaging. The PDA would have everything to lose, its own employers could turn get bounties+some amnesty if they manage to kill/arrest the management. Hitman businesses are pretty expensive if they're not legitimized, especially if it includes sustaining your own hierarchy, coercing big groups of people, and going against the whole society. The state can do it because it's a state, not because of the number of tanks or cops they have. If even 10% of the population today would see them for what they are, no amount of ammunition or fiat money would save them.
Assuming people are prepared is one thing Even going past that assumption, you can't say they will be considered outlaws by everyone. Obviously the company you're trying to destroy has enemies, esp if its not a monopoly (which likely wouldn't happen without the presence of a state - large accumulations of capital likewise probably wouldn't exist). They could even ignore the fact completely instead of siding with the PDA to avoid public scrutiny. Also its not like everyone cares if company X is driven into the ground and disappears from the face of the earth. Some people might, but not all. Hardly enough to justify everyone taking action to combat the PDA. Assuming everyone has FORESIGHT, then maybe yes, you could get enough individuals to combat the PDA's behavior. The question is whether you have enough resources to do so. Thats a quantitative question, not a qualitative one.
Really, you think that only YOU are able to have foresight, but everyone else in society will be like "dduuuur hurrr lets allow that PDA to become a state again and mass slaughter whoever they want"? Please. If you can see it, guess what, competing businesses, investors, and courts will have noticed the possibility, the means, and the opportunities, years before you did.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: Feudalism was expensive. But it also worked, partly because of lack of transportation/geographical isolation/information asymmetry/a largely uneducated populace. So in essence anarcho-capitalism relies on the ability of people to quickly mobilize resources to respond to a threat. That has been helped by inventions such as the internet, transportation improvements, etc. Whether you have enough political willpower to execute a certain order of business is an entirely different matter. You have to get people who care. Political will still exists even without an official government. There are also non-market forces that influence people to certain actions.
Not an argument against ancap, not a claim I care to disagree with.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: Behavior economics says that people are irrational and do not always follow pure logic with regards to market decisions. It is often much cheaper to buy things in the context of social interaction/social favors etc than it is through the market. There are also things that people would do as a friendly favor that they wouldn't do for a small sum of money. Money isn't everything people care about. It also isn't the most efficient method to do things in some cases. So yes, of course its expensive to pay off people to stop them from interfering with your devious plans. But its much easier to do it with social norms.
I'm not a neoclassicist. Read what austrian economics have to say on subjective value theory.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: Actually the state can do it because it comes in a big bundle. The state is all or nothing. You buy the whole package, or you don't. They can do it because people can't get rid of the things they hate about government while keeping the things they like. People like getting food stamps and other things. Bread and circuses ftw. Government essentially works by pacifying the masses. It probably contributes to the reason why public education is so bad.
Can do what? Fuck things up? Surely. It fucks things up the moment it extorts capital. Even if it spent the capital more cohesively, it would still be subpar. People just seem to notice when it's real bad, but it's actually always bad.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: * I see coercion here * - the truth is you can't escape coercion even in an anarcho-capitalist society. Its just not a formally institutionalized entity.
Uh, people individually can't know everything, yeah. But even the relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market. The right way to think of it is not "what wrong can happen" but how do you best prevent such wrongs. I think the most fraud that exists in the world today is by the part of a state. I don't think all private scams in history added together get to the trillions of dollars stolen and indebted by the part of governments. And that's because the bureaucrat is much more sheltered from market interaction, and the bureaucrats have to be paid by law. Hell, any scammer would love to be in the position of government - he doesn't even have to fool the people into buying, he is paid no matter what!
Explain how relations of trust and specialization is maximized in the free market?
The more trustworthy are verified over time to be trustworthy, and earn more for their work as there is less risk to account for. It is natural to put proportionally more money on a sure bet, than a risky one... The more specialized are usually more efficient, and the more efficient earn more for their work, as they satisfy customer demand proportionally at a lesser cost.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: So if the right way to think is how do you prevent such wrongs, then how would you answer that question? Pure market forces?
Wrongs create a demand to right them. People look for people to right them, and I'll call them "righters". Righters progressively earn a reputation and specialize at it. Righters figure out the best models to right things out, and righters compete in the free market. That goes for anything, not just law, defense, insurance, shoemaking, starcraft progaming, etc.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: The biggest fraud is the fraud that is fractional reserve banking, so yes, that is a product of the state. But it doesnt really matter how BIG the scam is. All that has to happen is that it ruins one person's life. You can defraud wealthy individuals of large sums of money, or you can defraud a poor person of their meager means of living, its still fraud. Its easier to defraud uneducated people than educated people. So another reason why anarchism requires a high average level of competence/education.
Fractional reserve banking is almost entirely a state enabled fraud. Banks who used demand deposits as time deposits would risk customers withdrawing them at the same time and discover the malpractice. Contracts will instantly put the bank at a bad position. Third parties could help keep banks on check, and any bank that denied being up for audit would instantly lose popularity.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: Maybe the bottom line here is that anarcho-capitalism relies on a set of interlocking forces which constrain individuals to follow certain patterns of behavior. In which case if one of those forces is seen as invalid by the individual, the system breaks and said individual commits an "illogical" act. The problem is not everyone has the same goals and not everyone is in it for profit.
Not illogical. Criminal acts are completely logical. But they're also short term and rely on the element of surprise. When people are prepared, and able to retaliate as best as they can, is when criminality will be minimized as best as it will ever get. The way it is now, law and punishment are socialized services, inefficient and monopolized, and I claim crime is at least three times what it would be otherwise. Thats not including taxation of course.
Are you saying the state has prevented the assassination of Bill Gates lol? Please, has the government made the grass grow too? When the government 1-steals from everyone 2- establishes a service like police and law enforcement and 3- prohibits anyone else from providing such a service, you can't say that if it weren't for it there would be no security nor law, because they are monopolizing it! It is the same thing as a proletariat waiting at bread lines in communism saying that there would be no one to give him bread in a free market! Ridiculous. A service is a service, and men are men. The men giving you security now (and doing the shittiest job at it shoud I add) would be no different than in anarchism, if not better. Because they'd be forced to compete for once, they'd be paid what the market is willing to pay, and they'd be as susceptible to the law as anyone else.
Bill Gates does not have either the funds nor the mental capacity to run a more successful state. Nor is it particularly efficient to invade property rights to protect property rights. Bill Gates would spend the necessary amount to protect his property and no more - that way he remains both popular and efficient.
First off I should probably qualify my statement and say that in anarchism theres nothing stopping the average joe from NOT killing Bill Gates. The difference is the reasons. Anyway...
The state has not physically prevented the assassination of Bill Gates, no. But there are many potential state reasons why this has not occured, namely, that poor people who would be socialists think that the government will help them get Bill Gate's wealth after he dies. Karl Marx originally said that class struggle would lead to violent revolution. The truth is that government evolved to accommodate these fears. When the welfare state came about, the class struggle theory lost its fangs because the working class is no longer "oppressed" like they supposedly would have been. Its bread and circuses again like I have mentioned. Unlike anarcho-capitalism, the poor person is not starving and in desperate need of killing Bill Gates. At least in the current system the poor person (thinks) that Bill Gates is paying for his food/clothing/shelter via the welfare state.
The idea that the state is helping the poor by stealing from everyone (including the poor themselves) is laughable. But even if I were to grant that, it's even more funny that you think because the state is stealing, that the socialists are more satisfied so they want to steal less. What? As long as anyone has any wealth that they envy, they'll be up for stealing it, no matter how much or how little.
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: The rest of your paragraph is incoherrent. I dont think I said anywhere that there would be no defense/bread providing services in anarchism. So the only thing I'll say here is: would everyone be able to afford these services? Or would I have to be a wage slave to someone in order to get food/protection? On second thought, how would Police charge for services? Monthly fees? What if in a community of 10 ppl 8 people decided to pay for the service and two didn't?
They already pay such services. The cops aren't being paid by Bill Gates. Give me a break. They will be MORE able to pay for defense, because the market for defense won't be monopolized and socialized. It will be far cheaper. And even more ethical I argue. PDAs can charge through insurance companies, on-demand, on monthly fees, through street tolls, there is a variety of ways to pay for things one you put down the gunverment.
You don't need everyone to be geniuses as much as today you'd need everyone to be geniuses so they can choose competent rulers. Anarchism is not about taking all responsibilities of the current economy into each individual, it's about letting each individual transfer their own responsibilities to those he chooses, instead of taking it for some collectivist cause (which btw, doesn't exist. Collectivism has no conscience, collectivism makes no decisions. Man makes decisions, and in statism, some man will have to make decisions for people, or more precisely, steal from them the ability to make decisions themselves).
The whole paragraph is confusing and seems to bypass everything I said. I don't even know if it was meant to be in response to anything I said. But then again since its so confusing I don't know if it did bypass anything. This is probably one of the paragraphs that tells me more by what ISN'T said than by what is said. However, I don't think I ever said anything about support for a collectivist cause, so my guess is that you are throwing around rhetoric in order to easily dismiss the points.
Perhaps I should refresh what you said before:
On September 02 2010 13:13 Incognito wrote: On Anarchy. Anarchy is a system which depends on the existence of tabula rasa. If man is purely a product of the environment, then government can move from a physical entity to an intangible idea. Yet it still is a government. i.e. governing principle. Under the tabula rasa idea, anarchy is possible under many forms. One way is to condition everyone to act like a hive drone and make them completely constrained by feelings of not wanting to be socially ostracized by the community. That results in the non-existence of government without freedom. Another way is to have a completely educated population. Law is a substitute for rational thought. It is a shortcut that allows people who can't think rationally to come to semi-rational conclusions. Of course, law is abusable because it is arbitrary, open to interpretation, and hard to adapt to the situation at hand. Therefore, a society that has collectively achieved the highest level of education can operate without laws. Of course, the whole conflict is how you define education and rational thought. Rational for who? For individual self interest? Collective interest? A mix of all of them?
Of course if tabula rasa doesn't exist, then anarchy doesn't work. The OP bypasses this by acknowledging that anarchy doesn't work in the presence of "human nature", but then neither do states. This is a cop-out. The OP should just have denied the existence of human nature and went straight for the gut with tabula rasa. Oh well.
Bold mine.
Since you didn't understand, perhaps I should take the exact same paragraph and rephrase a little.
You don't need everyone to be geniuses in anarcho-capitalist to know which courts to pick, as much as you don't need everyone to be geniuses to vote for the right candidates. Anarchism is not about each person being experts in law and enforcers of their own laws, it's about letting each individual transfer their own moral duties precisely to those courts and PDAs he chooses, instead of socializing it into a collectivist law (which btw, doesn't exist. Collectivism has no conscience, collectivism has no moral conscience. Therefore, no law can arise from collectivism. Only man can make laws, and in statism, some man will have to make laws for people, or more precisely, steal from them the ability to make laws themselves, voluntarily).
Hope it helped a bit. I shouldn't have to though, for someone who was talking 'bout tabula rasa and shit. tee hee
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: I can agree and support the idea that Anarchism allows people to transfer responsibilities to anyone he chooses, the only problem is that anarchism does much more than that. This still doesnt address many other issues including some forms of rational malevolence, irrational malevolence (terrorism), non-market forces, education levels, subjectivity of value, freedoms, information asymmetry, etc.
The main error in anarcho-capitalism is the capitalism part, not necessarily the anarchism part. But thats a whole other discussion (with tabula rasa included).
Oh okay so I just wrote the above for nothing. Be clear next time thx. Apparently you are under the impression that bureaucrats somehow limit human error by being more illuminated themselves? Rational malevolence... people being mean with eachother on purpose? Like what? Terrorism, gee, I wonder if the state really stops terrorism by doing more terrorism itself. Non-market forces.. like the state and state-enabled mafias? Education... now that's funny coming from someone that
On September 03 2010 05:40 Incognito wrote: Government essentially works by pacifying the masses. It probably contributes to the reason why public education is so bad.
agreed the state was making it worse. Subjectivity of value? Hello my name is Austrian Economics, the leading expert of subjective value theory, how are you today kind sir? Freedoms,... yeah. Information asymmetry - still doesn't prove the central planner is any brighter to even begin to justify making people's decisions for them, coercively.
@dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
The reason why we don't live in anarchy is not because of the "false meme" of government but because it's inherently human to not live in anarchy (this only as a sidenote).
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
I've already written about this "wage slavery" type argument before in this thread. But I watched this good video about it today so I thought I'd share it with you since you bring it up again:
This whole argument ignores utilitarianism for the sake of principle and I cannot agree with that. Is murder wrong? Yes, is murdering someone to save 10 other people still wrong? I would argue no. People are so caught up in the principle of actions that they ignore the efficiency in finding the greatest good for the greatest amount. Utilitarianism, although at times vague, is still is the ultimate measuring tool for finding the best course of action in ethics and morality.
There is point about an-cap, and the removal of 'forceful coercion'
The problem is forceful coercion is at the basis of what we are.
Compare a company that owns the land of a city and sets rules for those who want to build and operate there to a state. There is a contract that everyone living/working there is bound by established by the company. The company has an exclusive arrangement with a Particular 'PDA' and an exclusive arrangement with a particular 'Court Organization'
What is the difference with a state.
I can see you arguing the 'laws' of a state contain terms that are too binding in any contract.*
I could also see you arguing that in the company case the people chose to live there... but what about someone born there.
Our first 'decision' is 100% forcefully coerced by others (our parents) bring us into this world in a certain place. and for quite some time we can't make rational, informed decisions. (if ever)
You could also argue that the state does not 'own' the land.. however, that is the understanding. The understanding is that the ownership of the land is split up. 'sovereign' ownership belongs to the state, and other aspects of ownership belong to the 'owners'
Which means the only issue is how the state obtained 'sovreign ownership' of the land in the first place.
Which means we could transition to AnCap, call the state a large company that officially has a type of ownership of the land, and there would be no change. (*Except possibly some laws would be too restrictive as clauses in a contract)
So really An-Cap is just arguing for less restrictive laws/contract terms. (and a state that is involved as little as possible in 'other markets' besides PDA+Courts)
An-Cap could also be arguing for a cultural change (for people to have a deep respect for private property)... but honestly so are the jihadists, the communists, etc.
On September 02 2010 18:36 dvide wrote: I also want to touch on the concept that states are merely like landlords setting rules on their own property. Let's say I own a house. For the sake of argument, I inarguably own the house. Now let's say I come home from work one day and I see a hippie smoking weed on my lawn. I don't get to throw the hippie in a cage in my basement for 5 years right? I think we can all recognise that this would not be considered moral. I might have a rule that says nobody can have weed on my property, but that's irrelevant. I still cannot morally lock the guy in a cage for 5 years.
So what gives the state the moral right to do this, even if you argue that they legitimately own all of the land?
The state doesn't own the land. It governs the land. It owns some where it is deemed more useful to be a public resource rather than a private resource. (such as roads, nature reserves, public utility..)
Part of governing is the task to make sure that on the publicly available resources, individuals in a country (region of governance) don't interfere with the utility of that resource beyond the reasonable. Incarcerating someone is a tool for coercing people to follow the rules established by the governing body. How those rules are established, I guess, is your beef. Personally I think there could perhaps be improvement, but I'm not gonna argue about an anarchaic (not a word?) system being better at that. I do like to point out that the state doesn't own all the land.
How can the state even know what is reasonable to interfere with, if they are exempt of market incentives? Measuring the amount of letters they get? Measuring popularity ratings? How can that be even remotely better than price signals and profit incentives (which by the way, they still react to, but in a worse manner, through lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc.)?
The state doesn't have an evil agenda when it plans where to put a highway. The police doesn't have an evil agenda when it decides how many people should investigate heavy crimes. The public housing corporation doesn't plot against you in its policies. Grants aren't given on a basis of corruption.
Their intents may not be evil. But that's irrelevant in the scope of intelligence that I was referring to. The state cannot do all those things even if it set up with the best intentions in the universe, and had the most energetic personnel. They can't do all that because they aren't equipped with the market mechanisms that allow an entrepreneur to do the same. An entrepreneur is heavily interested in whether his project will be profitable, and by profitable I mean it will supply an unprecedented and unsatisfied demand in society; by how much; how much will he spend out of his pocket, and how much will people willingly pay him back; how can he devise the best business model to reduce redundancy at the maximum; how can he better support specializations within that model. These are many questions that the state bureaucrat does not have to nor could answer if he wanted. He can only copy what the market is already doing or had already done. at which point his measures are outdated; or create his own arbitrary measures that will never be as accurate as the entrepreneur's, because the people using the service aren't being free to choose it. Aaand shit, I've went for too long on entrepreneurship again.
Yes, you did. I don't need my government to be 100% most efficient to various measurements. I prefer it to be fair towards me. I don't have any guarantees in a free market, none. Entrepreneurs are free to ignore me. You say that I'll be a nice customer, I say that I might not be worth their efforts as I get out-competed in the demand market (will hold true for various kinds of markets, false for any other markets that you would use in an example to counter my point).
Can you have guarantees with the state? Perhaps it is time for you to define what a guarantee is. And compare which guarantees are more likely to be delivered. And why. The incentives of not just the state option, and the externalities of not just the free market option, but both taken together as a full cost/benefit analysis. Do it.
It is hardly your right to buy something for less than another is willing to buy it, as it is hardly your right to steal my car when you can't afford the same model. You're basically just trying to justify theft... do I really have to address the externalities of theft with you?
Quite simply, you let the state steal from others to give it to you, and you've simultaneously let it steal from you to give to others. There is a point into calling into inefficient, because it makes everyone poorer, not you richer. Unless you're at the very top, you're not really getting any benefits from what otherwise would have been a much wealthier society, with cheaper products, cheaper services, more jobs, etc. etc.
On September 03 2010 05:19 Yurebis wrote: Basically, the state can't know how many people it puts on each case, it only acts on its own hunchism devoid of market demand. Tax as much as they want, spend as much as they want, as long as they've got just enough people to vote them in next election.
Responding to market demand is also reactive, not pro-active. Hunchism doesn't exist, it is fine-tuning based on a feedback loop.
You are sooo wrong. I'm sorry but you are completely wrong. You think any entrepreneur can make profit by not being proactive? That is what profit even means in a more strictly austrian sense. Profit is the seizing of market demand that wasn't satisfied before. That is what innovation is, that is precisely what the market aka free working people are known to do best. They develop, build, plan, etc. etc. etc. better than any particular central planner does... Prices aren't used only reactively, they are used to know what can be a future profitable endeavor or not. One doesn't react to prices as much as one doesn't react to nature. Prices are just signals that one may choose to react to (I gotta buy less doritos now that the're $1 more expensive) or proactively (I'm gonna open my own chips company to undercut doritos).
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: Yes, there is some amount of corruption and the other issues you mention, at various level of politics and public services. You're exaggerating when you claim it's all that bad. The free market mechanisms you mention are just as prone to human wrongdoing. Which is, they are prone to human wrongdoing, 100% true, as is government. You can't quantify it don't try it. This point has been mentioned a lot of times, but alas you won't believe it.
Yes, now tell me, is it easier to corrupt a few senators, or multiple courts all over the country? The answer should tell you which model is more prone to corruption.
I only need to corrupt one or two local courts as they affect me. Seems easier than corrupting a senator. And some other guy a 100 miles away will do the same for the court there.
How much do you expect to pay by bribing two local courts enough to account for the popularity they'll lose from all other customers? And how much do you win by doing that? Can you kill a man and bribe the small courts for 1 million dollars each? And then what happens? The families will just shut up and not suspect anything? They won't ask for third parties opinions? They won't go to other courts? People that are into law won't see what's going on?
Please elaborate on the full plan of your evil scheme. And tell me how are you going to outsmart so many people in the business. And then, tell me how the well-meaning individuals inside a state responsible for checks and balances wouldn't be outsmarted in the same way, by less money.
On September 03 2010 05:00 Badjas wrote: The free market methodology of regulating the use of public space may be more efficient. I think that a body of governance would do better in various circumstances when regarding the interest of the overall population, whereas the free market approach would always favor the interest of the most wealthy and influential (individual or interest group).
How can it know what the interest of the overall population are? And why do you think it can know better than businesses trying to satisfy those demands and profit off them themselves? The central planner is just one entity, there are thousands if not tens of thousands times the number of entrepreneurs compared to bureaucrats.
It is the governments' job to find out what it does not know. There are companies that perform surveys and measurements at the behest of government agencies. There are statistics oriented government bodies to help make policy. The government isn't blind, and you presenting it as such makes your whole argumentation lose credibility.
The difference here is of course that businesses do surveys when there are no prices in a market to estimate consumer demand for, like for a new product or service - it is subpar probing than observing the buying and selling practices of voluntary customers. The government can only do surveys, and does them for rare circumstances where it didn't need them in the first place, nor do they have the incentives do keep doing them. Elections is also a type of survey that completely misrepresents demand by offering people a one dollar choice each. The state doesn't know what people want best, nor does it know by how much do they want it. And yes, the best opportunity they have at knowing it is on the basis of irregular and inefficient surveying, polls, approval ratings.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win. I don't want to discuss this any more, because it makes no difference to my argument. I've outlined the material difference that I want to change and we all understand it. So whatever you or we choose to call it is irrelevant at this point, unless we're just debating semantics.
By the by, there are continuums where two extremes have distinct words in language, but they cannot be precisely differentiated. Such as hot and cold. I think the same could be said of anarchism and statism. Language is always intersubjective, that's why outlying exactly what you mean is important to avoid a confused semantic dispute. I have done that, so we need to get off this topic.
On September 03 2010 05:52 silynxer wrote: @Yurebis: Then my point remains: the states right now are exactly an (in your view outlaw and criminal) company. If people act as you describe they should act so right now against the government.
We aren't in anarcho-capitalism, and property rights aren't understood nor fully respected.
Completely different environments, thanks for the strawman.
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
You're ignoring private property theory, so of course you think it's justifiable for the government to steal people's property for anything they do. The choice in ancap isn't between hunger or enslavement to buy food, it is between not doing anything + not getting anything back, and exchanging The choice in statism is not doing anything that the state can steal the benefits from, to doing what the state can steal the benefits from and therefore pay taxes.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
Coercion does not equal the state. Anarcho-capitalism also does not imply the lack of coercive forces. There are non-state coercive forces. For example, social forces. Anarchism makes a breakthrough when it comes to differentiating where the coercion comes from, but doesn't do away with the problem entirely. There are also varying degrees of coercion. The reason why nobody is truly free is because everyone has priorities. The choice between death and slavery/starvation isn't really a free choice, its a weighted choice. Its a whole other problem when you decide to look at why people prioritize things in certain ways. I could even argue that we don't live in a coercive society today. You can choose not to pay your taxes if you don't want to. But that wouldn't make much of an argument. The fact that we live in a society means there will be coercion of some form, as peoples interests will come into conflict.
Yurebis, I'd like you to keep these points in mind the entire time when replying to Igognito. If you can argue that corporations would not exploit people in an anarcho-capatalist society because you have a choice over what you do with your own body, you have to use this same argument with our current system. By that logic, coercion doesn't exist in our current society because we can chose to be homeless and jobless and bypass the coercion. Again, if the only job in my region is one that exploits my well being because I'm a slave to my hunger than you have to stay consistent with "the power of choice". You can chose death and starvation in an anarco-capatalist economy just the same as we can choose homeless and jobless in a coercive government state. You cannot use such double-standards to justify exploitation.
I've already written about this "wage slavery" type argument before in this thread. But I watched this good video about it today so I thought I'd share it with you since you bring it up again:
This whole argument ignores utilitarianism for the sake of principle and I cannot agree with that. Is murder wrong? Yes, is murdering someone to save 10 other people still wrong? I would argue no. People are so caught up in the principle of actions that they ignore the efficiency in finding the greatest good for the greatest amount. Utilitarianism, although at times vague, is still is the ultimate measuring tool for finding the best course of action in ethics and morality.
I actually agree with that a little. OH SHIT WE AGREE ON SOMETHING?
Edit: however it should be noted that someone who did kill 1 to save 10 would be heavily tried and he would have to show how he knew that his choice saved those 10 beyond a reasonable doubt. Which of course is very very hard to prove especially with other rational agents involved in the causal chain in leading him to believe that. But more importantly than that, these cases rarely happen and I think they should be put aside to philosophy threads.
And my opinion in no way is a determinant of how market law would handle such a case.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
It basically all stems from the argument he made on page 24:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a corporation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the corporations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
So basically he's trying to argue that there is no semantic difference between ancap and statism, so we really have nothing to complain about because we already live in our desired utopia. I can't believe I'm still debating this for so long.
@Yurebis: What the difference between state (now) and company (then) is is the most central aspect of your whole philosophy. You always take as a starting point how you think AnCap will work out, I'd rather have you to start with your definitions of what it is (no government doesn't cut it if you can't explain why the government isn't equivalent to an AnCap company).
@dvide: I get the feeling I worded it badly there. It is not important how you call it but what it is in essence (the set of all systems that one can call AnCap so to say). But well it's late, so goodnight.
On September 03 2010 07:03 silynxer wrote: @dvide Discussing semantics is moot, I agree. But still, if you can't even look at an society and determine if it's AnCap or not it is kind of a problem and that's why perception is a wonky measurement. Perhaps there are areas in the world where the general state of mind and the overall situation should be called AnCap and it turns out to be really crappy. But you wouldn't even know because you call only systems where everything works out as you imagine AnCap.
Ok, I concede. You win.
I don't. What is the semantic issue about? Defining coercion? Jesus how hard is that I wonder. "Oh noes, we can't define coercion, now Jack can go around the streets and kill everyone, no one will be able to stop him!"
"He he he, that's right. You can't prove what I do is coercive! So it's no different than breaking eggs to make an omelet!"
It basically all stems from the argument he made on page 24:
Doesn't every democracy or even every government statisfy your definition of anarcho-capitalism?
There is an entity (you could call it a government or a corporation, names don't matter) that's offering services. You can choose not to purchase any service from it and disregard it's policies and in turn it could happen that based on the corporations policies they will employ for example their private security force to make you submit to their policies. You are perfectly free to pay another private security force to stop them. Since such behaviour is against most governments policies and damaging to their business they will try to stop any other private force from opposing so. If successful they have a monopoly on force etc. but as you argued so eloquently that is not a problem because if there ever was a monopoly there will surely emerge an competitor especially since the government is so inefficient as you argued as well ^^.
So basically he's trying to argue that there is no semantic difference between ancap and statism, so we really have nothing to complain about because we already live in our desired utopia. I can't believe I'm still debating this for so long.
On September 03 2010 07:06 kidcrash wrote: This whole argument ignores utilitarianism for the sake of principle and I cannot agree with that. Is murder wrong? Yes, is murdering someone to save 10 other people still wrong? I would argue no. People are so caught up in the principle of actions that they ignore the efficiency in finding the greatest good for the greatest amount. Utilitarianism, although at times vague, is still is the ultimate measuring tool for finding the best course of action in ethics and morality.
I don't know what the argument has to do with utilitarianism exactly. It's simply arguing against this notion that businesses are exploiting poor people by hiring them. What does your efficiency calculation have to disagree on with this?
But your efficiency calculation is kind of disgusting to me. What you're saying is that human beings don't have any right to their own lives, because if at any point it's more efficient that they are dead then so be it, we should just murder them. And not only that, but you're saying it's actually virtuous and morally good to murder them. It kind of makes me not want to be your friend.
And you live in the United States. Do you support the idea of having a constitutionally limited government, and the bill of rights? Because that's exactly the sort of thing the constitution would purport to protect you from.
On September 03 2010 07:47 silynxer wrote: @Yurebis: What the difference between state (now) and company (then) is is the most central aspect of your whole philosophy. You always take as a starting point how you think AnCap will work out, I'd rather have you to start with your definitions of what it is (no government doesn't cut it if you can't explain why the government isn't equivalent to an AnCap company).
The state is a coercive monopoly on the initiation of force. It does not allow citizens of its domain to initiate force on their own choice against other citizens. It also does not allow other companies to compete in the services that it deems illegal for citizens to do. (like law, law enforcement, roads, prison systems, competing for infrastructure in areas where an exclusive lease is made, uh whatever else there is. Printing fiat money, yeah.) It claims the right to rob from all its citizens enough capital to do what they set out in doing. Well it claims pretty much any right it wants, as he is the sole legislator and enforcer of law.
The state could be said to be equivalent to a rogue, or outlaw supersized PDA+court that claimed control over all land. But that is as much as a valid comparison as saying monarchs are only statists with aristocratic selection for representation, or that states are just very large feuds with a constitution and crap like that. Yeah, of course "the difference is only this or that" but that is a huge difference, and completely understandable, discernible, under different theories.
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.
On September 03 2010 07:47 silynxer wrote: @dvide: I get the feeling I worded it badly there. It is not important how you call it but what it is in essence (the set of all systems that one can call AnCap so to say). But well it's late, so goodnight.
Ok, I've explained what it is in essence and what the social difference is that I want to see. It is late so I will say goodnight too =) this thread is taking up a lot of my time.
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote: Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
I don't think you can simply say that the state is the most efficient "enabler of violence." In fact, I'm not sure what that means, and if you might clarify, that would be nice.
What I have tried to say previously was that capitalists have no real incentive to get rid of the state when the state can subsidize them so effectively. "Anarcho-capitalism" doesn't seem feasible if the capitalists won't abandon the apparatus that helps sustain them.
I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
On September 03 2010 03:57 Tuneful wrote: Yurebis, it's worth pointing out that you have singularly accused the state of "lobbyism, corruption, favoritism, etc."
But, in the real world, it is the capitalist who is lobbying the state, both capitalists and members of government are quite capable of being corrupt, and both play at favorites. Those of us who are concerned with the real world know well that it is the capitalist who needs government the most to shield him from risk while making profits, while everyone else must learn market discipline and be austere.
Yes, they are both capable. But the state does coercion at 1 dime for the dollar. That is why it's the best enabler of violence, because it makes the oppressed pay for it's own oppression, most efficiently at that, since the citizen doesn't even realize he's being robbed.
I don't think you can simply say that the state is the most efficient "enabler of violence." In fact, I'm not sure what that means, and if you might clarify, that would be nice.
The one who steals the most has no problem stealing some more, for whatever cause they lobby it for. They prohibit the most, and prohibit lobbyist's competition some more. The monopolize the most, and shelter monopolies some more. It is cheaper to go to war for corporate interests when the state's army it's already there and ready to go, paid for by the people. It is cheaper for drug lords to bribe cops and maintain the monopoly on drugs that they have. It is cheaper for any heavily regulated corporation to lobby regulations UP, so there's absolutely no chance of competition from below.
Coercion in general is cheaper to do with the help of the state, than doing it yourself had the state not existed.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: What I have tried to say previously was that capitalists have no real incentive to get rid of the state when the state can subsidize them so effectively. "Anarcho-capitalism" doesn't seem feasible if the capitalists won't abandon the apparatus that helps sustain them.
Corporations may have. The rest of the market does not.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
Even if its not a good idea to hold up a gun forever, people will do it. But then again, you don't need to hold the gun up forever. All you need is to have your subjects know that you have the ability to hold up your gun. Even then, who said the monarch's goal is to increase everyone's maximum utilization? As long as I can get stuff for free, I don't really care about how useful everyone else is.
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument. It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
This is a big pile of lols. Any theory of anarchist government rests on the moral argument that the most immoral thing is the uninitiated use of force. Everything else "practical" just points to this moral conclusion. Also yes you can disregard your own morality. Especially if morality is a construct.
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
This statement is confused and out of place. Its not a matter of cooperative or coercive. When you combine coercive and cooperative, it becomes exploitive. The guise of cooperation combined with gaining an unfair advantage. Either way, this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
You don't have to pick between socialistic intervention and pure free market capitalism. Of course our dangerous combination of the two has created a toxic time bomb waiting to explode, but there are other options.
I know. That's kind of my point, because nobody says thugs = state. Now states ARE just thugs in reality, but most people think states != thugs and instead states = angels. That's the whole point. That's what makes a state work. It's merely a false meme. It's a cultural thing that states are not only inevitable, but required and are virtuous, moral entities that protect you. In the same way that slavery was once considered legitimate, we now all understand that it's not and we rationally oppose it.
Lol and previously you were saying thugs != state, but thugs w/ presupposed legitimacy = state. Don't contradict yourself. Either way, I'm not one of the ppl saying state = angels. But state being a thug is not necessarily a bad thing. Unless you think that there is no such thing as a necessary evil.
And so even in a pure democracy, people aren't going to vote for slavery of the minorities just because the majority would benefit from it. It's not going to happen, because society has progressed and we have abolished slavery on moral grounds. We all 99% of us understand that there is no moral way to own another human being. Do you see what I mean? The fact that some people get political benefits from the state is true, and I don't discount it as being significant. It serves to make our job of convincing people that much harder. But in the same way that we now all rationally oppose slavery, I don't think that it's completely insurmountable.
The slavery case is not exactly the same as the government case. The slavery case is more like the anti-wealth sentiment in the US. Slavery was not a widespread occurence in the south, slaves were primarily owned by wealthy plantation owners. If the abolition of slavery was accomplished by vote, then a majority of people could have voted to abolish it without voting against their self interest. With that said, we now live in a slave-free society. What have we lost? We've lost free labor. We've replaced it with wage slavery. There is no real argument against slavery not just because people think it to be immoral, but there is simply no real positive benefits of slavery to the society as a whole. What would happen if we lived in an anarcho-capitalist society? We would get rid of something immoral to some (anarcho-capitalists), and we would get a system with consequences. The consequences are what we are debating now. And if the negative aspects of anarcho-capitalism outweigh the benefits to the society at large, its going to be hard to convince them of such. The thing is, some moral judgments cannot be imposed over a majority of the population. For example, abortion. How do you reconcile the pro-life and pro-choice sides of the argument? I'd argue that its impossible. There are some things like murder which most people generally accept as wrong. There are other things that I think will never be as clear cut.
I really don't think I overestimate it. I think that 99% of people support the state's use of initiatory violence, and actively defend it in arguments. This is contrasted with 99% of people opposing state's use of initiatory violence, and actively attacking it. I think that difference is huge and creates a very large practical difference on whether the state can feasibly exist. But maybe we can agree to disagree here. I've made this point as best I can a million times already and I really don't want to try again. If I haven't yet changed anybody's mind then it's not going to make a difference.
The first part is simply unfounded opinion. The thing is, 99% of the people do not explicitly support the state's use of initiatory violence. They support the services that the government provides. They support the state not on moral grounds, but on practical grounds. The difference between anarchists and people who accept the state is that only anarchists point at the moral illegitimacy of the state. Its a lopsided argument. One side (the anarchist side) is opposing government morally, the other side (pro-government) is supporting the practical effects of government. When both sides are arguing based on different things, its hard to come to conclusions. In the slavery argument, abolitionists opposed slavery morally. The slave owners argued that they were morally justified by protecting the slaves. I dont think the slavery argument can be linked to the anarchy argument because its just a lot more complex than slavery. Plus, people have legitimate moral arguments against capitalism. You not only have to convince people to abolish the state, you also have to convince them that capitalism is moral. But those arguments are usually more widespread than anarchist arguments. One thing I will say is that anarcho-capitalists generally use the "state subsidized capitalism accounts for the evils that are normally atributed to free market capitalism", but there are some fundamental inequities such as the employer/employee relationship. While for the poor, money is a tool for survival, for the rich money is a tool used to wield power.
But your point about terror. It's true that states terrorise their citizens, and it's true that this can lower opposition to them. Duly noted. But again I don't think it's insurmountable. And I doubt that if you truly did something like that, that nobody would hold you to task for it. This would not allow you to become the next state; in-fact I would argue it would only serve you to achieve the opposite of your intended effect. Do you think the mere fact that my mutilated body hangs at your corporate office means that THE REST OF SOCIETY are all going to bow down and pay you taxes? No. If anything it would only show them how bat-shit criminally insane you are and increase opposition to your "company".
I never said the company's interest was to have people bow down to them and pay them taxes. You have a wonderful way of magically putting words in my mouth. Either way, you say it is true that it could lower opposition, but then at the end say it would increase opposition to the company. Inconsistency here, but my point is that terror directly opposes the capitalist thought. Capitalism is based on an inherent selfishness, not some sort of altruism. To be willing to be so passionate as to oppose this regime of terror requires some degree of self-sacrifice which doesn't really fit with the capitalist model. As long as you're not mutilating my body, there isn't really a reason why I should be willing to die to off you.
So surely the same logic applies if I say that I would like to enslave the bottom 1% of income earners on behalf of the top 99%. Of course, I will get a bunch of support, right! No I wouldn't, because slavery is morally opposed by everybody! That's the whole point! Who would support me? And even if over 51% of the hypothetical people would support me, at least WE REAL PEOPLE can all understand that it still doesn't make it right, or moral or legitimate.
Ignoring the fact that you just ignored my entire paragraph and picked out one quote from the middle (see I told you it would happen!), the point is that political support legitimizes the state. Current society sees if a state is using its power morally or immorally. Current society evaluates a state's legitimacy by the state's moral judgments. Suppose a king now arbitrarily decided to enslave the bottom 1% "on behalf" of the top 99%. If like you say there is moral opposition to it, then the state will have effectively lost its control. You say that the state gains its power through presupposed legitimacy. The legitimacy is not presupposed. Yes, people accept that the state has the right to initiate force, but people do not automatically assume all state power to be just. People think of the government in consequential terms as in what the government does, not what government is. That combined with state pandering supports state legitimacy.
It doesn't protect my safety; it hinders my safety and initiates aggression against me. It doesn't protect my business from fair competition; it restricts my business from fairly competing with those few that are politically connected.
This is all opinion and point of view. There are reasons why I could claim the exact opposite. What I meant by it protects my business from fair competition, I meant it protects unnaturally large oligopolies from actually having to innovate. Government regulations that stifle SMALL businesses is obviously good for large corporations who don't have to deal with the threat of small businesses taking away their huge market shares.
That's why I'm trying my best to address everything in detail in order to best convince people, instead of merely yelling YAY FREEDOM. Maybe you're right that widespread political support is insurmountable, but I don't think that it is so I will try. The same argument could be made for giving women the right to vote, or equal rights for blacks, or something like that. It's not insurmountable to have a major paradigm shift of political opinion in culture, and to have cultural progress in the understanding of freedom. As it has happened many times before in history. Or do you content that our current political system is somehow the pinnacle of human political progress, and no more widespread cultural political views can ever possibly be changed from this point in time? I think that's a genuine mistake.
You talk as if there are only two camps: The anarcho-capitalists, who are good and progressive, or the status quo-statist. Just to let you know there are more than those two groups. Of course I support cultural political evolution. Do I support your vision? Not necessarily.
I don't expect anything of you. If you don't want to watch it I honestly don't care. I link it for anybody that is interested enough.
You take the time to write a well thought out argument, but refuse to lay out some basics. It really wouldn't be that hard to list them would it?
I'm not sure what you want me to do here.
Actually you beat my expectations. I thought you'd ignore more of what I said. The fact that you come in and acknowledge some of my points followed by quickly dismissing them with hand waving gestures as if it wasn't a serious point. The thing is, you say a couple times here that whatever I say isn't "insurmountable". You point to changing the ideological structure and moral foundation of society. While admirable, like I said, there are more than one moral point of view. All ideological government systems, i.e. Socialism/Communism/Fascism/Democracy/Anarchism support some kind of moral. When all you're doing is building a system out of your own subjective principles, you are bound to meet some sort of logical resistance somewhere. See arguments against the morality of capitalism for an example.
Then nobody would accept the terms of that contract. And even if they did, IT'S STILL IMMORAL. Oh yes, I went and said it. I don't think contracts are binding to such ridiculous extremes. If that were true, then members of the Scientology sea org are actually bound to employment for a billion years. But thankfully we can all recognise it as being ridiculous.
If you don't accept, then you have no right to be on the guy's property. Arguing that its still immoral doesn't do anything except prove that you're just trying to build a system based on your moral principles.
The real curiosity here is that you ignore the statement between your two quotes above...
I've had that talk with someone else trying to mud the waters. Look, it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead. I can trade my products and services with other people's products and services...
Social forces aren't coercion. Taxes are coercion, for the state claims a portion of my services and products it has no part of in creating. Dying from hunger isn't coercion because there isn't a coercer who to blame. Nature isn't a rational entity that even matters in the scope of human action, nor in private property. When libertarians say they wand "freedom", of course it means freedom from something. In that case, it is from coercion, from the initiation of force, fraud, and murder. Because these are human actions that violate private property theory and NAP, non-aggression principle.
I would say the fundamentalist is the one supporting violence against non-engaging middle-easterners, perpetuating a cycle of violence that the U.S. (state) itself has started.
You chose to ignore my comments on stability. Cool. Really I guess this whole conversation is pointless because it revolves around assumed moral values.
I could make an argument that nobody has the moral right the land or any natural resources coming from the land. Did you make the iron that comes out of the earth? Can you really own cows? Nobody created land or cows or iron. Either that or God created it. Regardless, you can't claim that you have a moral right to ownership of the cow because you didn't make the cow. Did you raise the cow and increase its value? Yes. So you can charge a fee for the service. Did it take you money and effort to extract the iron from the ground? Yes. You can charge a fee for that service. First come, first served is not a justification for why you have a right to possession of the iron. Now this comes to the problem of do we have the right to take something and refine it to sell it? Because if nobody owns it, who gets to use it? What moral right do you have to stop others from using it? There is no moral right to private property.
Now lets disregard that entire argument for the time being. Suppose we did agree that you could actually own resources. You are implying that Production equals work times resources, therefore if I found the resource and improved it and added value to it, I should be able to enjoy the full profits of whatever I have produced. However, this is not completely accurate, because without knowledge of how to improve the resource, you would have no product. Lets say you produce a tractor. Well you wouldn't have produced a tractor without the technical expertise of your ancestors. You wouldn't have been able to refine the steel necessary to make that tractor without similar technical knowledge. Production is not Work times resources. Production is Work times resources times knowledge. Who owns this knowledge? It is inherited by the society from our ancestors. Does anyone have the right to own this knowledge? Collect royalties on this knowledge? No, nobody can morally claim to be the owner of this inherited wealth. And without this knowledge, you would have never been able to create so much value. Therefore, taxation is not coercion by means of uninitiated use of force, but a rightful way of ensuring that all of the individuals of society are conferred the benefits of their inherited cultural knowledge.
The fundamentalist supporting violence is irrationally misinterpreting religious documents. It has nothing to do with the state.
Really, you think that only YOU are able to have foresight, but everyone else in society will be like "dduuuur hurrr lets allow that PDA to become a state again and mass slaughter whoever they want"? Please. If you can see it, guess what, competing businesses, investors, and courts will have noticed the possibility, the means, and the opportunities, years before you did.
Another misinterpretation of my words formed into a personal attack. No, I do not claim to be the only person to have foresight, but there are plenty of people who do NOT have foresight. If you disagree maybe you should go out there and observe people instead of sitting there in your fantasy that everyone is rational/intelligent. The PDA isn't mass slaughtering whoever they want. They're destroying a particular entity for a particular cause. In any case that doesn't matter. I guess I just forgot to mention that PDAs committing such an act won't commit the acts wearing "Hi I'm XXX PDA" over their foreheads. A PDA would do its benevolent acts in public, but then act anonymously when doing shady business. Of course with that idea you get PDAs using their shady business arm to attack other PDA's customers in order to make them look untrustworthy...
Not an argument against ancap, not a claim I care to disagree with.
A sort of feudal system could arise in ancap. If your notions of private property hold true, then corporations are essentially the feudal lords over the resources they control.
I'm not a neoclassicist. Read what austrian economics have to say on subjective value theory.
I know what Austrian subjective value theory says. My point was to say that there are non-market forces that impact people and they are sometimes more efficient than the market. Life is not all about money/power/economics.
Can do what? Fuck things up? Surely. It fucks things up the moment it extorts capital. Even if it spent the capital more cohesively, it would still be subpar. People just seem to notice when it's real bad, but it's actually always bad.
I was making an argument for why government is allowed to do war. Its because you swallow the package or you don't. That is the beauty of anarchy, you dont' have to buy the whole package. You can shop around. Of course that brings with it its own bundle of problems, so thats what we're talking about now! Or not. Either way it has nothing to do with screwing up.
Define coercion.
The act of compelling to an act or choice. The act of obtaining by pressure, force, or threat.
Wrongs create a demand to right them. People look for people to right them, and I'll call them "righters". Righters progressively earn a reputation and specialize at it. Righters figure out the best models to right things out, and righters compete in the free market. That goes for anything, not just law, defense, insurance, shoemaking, starcraft progaming, etc.
Certain wrongs create demands to right them. The poor people can't afford to pay for someone to right their situation, and nobody else is interested in righting their situation through market forces. Nobody is going to pay to stop people from abusing the environment/polluting it. Although it is in everyones interest to live in a clean environment. Some things aren't going to be righted by the market.
Fractional reserve banking is almost entirely a state enabled fraud. Banks who used demand deposits as time deposits would risk customers withdrawing them at the same time and discover the malpractice. Contracts will instantly put the bank at a bad position. Third parties could help keep banks on check, and any bank that denied being up for audit would instantly lose popularity.
Never disagreed with you. I agree that the fractional reserve banking is hard to pull of without a state, but for slightly different reasons. The rich in America are simply empowered by the state's monopoly of money. Its not to say that people would instantly go for the gold standard or something, but...
Not illogical. Criminal acts are completely logical. But they're also short term and rely on the element of surprise. When people are prepared, and able to retaliate as best as they can, is when criminality will be minimized as best as it will ever get. The way it is now, law and punishment are socialized services, inefficient and monopolized, and I claim crime is at least three times what it would be otherwise. Thats not including taxation of course.
By illogical I meant through value judgments. Either way, we know the government police system can't react to criminal acts immediately. I don't see why corporations could fix that unless they were your personal bodyguard.
The idea that the state is helping the poor by stealing from everyone (including the poor themselves) is laughable. But even if I were to grant that, it's even more funny that you think because the state is stealing, that the socialists are more satisfied so they want to steal less. What? As long as anyone has any wealth that they envy, they'll be up for stealing it, no matter how much or how little.
By my argument about inherited cultural knowledge above, I could argue that its not stealing from everyone. That aside, I never said that socialists are satisfied so that they want to steal less. I'm saying that the working class, the people who are SUPPOSED to benefit from the redistribution (or distribution from an opposite point of view) aren't as provoked to VIOLENT revolution. Its not that the socialist-proxy-government want to steal less, its that the benefactors of such a policy don't need to have a revolution in order to achieve such ends.
They already pay such services. The cops aren't being paid by Bill Gates. Give me a break. They will be MORE able to pay for defense, because the market for defense won't be monopolized and socialized. It will be far cheaper. And even more ethical I argue. PDAs can charge through insurance companies, on-demand, on monthly fees, through street tolls, there is a variety of ways to pay for things one you put down the gunverment.
Lots of poor people don't pay taxes. Well that's not true, everyone pays FICA taxes if they work. But FICA taxes don't pay for the police. Even if it will be far cheaper, for who? On-Demand? Lol so if I'm under attack by a thug, does the police defend me and charge me even if I don't want the service? Or do they just let me die? Or I negotiate with the police while being mugged? Similar with monthly fees. How do you know who paid and who didn't? Do you wear a hat that says I paid for X police service! If I get mugged save me!
Oh okay so I just wrote the above for nothing. Be clear next time thx. Apparently you are under the impression that bureaucrats somehow limit human error by being more illuminated themselves? Rational malevolence... people being mean with eachother on purpose? Like what? Terrorism, gee, I wonder if the state really stops terrorism by doing more terrorism itself. Non-market forces.. like the state and state-enabled mafias? Education... now that's funny coming from someone that agreed the state was making it worse. Subjectivity of value? Hello my name is Austrian Economics, the leading expert of subjective value theory, how are you today kind sir? Freedoms,... yeah. Information asymmetry - still doesn't prove the central planner is any brighter to even begin to justify making people's decisions for them, coercively.
Its not my problem for being unclear, its your problem for addressing stuff without reading the whole thing first that always leads to misunderstandings because it takes time to explain stuffs
No, I don't think bureaucrats magically make people enlightened. Don't know where you got that from. Rational malevolence. Lying to the consumer and telling them that its a good idea to get a get a law degree when there are too many lawyers out there. And no there isn't going to be a reputation loss there because all law professors want to keep their jobs and thus attract students. Creating a financial instrument to "protect" you from risk while betting against it because you agreed to terms that weren't in your self interest. They can't really blame you if they don't find out what you did because they voluntarily agreed to it! Terrorism is more like irrational malevolence. Whatever if you want to think its rational thats fine with me too. Nonmarket forces i.e. non economic forces like human welfare the environment etc. Eduction. Did I say I support state education? No! But I also don't support the current private school system either. Not only because it has to comply to state regulations but because people don't know how to educate others in general. The whole education system is broken because of what is taught. And of course what is not taught. By subjectivity of value I wasn't talking about it in economic terms. Value i.e. moral values. But I guess if you read everything else I said you might get it. Information asymmetry - oh hey I never said I supported central planning! It is pitiful that you put me into the statist category considering some of the Austrian things I've said. Bet you wouldn't have known that I actually support Austrian Economics. The only thing is that I also think that economics isn't everything. And neither is efficiency. Again moral judgments ftw!
Anyway, hope you come up with some good responses to add to my library of anarchist arguments
You know what, nevermind don't bother responding to my above post. After reading through some of the other miscellaneous replies in the rest of the thread I realize that you aren't going to provide useful answers, only platitudes, conjecture, and some "answers" that bypass the original comment.
At least I got rid of my boredom for today.
P.S. some stuff you said was useful. But most of it is not.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
Will you hold that gun up forever? Did desposts and monarchs hold up the gun forever? No, and they didn't have to be forced by a bigger gun either. Holding up the gun against someone diminishes both yours and the subjects utility maximization (lol neoclassic economics). In the long run, both you and the subject will be poorer than people who didn't try to kill eachother all the time. So people have been consistently letting go of coercion in the long run, even if it may have been used early in history. There are a-priori reasons for that, that I've been reciting too often.
Even if its not a good idea to hold up a gun forever, people will do it. But then again, you don't need to hold the gun up forever. All you need is to have your subjects know that you have the ability to hold up your gun. Even then, who said the monarch's goal is to increase everyone's maximum utilization? As long as I can get stuff for free, I don't really care about how useful everyone else is.
It's not "for free" is my point, because if one is to steal beyond a certain point, wealth will start to be diminished in the world, and the society collapses even if people are still willing slaves. I don't question your decision of stealing for your own benefit, it was no moral judgment; I'm just pointing the usually unseen consequences that people don't think of, be them rulers, coercive monopolists, intervetionists, socialists, etc. Even politicians should think more of them. For their own good - there may not be a United States anymore within their generation if they keep screwing it up.
Which is why I don't usually make moral arguments unless it's in response to a moral argument. It is true that for as long as people think it is better for them to keep stealing, moral considerations INCLUDED (not excluded, you can't disregard your own morality, and disregarding other people's moralities would be as dumb for a thief than disregarding the build order of a terran), they will keep stealing.
This is a big pile of lols. Any theory of anarchist government rests on the moral argument that the most immoral thing is the uninitiated use of force. Everything else "practical" just points to this moral conclusion. Also yes you can disregard your own morality. Especially if morality is a construct.
No it doesn't rest on moral argument alone, and if you knew anything about praxeology thus austran economics, is that it is value free, morality free. I'm talking to cooperative human beings that what increasingly greater capital accumulation and living standards for both themselves and society - and how anarcho-capitalism is a much, much better maximizer of that compared to any centrally managed plan.
Also yes, I make moral prescriptions myself but they are not core. Moral discussions are discussions of courses of action - which actions are commendable, and which are reprehensible. Which justify intervetion, and which do not. They ARE VERY relevant to those who care about them (and I very much doubt you do not, even sociopaths can at least pretend to take them into consideration just to save face), but if you don't, I couldn't care less!
Austrian economics shows that it is not always the case, and in fact, the majority of times any non-sociopathic individual in history in any situation would be more inclined and better rewarded for cooperation. Okay I lie that austrian economics claims that, I'm the one claiming that based on catallactics, a few other basic concepts, and my scarce empirical experience. Even in war, a soldier relies on its comrades and superiors, a thief relies on the market to buy from him his stolen products, and sell him what he wants. a violent drug warlord relies on its dealers and on the demand of users. Even on the most violent and thieving aspects of society, perhaps even some mass-murderers included, man has been marginally more cooperative than coercive.
This statement is confused and out of place. Its not a matter of cooperative or coercive. When you combine coercive and cooperative, it becomes exploitive. The guise of cooperation combined with gaining an unfair advantage. Either way, this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.
How do you leech without being coercive, and how do you exploit without coercing? Give me examples, applicable to a decent, non-contradictory private property theory.
If the people who support socialistic intervention are taught of the benefits of free market cooperation, and the externalities of extortion and distribution, I have no doubt they'd stop supporting the madness. When, how, and ifs, are secondary to me.
You don't have to pick between socialistic intervention and pure free market capitalism. Of course our dangerous combination of the two has created a toxic time bomb waiting to explode, but there are other options.
Yes there are other central-planning options, that are still criticizable for the same reasons which you don't seem to fully grasp yet.
And please don't mix replies of different people in the same reply unless it's clear it's for other people. You've mixed mine and dvide's quotes and since you're not adding a name on the top of the quote (Like the quote link does) I find myself replying to an argument I didn't make, ranting on you using strawmen, then I realize it wasn't for me and have wasted tons of time...
Really, you think that only YOU are able to have foresight, but everyone else in society will be like "dduuuur hurrr lets allow that PDA to become a state again and mass slaughter whoever they want"? Please. If you can see it, guess what, competing businesses, investors, and courts will have noticed the possibility, the means, and the opportunities, years before you did.
Another misinterpretation of my words formed into a personal attack. No, I do not claim to be the only person to have foresight, but there are plenty of people who do NOT have foresight. If you disagree maybe you should go out there and observe people instead of sitting there in your fantasy that everyone is rational/intelligent. The PDA isn't mass slaughtering whoever they want. They're destroying a particular entity for a particular cause. In any case that doesn't matter. I guess I just forgot to mention that PDAs committing such an act won't commit the acts wearing "Hi I'm XXX PDA" over their foreheads. A PDA would do its benevolent acts in public, but then act anonymously when doing shady business. Of course with that idea you get PDAs using their shady business arm to attack other PDA's customers in order to make them look untrustworthy...[/QUOTE] It really doesn't matter who they're destroying. Anything that affects someone's private domain have to and will be taken care by those owners better than any central planner could take care of him. People who are abused by PDAs can go in the media, go to courts, raise a ruckus, and if they were obviously abused of their self ownership or private property, then the cops will be tried to the full extent of the law. If a guy has been shot DEAD, the PDA cop is liable by MURDER, because it doesn't have any superior authority by law to do squat.
Besides, if anyone is in a position to discriminate and enforce laws selectively, it's the you-know-who. Cops abused you? File a complaint. LOL. Even if the cops ever go to court, the worst he can get is a suspension, for shooting innocents even. Oh monopolistic law+enforcement.. you so fair. SO FAIR.
Not an argument against ancap, not a claim I care to disagree with.
A sort of feudal system could arise in ancap. If your notions of private property hold true, then corporations are essentially the feudal lords over the resources they control.
A feudal system where some nut claims all land (including that of others) but homesteads none, will not be respected by any half-decent court. Much different from what you could do in medieval Europe. Nor would it be enough of a justification to enslave people who are in your land. They still maintain NAP.
I'm not a neoclassicist. Read what austrian economics have to say on subjective value theory.
I know what Austrian subjective value theory says. My point was to say that there are non-market forces that impact people and they are sometimes more efficient than the market. Life is not all about money/power/economics.
What are those non-market forces that can't be valued yet determine human action? Even love is a subjective evaluation.
Can do what? Fuck things up? Surely. It fucks things up the moment it extorts capital. Even if it spent the capital more cohesively, it would still be subpar. People just seem to notice when it's real bad, but it's actually always bad.
I was making an argument for why government is allowed to do war. Its because you swallow the package or you don't. That is the beauty of anarchy, you dont' have to buy the whole package. You can shop around. Of course that brings with it its own bundle of problems, so thats what we're talking about now! Or not. Either way it has nothing to do with screwing up.
Are you saying that people should want war? Or that people benefit from war yet don't want to pay for it? They want x but don't want to pay for x? Seems to me that they don't deserve x then, if x means that other people have to work or die for them, for free.
Wrongs create a demand to right them. People look for people to right them, and I'll call them "righters". Righters progressively earn a reputation and specialize at it. Righters figure out the best models to right things out, and righters compete in the free market. That goes for anything, not just law, defense, insurance, shoemaking, starcraft progaming, etc.
Certain wrongs create demands to right them. The poor people can't afford to pay for someone to right their situation, and nobody else is interested in righting their situation through market forces. Nobody is going to pay to stop people from abusing the environment/polluting it. Although it is in everyones interest to live in a clean environment. Some things aren't going to be righted by the market.
Really, everyone benefits from living in a clean environment? Can you explain how? And why is that enough of a justification to force people in doing what you think is proper?
I would reckon that since the government owns all land, and you advocate government to protect the environment, it is a failed experiment as is, and will fail again, as it hasn't done shit, selling the environment off like a bitch selling her ass for crack.
Fractional reserve banking is almost entirely a state enabled fraud. Banks who used demand deposits as time deposits would risk customers withdrawing them at the same time and discover the malpractice. Contracts will instantly put the bank at a bad position. Third parties could help keep banks on check, and any bank that denied being up for audit would instantly lose popularity.
Never disagreed with you. I agree that the fractional reserve banking is hard to pull of without a state, but for slightly different reasons. The rich in America are simply empowered by the state's monopoly of money. Its not to say that people would instantly go for the gold standard or something, but...
Yeah, and it's the money in their pockets who are doing those evils. Let's blame wealth! Fuck wealth! Everyone has to be poor! (now with 70% more strawman)
Not illogical. Criminal acts are completely logical. But they're also short term and rely on the element of surprise. When people are prepared, and able to retaliate as best as they can, is when criminality will be minimized as best as it will ever get. The way it is now, law and punishment are socialized services, inefficient and monopolized, and I claim crime is at least three times what it would be otherwise. Thats not including taxation of course.
By illogical I meant through value judgments. Either way, we know the government police system can't react to criminal acts immediately. I don't see why corporations could fix that unless they were your personal bodyguard.
Not just corporations, any guy with a gun can offer protection services. People in each specific area will judge who are the best to defend themselves, and will learn to both pay the right people and for the right amounts, in the course of market adjustments. With the government confiscating both people's money and choices, of course they have a harder time today defending their property, more than it is realistically necessary.
I mean, how hard is it to patrol an area? Cops today sit their asses on the highway to get tickets and only go to town for lunch and answer to 911 calls one hour later. Not hard to beat that in efficiency LOL.
They already pay such services. The cops aren't being paid by Bill Gates. Give me a break. They will be MORE able to pay for defense, because the market for defense won't be monopolized and socialized. It will be far cheaper. And even more ethical I argue. PDAs can charge through insurance companies, on-demand, on monthly fees, through street tolls, there is a variety of ways to pay for things one you put down the gunverment.
Lots of poor people don't pay taxes. Well that's not true, everyone pays FICA taxes if they work. But FICA taxes don't pay for the police. Even if it will be far cheaper, for who? On-Demand? Lol so if I'm under attack by a thug, does the police defend me and charge me even if I don't want the service? Or do they just let me die? Or I negotiate with the police while being mugged? Similar with monthly fees. How do you know who paid and who didn't? Do you wear a hat that says I paid for X police service! If I get mugged save me!
Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.
There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.
Apparently you are under the impression that bureaucrats somehow limit human error by being more illuminated themselves? Rational malevolence... people being mean with eachother on purpose? Like what? Terrorism, gee, I wonder if the state really stops terrorism by doing more terrorism itself. Non-market forces.. like the state and state-enabled mafias? Education... now that's funny coming from someone that agreed the state was making it worse. Subjectivity of value? Hello my name is Austrian Economics, the leading expert of subjective value theory, how are you today kind sir? Freedoms,... yeah. Information asymmetry - still doesn't prove the central planner is any brighter to even begin to justify making people's decisions for them, coercively.
No, I don't think bureaucrats magically make people enlightened. Don't know where you got that from. Rational malevolence. Lying to the consumer and telling them that its a good idea to get a get a law degree when there are too many lawyers out there. And no there isn't going to be a reputation loss there because all law professors want to keep their jobs and thus attract students. Creating a financial instrument to "protect" you from risk while betting against it because you agreed to terms that weren't in your self interest. They can't really blame you if they don't find out what you did because they voluntarily agreed to it! Terrorism is more like irrational malevolence. Whatever if you want to think its rational thats fine with me too. Nonmarket forces i.e. non economic forces like human welfare the environment etc. Eduction. Did I say I support state education? No! But I also don't support the current private school system either. Not only because it has to comply to state regulations but because people don't know how to educate others in general. The whole education system is broken because of what is taught. And of course what is not taught. By subjectivity of value I wasn't talking about it in economic terms. Value i.e. moral values. But I guess if you read everything else I said you might get it. Information asymmetry - oh hey I never said I supported central planning! It is pitiful that you put me into the statist category considering some of the Austrian things I've said. Bet you wouldn't have known that I actually support Austrian Economics. The only thing is that I also think that economics isn't everything. And neither is efficiency. Again moral judgments ftw!
If you're implying that the education bubble is a market phenomenon, then you might be interested in this. Believing in a bubble isn't lying, so it isn't coercion, so it isn't an issue. If you mean to sue someone because they defrauded you, then you can do so in ancap, better than monopolist courts for natural reasons. Non-issue. And if you haven't proposed something better than the market (lol what), and you haven't advocated for government intervention, then your arguments are non-arguments, you're just crying about the world.
On September 03 2010 11:48 Incognito wrote: Anyway, hope you come up with some good responses to add to my library of anarchist arguments
On September 03 2010 13:19 Incognito wrote: You know what, nevermind don't bother responding to my above post. After reading through some of the other miscellaneous replies in the rest of the thread I realize that you aren't going to provide useful answers, only platitudes, conjecture, and some "answers" that bypass the original comment.
At least I got rid of my boredom for today.
P.S. some stuff you said was useful. But most of it is not.
Well again, I don't read the next paragraph before answering the one I'm at, so I absolutely did not read this. I would have very much liked to however, in retrospective.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
You can pay for social security yourself like any other private retirement fund... oh well. I guess people just like ponzi schemes.
On September 03 2010 14:56 Yurebis wrote: You be exploiting I?
Partially yes Hard to evolve your own set of ideas when you're in a vacuum and when you don't have others to bounce ideas with. So by taking the opposing point of view as you hear from other sources, you can attempt to come up with a more refined version of whatever argument you're taking. Although I don't agree with all the points of anarcho-capitalism, its always good to have a set of anarchist ideas to understand/understand the flaws of other systems. So don't worry, your post wasn't in vain I'll read it anyway.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
You can pay for social security yourself like any other private retirement fund... oh well. I guess people just like ponzi schemes.
That is not the same thing. What you describe is insurance.
Social security means that I can slack of completely, and still get something. There is an experiment running in a city in my country where heroine addicts get FREE heroine. Without doing a single thing. I like that. ancap wouldn't provide that. If I quit my job I can get money from the government while I'm not working. Hell I could get money without ever having worked, or ever having payed taxes. Other people can too. I like that because it prevents people in general from hitting rock bottom, which makes society as a whole, a better place to be in. If you go and claim that companies can cover this aspect of social security, then you just invented government (I want the burden of this social security to rest somewhat equally on everyone's shoulder).
Your mileage may vary, which I'm pretty sure it does.
On September 03 2010 08:22 Tuneful wrote: I think "anarcho-capitalism" is, therefore, a misnomer, and what you are looking for is some sort of market fundamentalism in the absence of groups. I'm not sure what to call it, short of a falsehood, that somehow capitalism or market fundamentalism can somehow be linked to increased personal freedom - it is simply a transfer of power into the hands of those with capital.
It is simply a transfer of power from those who falsely claim property over something they did nothing to create, to those who duly deserve the capital, that being, each to its own fruits of labor.
Also, define power.
That description for me implies that ancap doesn't work, for me. I don't want a system without social security. I think it is a step back from what I have in my country.
You can pay for social security yourself like any other private retirement fund... oh well. I guess people just like ponzi schemes.
That is not the same thing. What you describe is insurance.
Social security means that I can slack of completely, and still get something. There is an experiment running in a city in my country where heroine addicts get FREE heroine. Without doing a single thing. I like that. ancap wouldn't provide that. If I quit my job I can get money from the government while I'm not working. Hell I could get money without ever having worked, or ever having payed taxes. Other people can too. I like that because it prevents people in general from hitting rock bottom, which makes society as a whole, a better place to be in. If you go and claim that companies can cover this aspect of social security, then you just invented government (I want the burden of this social security to rest somewhat equally on everyone's shoulder).
Your mileage may vary, which I'm pretty sure it does.
Uh... where do you think that money comes from? It's working people. You're just setting them back. If there were no taxes, yes it means you'd have to work, but it also means that you have to work less, to get what you want. People would be earning more (at least in real wages) and prices would go down. You could work a part time job and still essentially be a hippie AND pay for your own retirement. Plus if the people are so kind like you demonstrate, they'll donate to druggies charity anyway - dedicated to help homeless junkies. You can get all that without hindering capital accumulation, and the progress of society!... The pie will grow bigger, and that may mean more considerably more drugs in your life time, as compared to the interventionally stalled society.
that is not social security, and you would have a hard time proving that that is how an ancap society would operate. A proper ancap society on a large scale, not the two active hippie camps that are running today.
On September 03 2010 15:45 Badjas wrote: yeah nice pie in the sky
that is not social security, and you would have a hard time proving that that is how an ancap society would operate. A proper ancap society on a large scale, not the two active hippie camps that are running today.
The two active hippie camps aren't anarcho-capitalist... Anarcho-capitalism is just a dream people imagined while smoking weed, ok? That is the secret. There, no need to discuss the merits thereof, I've defamed it myself for you. Now I'm out.
It's not "for free" is my point, because if one is to steal beyond a certain point, wealth will start to be diminished in the world, and the society collapses even if people are still willing slaves. I don't question your decision of stealing for your own benefit, it was no moral judgment; I'm just pointing the usually unseen consequences that people don't think of, be them rulers, coercive monopolists, intervetionists, socialists, etc. Even politicians should think more of them. For their own good - there may not be a United States anymore within their generation if they keep screwing it up.
The collapse of wealth isn't as fast as you claim it to be. It would disappear way after you return to the dust. Thus you have no interest in really protecting the accumulation of wealth.
No it doesn't rest on moral argument alone, and if you knew anything about praxeology thus austran economics, is that it is value free, morality free. I'm talking to cooperative human beings that what increasingly greater capital accumulation and living standards for both themselves and society - and how anarcho-capitalism is a much, much better maximizer of that compared to any centrally managed plan.
Also yes, I make moral prescriptions myself but they are not core. Moral discussions are discussions of courses of action - which actions are commendable, and which are reprehensible. Which justify intervetion, and which do not. They ARE VERY relevant to those who care about them (and I very much doubt you do not, even sociopaths can at least pretend to take them into consideration just to save face), but if you don't, I couldn't care less!
Completely misses the point. Maybe I should specify the moral basis is supporting your interests, which is again a moral judgment. You obviously value wealth accumulation. Good, bad, who cares. Its a value.
How do you leech without being coercive, and how do you exploit without coercing? Give me examples, applicable to a decent, non-contradictory private property theory.
Maybe you should have read what I was commenting on before commenting. The whole point is that it IS coercive, not cooperative What if I don't accept your private-property theory. Oh look! Something you mysteriously managed to omit from your responses. Well I guess any response to it wouldn't have really added to the library of anarchist arguments, so whatever.
to and will be taken care by those owners better than any central planner could take care of him. People who are abused by PDAs can go in the media, go to courts, raise a ruckus, and if they were obviously abused of their self ownership or private property, then the cops will be tried to the full extent of the law. If a guy has been shot DEAD, the PDA cop is liable by MURDER, because it doesn't have any superior authority by law to do squat.
Hard to get the PDA guy arrested/ostracized when you don't know who he is.
A feudal system where some nut claims all land (including that of others) but homesteads none, will not be respected by any half-decent court. Much different from what you could do in medieval Europe. Nor would it be enough of a justification to enslave people who are in your land. They still maintain NAP.
Not much different than feudal Europe. Feudal lords didn't homestead the land, or if they did, they took more than the could actually control themselves. Thats why there were serfs.
What are those non-market forces that can't be valued yet determine human action? Even love is a subjective evaluation.
Friendship. You could measure it quantitatively but most people won't. Even if they don't, friendly favors are cheaper than paying people to do things.
On a side note, people say that "Africa is poor! People live on only a dollar a day!" The thing is, people do a lot more familial/friendly favors and people work more as a community. They only make $1 a day because their system isn't monetarized like ours is.
The next comment ignores the point.
Fair. Is an employer of a chinese sweatshop coercing an employee to work for him if the employer accepted the measly rate of fifty cents an hour? Why?
it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead.
You own what you make? Sounds fairly Marxist, not anarchist, but I think you mean to say you are entitled to the fair value of the product you make (minus the fair value of the capital provided by the employer)? (Or not, since fair value would be subjective...but wouldn't the ratio of the value imparted by the employee and the capital imparted by the employer be quantifiable?) Your "I own what I make" statement sure makes things confusing !
Really, everyone benefits from living in a clean environment? Can you explain how? And why is that enough of a justification to force people in doing what you think is proper?
I would reckon that since the government owns all land, and you advocate government to protect the environment, it is a failed experiment as is, and will fail again, as it hasn't done shit, selling the environment off like a bitch selling her ass for crack.
People benefit from a cleaner environment by living longer healthier lives. You have no right to trash the environment because you don't own the environment. The government doesn't even "own" the environment. Nobody owns the environment. Or maybe, the environment owns itself. I am not justifying the use of force any more than you are justifying the sanctity of private property. The environment owns itself, and polluting it is the same as doing graffiti over someone's house that they built. Regardless, why is there enough justification for you to use force to protect your private property (value judgment, you didn't create iron out of thin air, you refined it and thus ADDED value to it. Or else I could nail on a gutter to your house and claim your house). Second paragraph is just a statement that says nothing useful.
Same thing for the next statement.
Not just corporations, any guy with a gun can offer protection services. People in each specific area will judge who are the best to defend themselves, and will learn to both pay the right people and for the right amounts, in the course of market adjustments. With the government confiscating both people's money and choices, of course they have a harder time today defending their property, more than it is realistically necessary.
I mean, how hard is it to patrol an area? Cops today sit their asses on the highway to get tickets and only go to town for lunch and answer to 911 calls one hour later. Not hard to beat that in efficiency LOL.
Not everyone can afford protection services, you also can't differentiate who did/did not pay for such service, especially if multiple services overlap a particular geographical area.
How hard is it to patrol an area is irrelevant. How hard is it to protect people from assault is more meaningful. The cop sitting on his ass on the highway isn't protecting anyone. The person calling 911 to get help from someone who is trying to rob them (absurd I know!) has to wait for the police to come to his aid. By the time the police get there, who knows what could have gone wrong. I don't think a private police agency will get there quicker to a significant degree.
Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.
There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.
Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.
There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.
You don't pay property taxes unless you own the land. So renters don't pay property tax (not really true, you could say that the landlord passes on the tax to the renter) unless the government subsidizes their housing. Yay. Oh ez pass thing makes more sense now. For monthly/through the community, you still haven't said how it works if 8 ppl pay for service A, 1 person for service B, and 1 person who doesn't pay for the service at all. Then a thug comes along to the neighborhood. What now?
If you're implying that the education bubble is a market phenomenon, then you might be interested in this. Believing in a bubble isn't lying, so it isn't coercion, so it isn't an issue. If you mean to sue someone because they defrauded you, then you can do so in ancap, better than monopolist courts for natural reasons. Non-issue. And if you haven't proposed something better than the market (lol what), and you haven't advocated for government intervention, then your arguments are non-arguments, you're just crying about the world.
Increase in the price of education could do with increased demand, but a lot of it also has to do with inflation. Government has ignored overleverage as a source of inflation yada yada so that it says inflation is lower than it really is. The CPI doesn't account for technological advancement leading to the decrease in prices of certain goods (like TVs), or imported/outsourced items, which depress the price if it can be manufactured at a lower cost. Stuff like education can't be imported/outsourced, and there are a finite number of Harvards, Yales, Stanfords, etc, the price increases.
What I'm interested in though is not the price increase. Its the professors selling the myth that its such a great idea to get a law education or whatever. Sure you can say that this isn't coercion, so its a non-issue, but the fact is that convincing people to act against their self interest to get a degree that will get them nowhere just to support the lifestyle of the professors is not a good thing. Its even bad for the economy because instead of working, the student is pursuing meaningless studies, thus depriving society of years of labor. Because this isn't coercion and because it still imposes a negative effect on society, this phenomenon that isn't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Hey! That was my original point. There are still inefficiencies that aren't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Such as this one.
Yes I can propose something that is better than the market. Current (primary) education is basically memorize and plug into a formula. You also pay someone to give you this "knowledge". Not very enlightening education if you ask me. And this doesn't really build up useful skill sets either. Testing children on memory and their ability to spit out facts isn't what I would call education. I'd call it more like indoctrination. What would help more is if children would do projects that would enable them to think critically, work with others, and explore ideas on how to create things. For example, learning to build a website, a video game, a film, a business, etc. The error with the private education system's "market solution" is that it markets a service. Education is not a service (or it shouldn't be). Education is a process. You don't need a curriculum. You also don't necessarily need teachers. Education can be a process where students learn from each other (and maybe also from some older people. Social and community forces should also ensure that students can have access to more experienced people's knowledge database (Parents/family care about their kids' education, right?)). There is a lot of information to be learned without the use of teachers. What education needs is a social network, a forum where students can communicate, pool resources, learn from each other, and bounce ideas. You are not paying for someone to lecture at you, you are learning from each other on how to live, work, and interact in the world you are entering. The great myth of the current education system is that we need teachers to teach students. The current teacher is someone who is deemed an "expert" who is paid to "bestow the gift of knowledge" on the students. It can be done more efficiently than this. You'd also get a better education. (Btw I'd much rather discuss things like this -- practical bottum up ways to improve society: rather than theoretical/moralistic top down ways we can impose a system of governance on society. This paragraph is the reason why I decided to respond to you (again).)
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: It is loaded, because the definition of "victimless" already denies its counter argument. You rightfully say that me storing TNT can potentially cause harm and might cause "panic". However, what if nobody knows about it? Then there is no direct harm left and no "victim", only "potential harm" and "potential victims".
So if nobody knows about it anyway then how does the government come to solve it? It's no different, unless the government should have the legal right to come into people's homes against their wishes and audit their property for TNT. But I'm guessing you don't advocate that.
I have no idea what this has to do with the principle of victimless crimes, because it has nothing to do with knowledge, luck, happenstance or whatever. It's not about applying it to situations in which one merely gets lucky whilst performing irresponsible acts, and thus afterwards saying that because there was no victim the acts were never wrong in the first place. It's only applied to acts where it is recognised that nobody was ever in danger, like for instance by storing TNT in a demonstrably safe and secure facility. If TNT itself were blanket banned, then even this act would be considered a crime and would be punishable when it it is clear that nobody was ever in danger from it at all. That is when "victimless crime" is invoked. So I wouldn't call that loaded language.
It's the same as saying that driving around after having consumed 5 litres of tequila is a victimless crime too, so long as you don't cause an accident and that nobody discovers that you were even drunk in the first place. Well, it's still a hugely irresponsible act, and people would still hold you responsible for that in some way. Maybe not by throwing you in a cage, but certainly by cutting off any dealings with you, reporting you to your DRO or whatever.
It's the fact that you COULD have caused harm that truly matters. So not many people, including myself, would ever argue that this act was perfectly acceptable just because it happened out that it was victimless in the end. I think that we actually agree on this, so it's just a semantic dispute, if anything.
My whole point was that "the fact you COULD have caused harm" is unfortunately a blurred concept and depends on an assessment of RISK. Generally it holds true that people who are drugged are less capable of making rational decisions and more likely of taking irresponsible actions. This is a potential risk for others. It is difficult to assess how much drug use is unproblematic in exactly what situation. Can we agree on that? This is reflected by the often inconsistent drug laws in different countries and has something to do with the difficulty of assessing this risk, not with the (non-)existence of a state.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: Well, drug laws proponents claim the same thing! It is a statistical fact that drug users (in general) commit significantly more crimes and these crimes are often directly motivated by the need for more drugs. They claim that cannabis acts as an entry drug and thus brings a lot of "potential harm" with lots of "potential victims". I think in the case of cannabis they are wrong, but the line of argument is not principally flawed (and that's my only point).
But, for example, I never claimed that merely owning TNT was irresponsible. Clearly it depends on all of the circumstances involved. So again, if you own a safe and secure facility with tall barbed-wire covered walls and security guards dotted all around the place, then it's obviously not going to be irresponsible of you to store TNT there. In the same way, nobody would accept that just smoking cannabis by itself is somehow a hugely irresponsible and dangerous act. And especially no more than drinking alcohol would be considered dangerous.
I mean, if we can both agree that there is no genuine problem from pot smokers, then why would people just invent a problem and pay enormous amounts for its solution? Now, maybe you argue that the harm from the statist drug ban will carry over into an anarchic society, as people will carry their ex-post facto justifications for it with them. But that's not a criticism of anarchy. It's a criticism of the lasting damage that the state can do. So because it's not examining anarchy in a vacuum, it's not exactly fair.
Now if there is a cannabis user driving or something, then they might be seen as being irresponsible for sure. But it's not merely that they happen to smoke pot. If I smoke pot in my house and I lock all the doors, who would ever argue that I pose a risk to anybody else by doing so? Now, I'm not saying that all pot users should have to do that, but my point is that blanket drug bans couldn't possibly be valid from the "potential harm" argument. It ignores circumstance entirely.
And in fact, with drug laws it's not even consuming the drug that is illegal, but merely owning it. So I can't even hold cannabis in my hands, even though I wouldn't consume it. Ridiculous. How is that possibly going to be dangerous to anybody? And as an aside, I don't actually know if driving while high from cannabis is dangerous. I only guess that it probably is, but I have no idea.
So let's get your argument straight. Your point is that because most people see drugs as being dangerous in a democracy (because the government bans it today), this is evidence that people will happily to pay for "security" forces in an anarchic society in order to effectively ban drugs there too. And people, on the whole, will not consider this a breach of the peace, but in fact as a means of keeping the peace and so will have no objections to it. Well, firstly that's assuming that voting has any real influence over the system, and that people actually voted for the drug war and aren't just coming up with ex-post facto justifications for it. I mean, just because the government banned alcohol at one point doesn't mean that private individuals would have ever dreamed of doing the same thing with their own money. But let's say that you're right about that.
Are you saying that in an ancap society, it's just obvious that there will emerge private forces that would break up peaceful hippies around camp-fires singing Kumbayah, and locking up all the pot smokers that were present? And are you saying people would actually look at that action being committed by private individuals and think that it's actually appropriately "keeping the peace". Surely it would be clear that it is actually violating the peace that was already there? But with the state, the exact same scenario goes relatively unquestioned and unchallenged.
After all, those hippies around the camp-fire were "breaking the law". And so 99% of people argue that even if they personally agree with the hippies, and think that the law itself should be changed, you still have to follow the laws while they're around. And so the police officers were "in the right" to do what they did. You see, presupposed legitimacy. It's not the same with private forces arresting pot smokers, even if you're right that they would exist. But I don't think people would ever voluntarily agree to pay their own money for "security" forces to arrest peaceful people. In-fact, I would pay money to defend people against that. Maybe we disagree on this, but even so I don't see how it justifies the state even if you're right. If anything it's just saying that evil is inevitable, not that it is somehow transforms it into being virtuous.
And that's ignoring your whole argument about the statistical fact that drug users commit more crimes. This is because they're already considered criminals and so have no protection from the monopoly law. So what difference does it make to them if they commit other crimes when they're already considered criminals? The argument was the same for alcohol prohibition, but that in fact served to create more crime as drinking alcohol became illegal, as we now know.
And finally, it's missing my whole initial point. That locking people up in cages for smoking weed on your lawn is clearly immoral. That is the case even if you've banned it from your property. We can hopefully all clearly see that it's overreacting, right? So even if I am a landlord and I have a no-weed allowed rule in the contract, and I catch one of my voluntarily agreeing rent payers smoking weed in the house, I still can't morally lock them in a cage.
And it doesn't matter the amount of time that I lock them in a cage for. Be it for 5 years or for 1 month. If I personally locked up a pot smoker on my property for even a week, it is clearly wrong. But it's this false meme of presupposed legitimacy that changes the perception of the exact same action when it is done by the state, and in the exact same circumstances. Assuming the state even owns the land in the first place, which it doesn't. So this "my house, my rules" argument that I've heard here many times just fails on all fronts.
Punishing somebody for breaking a law is meaningful. You can definately agree or disagree with the extent of the punishment or the law itself, but nothing of this has to do with the existence of a state. I find it really naive to think that "states do all that bad stuff", when it is the people living in this state. You need to make a more specific argument of what it is exactly about the state that makes people commit immoral actions, that they would not commit without a state. Again, if your whole point is that law enforcement in general is more difficult in ancap, I would agree. But this is not limited to "victimless" crimes, but to all crimes where people don't have an incentive and/or the money to pay an investigator and still doesn't rule out that some individuals will pay enforcement agencies simply because they believe that an action commited by somebody else is utterly wrong. You have never talked to a zealot (and I am not talking about Starcraft), if you think that this is impossible.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: No, things don't get MORALLY justified because the majority thinks so. But morals are not an applicable concept here. In any social system (including socio-economic ones) rules (codes of conduct) develop and the opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of minorities/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in this development. This is intrinsic to social systems in theory and over more an empirical fact. Ancap does not and cannot change that.
I absolutely agree, but I don't understand how you get from A to B here. Why are morals inapplicable? Are you saying that once a social system develops "rules" (either implicitly, explicitly, formalised or otherwise), any act is therefore justified? Again, it's not even mutually exclusive. Surely we can examine slavery in the context of moral justification, even if the developed opinion of the majority (or better: the influence of monitories/individuals on the majority) is the driving factor in the development of owning other human beings in the codes of conduct in a social system. Do you see what I mean?
I am not talking about what is "morally right" or "justified", but what is legitimate. In social systems legitimacy is an objective concept which describes how rules are upheld. To be very clear: Immoral or unjustified acts can be carried out irrespective of the social system. Rules can be legitimately derived and abided in a system, even though they include atrocities - with a state or without a state. Tribal communities (which are often cited as an example for "functioning" stateless societies) have developed various rules, which most people consider barbaric nowadays. Nonetheless these rules have been legitimately developed in the system and are therefore followed. We can of course examine anything in light of ethics, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you really want to tell me that immoral rules/laws can only develop with a state? Or that it is more likely that they develop in a state? Well, then you need to make a more specific argument. In the western world various atrocities were abolished in spite or maybe even because there was a state. Look at the history of the USA and how slavery was abolished, for instance.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: In all systems these rules derive their legitimacy from the excercising of power. In modern societies people tend to prefer that the legitimacy arises by consent of the many
So in other words, what you're saying here is that 'the consent of the governed' is a really just a pleasant euphemism for 'might makes right'? That people just tend to prefer to think their consent matters, even though it's really just the power to coerce that makes the coercion 'legitimate'? I'm guessing this isn't actually what you're saying, but it sure sounds like it.
I feel like you're muddying the waters. Let's just keep it really simple. If I consent to the Mafia, surely it's still applicable to say that the Mafia itself is an immoral organisation and has no legitimacy to extort others. Would you say morality is not applicable here? Regardless of consent at all, whether it be the majority who consents or whatever. It doesn't defer authority to the Mafia to extort others, because the individuals who consented had no authority to extort others either. Where exactly is this authority magically created along this process of consenting?
You strike me more and more as a romantic!? No, "might" does not make right, but so what? "Might" makes rules. "Might" gives legitimacy (in the neutral sense of the word, which is not what you or me "find" legitimate). That is a fact. In democratic states "might" is supposed to arise only by consent. I find this system "just", in the sense that it does its job arguably well.
The Mafia is an "immoral organisation" because and only because they seem to be organised for the purpose of committing immoral actions. There is nothing about the structure of the social system underlying the Mafia which makes them immoral. Rules of behaviour are legitimately developed within the Mafia as a social system. The rules themselves might be despicable and the Mafia is surely not organized in a democratic fashion. But not all social systems need to be nor should be organised democratically. Morality or immorality of the Mafia's actions does not help to evaluate the benefits of their social structure. In fact it seems to me, that you should rather endorse their social system, because it is as close as you can get to a functioning social system without a state, imo.
(And sorry for the late answer ... f*cking time zones)
On September 03 2010 17:01 MiraMax wrote: My whole point was that "the fact you COULD have caused harm" is unfortunately a blurred concept and depends on an assessment of RISK. Generally it holds true that people who are drugged are less capable of making rational decisions and more likely of taking irresponsible actions. This is a potential risk for others. It is difficult to assess how much drug use is unproblematic in exactly what situation. Can we agree on that? This is reflected by the often inconsistent drug laws in different countries and has something to do with the difficulty of assessing this risk, not with the (non-)existence of a state.
Blurred concept according to who? Difficult to assess according to who? You see, this is the problem I think. You keep looking at society from the eyes of a central planner; a central authority who decides all of the rules upfront. Instead of emergent order, you're looking at how to cover all of the bases for everybody in society upfront.
It only looks blurred from that central position, because unfortunately the accumulation of all risk assessments from all individuals and in all circumstances is not something that one can reduce to a single value. It depends on people to determine what risks they're willing to take and in what circumstances; it cannot be reduced to a single 'risk factor' for the entirety of society. It requires one to go 'overboard' in order to cover every possible circumstance. To 'play it safe', if you will. An example would be the idea of banning cars, because driving also incurs risk to yourself and to others. A central authority has no choice but to ignore all circumstances and personal value assessment. A central authority imposes a single blanketed "solution" on all.
The value of a widget is "blurred concept", but we don't need a central authority to set prices. It's difficult to asses the value of a widget in exactly what situation. So let individuals asses it. Markets, that is the emergent order of human behaviour, can determine prices better than any authority. The fact that different countries have different drug laws is kind of telling, because as you yourself admit it shows how difficult it is to assess that risk. I would say impossible, because it literally cannot be reduced to one single value.
Now as to the risk posed from drug users. I think there is little risk at all; not enough to do anything about it. I'm sure there is more risk to me that I will get into a car accident. But that's not the point. My personal value & risk assessment is not important enough to impose on everybody else.
On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote: Punishing somebody for breaking a law is meaningful. You can definately agree or disagree with the extent of the punishment or the law itself, but nothing of this has to do with the existence of a state. I find it really naive to think that "states do all that bad stuff", when it is the people living in this state. You need to make a more specific argument of what it is exactly about the state that makes people commit immoral actions, that they would not commit without a state. Again, if your whole point is that law enforcement in general is more difficult in ancap, I would agree. But this is not limited to "victimless" crimes, but to all crimes where people don't have an incentive and/or the money to pay an investigator and still doesn't rule out that some individuals will pay enforcement agencies simply because they believe that an action commited by somebody else is utterly wrong. You have never talked to a zealot (and I am not talking about Starcraft), if you think that this is impossible.
I didn't say punishment wasn't meaningful. I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm asking about ONE very specific scenario in which somebody is throw in a cage with very specific set of circumstances behind it. All you keep doing is saying how punishment is meaningful. Can you not judge one specific scenario yourself without looking at the bigger picture first? You see, since you're looking at it from the eyes of a central planner, you're also ignoring circumstance and are only concerned with blanket "solutions". Is it moral for a landlord to throw a pot smoker into a cage or not? Instead of applying the same question to a far more general set of circumstances in which you apparently think it means that all crimes should go unpunished, just answer the one question that I asked.
I mean, I personally think that in a free society justice will be much more focused on getting recompense than on dispensing punishment. And social ostracism and reputation will be much more important and powerful, which could be said to be a form of punishment but it's really just the freedom to associate with whoever you choose. But the point is, it will be more economically viable for you to submit to a fair judiciary ruling than to not do so. But that's neither here nor there, because I never even brought it up in the first place.
My point was never that "law enforcement" is more difficult in an-cap. For individuals it will be much cheaper and more effective. Now, the enforcement of arbitrary nonsense rules upon others will be expensive of course. But that should be expensive, right? But for general defensive and security of persons and property, not so much. I don't see why that would be more difficult or more expensive.
How effective and accessible is the current legal system? Again, pretty expensive, corrupt and entirely inaccessible. How effective are the cops? Not very. I'm not likely to get anything back from a thief. Now I could have prevented the theft from even occurring if I had a gun, but then the cops would take ME into custody. You see? What's more, say I own a business and I contract with a defensive agency to protect the building. If the building gets broken into successfully, I may have a valid case to sue the defensive agency for failing to perform their duty. Can I sue the cops in the same situation? Of course not. That would be utterly absurd!
I am not talking about what is "morally right" or "justified", but what is legitimate. In social systems legitimacy is an objective concept which describes how rules are upheld. To be very clear: Immoral or unjustified acts can be carried out irrespective of the social system. Rules can be legitimately derived and abided in a system, even though they include atrocities - with a state or without a state. Tribal communities (which are often cited as an example for "functioning" stateless societies) have developed various rules, which most people consider barbaric nowadays. Nonetheless these rules have been legitimately developed in the system and are therefore followed. We can of course examine anything in light of ethics, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you really want to tell me that immoral rules/laws can only develop with a state? Or that it is more likely that they develop in a state? Well, then you need to make a more specific argument. In the western world various atrocities were abolished in spite or maybe even because there was a state. Look at the history of the USA and how slavery was abolished, for instance.
Ok, well then you're just ignoring my whole point for the sake of tautological definitions. I think you know exactly what I mean, so I don't know why you insist going down this complicated messy path. You're just muddying the waters, and you're doing it on purpose I think. Again, let's just keep it simple. I'm talking about the lack of barbarism in society, and you're merely saying that barbarism is legitimate because it's legitimate by definition. Who cares? Way to ignore everything.
Religious persecution is therefore legitimate, because social systems used to have rules enforcing religion onto people. Some social systems still do, such as Saudi Arabia. But we now recognise that religious persecution is NOT LEGITIMATE. It has been removed from those "rules" of society, right? So in the same way, I want to change what we consider to be legitimate; to remove the initiation of force from the concept entirely. If the concept of legitimacy does not currently include morality, then I WANT TO INCLUDE IT. What is your point exactly? That everything is legitimate if at any time it was formalised into a rule by the central authority of any social system? I fail to see where you're going here? Honestly it's just frustrating.
And slavery was abolished when the state stopped catching slaves. When it became economically infeasible for individuals to catch slaves for themselves.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: You strike me more and more as a romantic!? No, "might" does not make right, but so what? "Might" makes rules. "Might" gives legitimacy (in the neutral sense of the word, which is not what you or me "find" legitimate). That is a fact.
Oh, so you do understand the "SENSE" of the word as I am using it. Ok, well then just STFU because you show that you DO understand my whole point. You're just ignoring it. Seriously. I wish people wouldn't insist on bringing tautological semantics into every single thing just so that they can fog the path and skirt the very issue at hand. It's so damn annoying.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: In democratic states "might" is supposed to arise only by consent. I find this system "just", in the sense that it does its job arguably well.
Who's consent are we talking about? The majority? If I consent to the Mafia, does that bring any semblance of legitimacy to the Mafia to extort others who do not consent to it?
Let me ask you something else. Am I free to disagree with you and act on my disagreement? In other words, am I free to not pay taxes? If I am not free to act on my disagreement, am I truly free to disagree or is it just a charade? Are you personally willing to use force against me, either directly or indirectly, in order to extract my taxes?
The Mafia is an "immoral organisation" because and only because they seem to be organised for the purpose of committing immoral actions. There is nothing about the structure of the social system underlying the Mafia which makes them immoral. Rules of behaviour are legitimately developed within the Mafia as a social system. The rules themselves might be despicable and the Mafia is surely not organized in a democratic fashion. But not all social systems need to be nor should be organised democratically. Morality or immorality of the Mafia's actions does not help to evaluate the benefits of their social structure. In fact it seems to me, that you should rather endorse their social system, because it is as close as you can get to a functioning social system without a state, imo.
What does my question have to do with the structure of the social system, etc? The Mafia is immoral for its actions of extorting people. That is all. Extremely simple. I don't know why you're bringing all this foggy stuff into it that has little relevance to the very simple yes or no question that I asked.
Extortion should not be considered a legitimate way of acquiring funds. And in-fact, this is how the vast majority of people already understand it when applied to recognised criminal gangs, which is why I bring it up in the first place. And you've already demonstrated that you know the "sense" in which I'm using the word legitimate, so I don't want to hear about how extortion by the Mafia is actually legitimate by some definition. I don't care because it's sidestepping the moral point. And we all understand that the Mafia's extortion isn't legitimate regardless of how successful they are at doing it, or whatever. All I want you to do is use the same exact logic and apply it to the state.
Weak 3rd world countries essentially have this. Their governments are too weak to do anything. Multinational corporations have all the power in those countries, they come in, buy resources and security, and do whatever they want.
On September 03 2010 17:01 MiraMax wrote: My whole point was that "the fact you COULD have caused harm" is unfortunately a blurred concept and depends on an assessment of RISK. Generally it holds true that people who are drugged are less capable of making rational decisions and more likely of taking irresponsible actions. This is a potential risk for others. It is difficult to assess how much drug use is unproblematic in exactly what situation. Can we agree on that? This is reflected by the often inconsistent drug laws in different countries and has something to do with the difficulty of assessing this risk, not with the (non-)existence of a state.
Blurred concept according to who? Difficult to assess according to who? You see, this is the problem I think. You keep looking at society from the eyes of a central planner; a central authority who decides all of the rules upfront. Instead of emergent order, you're looking at how to cover all of the bases for everybody in society upfront.
It only looks blurred from that central position, because unfortunately the accumulation of all risk assessments from all individuals and in all circumstances is not something that one can reduce to a single value. It depends on people to determine what risks they're willing to take and in what circumstances; it cannot be reduced to a single 'risk factor' for the entirety of society. It requires one to go 'overboard' in order to cover every possible circumstance. To 'play it safe', if you will. An example would be the idea of banning cars, because driving also incurs risk to yourself and to others. A central authority has no choice but to ignore all circumstances and personal value assessment. A central authority imposes a single blanketed "solution" on all.
The value of a widget is "blurred concept", but we don't need a central authority to set prices. It's difficult to asses the value of a widget in exactly what situation. So let individuals asses it. Markets, that is the emergent order of human behaviour, can determine prices better than any authority. The fact that different countries have different drug laws is kind of telling, because as you yourself admit it shows how difficult it is to assess that risk. I would say impossible, because it literally cannot be reduced to one single value.
Now as to the risk posed from drug users. I think there is little risk at all; not enough to do anything about it. I'm sure there is more risk to me that I will get into a car accident. But that's not the point. My personal value & risk assessment is not important enough to impose on everybody else.
This is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with central planning but with individual understanding. If some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be some people who care for their enforcement. In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced. You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime".
On September 03 2010 17:01 MiraMax wrote: Punishing somebody for breaking a law is meaningful. You can definately agree or disagree with the extent of the punishment or the law itself, but nothing of this has to do with the existence of a state. I find it really naive to think that "states do all that bad stuff", when it is the people living in this state. You need to make a more specific argument of what it is exactly about the state that makes people commit immoral actions, that they would not commit without a state. Again, if your whole point is that law enforcement in general is more difficult in ancap, I would agree. But this is not limited to "victimless" crimes, but to all crimes where people don't have an incentive and/or the money to pay an investigator and still doesn't rule out that some individuals will pay enforcement agencies simply because they believe that an action commited by somebody else is utterly wrong. You have never talked to a zealot (and I am not talking about Starcraft), if you think that this is impossible.
I didn't say punishment wasn't meaningful. I don't know where you're getting that from. I'm asking about ONE very specific scenario in which somebody is throw in a cage with very specific set of circumstances behind it. All you keep doing is saying how punishment is meaningful. Can you not judge one specific scenario yourself without looking at the bigger picture first? You see, since you're looking at it from the eyes of a central planner, you're also ignoring circumstance and are only concerned with blanket "solutions". Is it moral for a landlord to throw a pot smoker into a cage or not? Instead of applying the same question to a far more general set of circumstances in which you apparently think it means that all crimes should go unpunished, just answer the one question that I asked.
No, it is not moral for a landlord to throw a pot-smoker in jail ... unless he can somehow show that this pot-smoker constitutes a significant threat. So what? Did this answer help us? No, not at all. Hmm, maybe we need to look at the bigger picture ...
On September 03 2010 01:05 dvide wrote: I mean, I personally think that in a free society justice will be much more focused on getting recompense than on dispensing punishment. And social ostracism and reputation will be much more important and powerful, which could be said to be a form of punishment but it's really just the freedom to associate with whoever you choose. But the point is, it will be more economically viable for you to submit to a fair judiciary ruling than to not do so. But that's neither here nor there, because I never even brought it up in the first place.
My point was never that "law enforcement" is more difficult in an-cap. For individuals it will be much cheaper and more effective. Now, the enforcement of arbitrary nonsense rules upon others will be expensive of course. But that should be expensive, right? But for general defensive and security of persons and property, not so much. I don't see why that would be more difficult or more expensive.
How effective and accessible is the current legal system? Again, pretty expensive, corrupt and entirely inaccessible. How effective are the cops? Not very. I'm not likely to get anything back from a thief. Now I could have prevented the theft from even occurring if I had a gun, but then the cops would take ME into custody. You see? What's more, say I own a business and I contract with a defensive agency to protect the building. If the building gets broken into successfully, I may have a valid case to sue the defensive agency for failing to perform their duty. Can I sue the cops in the same situation? Of course not. That would be utterly absurd!
You cannot sue cops in your country? The legal system there is utterly corrupt? Then I would advise you to move to the civilized democratic state! No reason to abolish states altogether. I live in a free society and my girlfriend grew up in one too (she is from Italy). So that is clearly possible with a state (and the Mafia) for that matter ...
I am not talking about what is "morally right" or "justified", but what is legitimate. In social systems legitimacy is an objective concept which describes how rules are upheld. To be very clear: Immoral or unjustified acts can be carried out irrespective of the social system. Rules can be legitimately derived and abided in a system, even though they include atrocities - with a state or without a state. Tribal communities (which are often cited as an example for "functioning" stateless societies) have developed various rules, which most people consider barbaric nowadays. Nonetheless these rules have been legitimately developed in the system and are therefore followed. We can of course examine anything in light of ethics, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. Do you really want to tell me that immoral rules/laws can only develop with a state? Or that it is more likely that they develop in a state? Well, then you need to make a more specific argument. In the western world various atrocities were abolished in spite or maybe even because there was a state. Look at the history of the USA and how slavery was abolished, for instance.
Ok, well then you're just ignoring my whole point for the sake of tautological definitions. I think you know exactly what I mean, so I don't know why you insist going down this complicated messy path. You're just muddying the waters, and you're doing it on purpose I think. Again, let's just keep it simple. I'm talking about the lack of barbarism in society, and you're merely saying that barbarism is legitimate because it's legitimate by definition. Who cares? Way to ignore everything.
Religious persecution is therefore legitimate, because social systems used to have rules enforcing religion onto people. Some social systems still do, such as Saudi Arabia. But we now recognise that religious persecution is NOT LEGITIMATE. It has been removed from those "rules" of society, right? So in the same way, I want to change what we consider to be legitimate; to remove the initiation of force from the concept entirely. If the concept of legitimacy does not currently include morality, then I WANT TO INCLUDE IT. What is your point exactly? That everything is legitimate if at any time it was formalised into a rule by the central authority of any social system? I fail to see where you're going here? Honestly it's just frustrating.
And slavery was abolished when the state stopped catching slaves. When it became economically infeasible for individuals to catch slaves for themselves.
I am not ignoring your point, I am explaining why your point is moot. Yes, immoral acts can be commited with states. Yes, immoral acts can be committed without states. This leads nowhere. In order to make a point in favor of ancap you need to look at how THE SYSTEM works. You cannot just point at something you don't like and conclude the system is bad. What is so difficult to understand here?
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: You strike me more and more as a romantic!? No, "might" does not make right, but so what? "Might" makes rules. "Might" gives legitimacy (in the neutral sense of the word, which is not what you or me "find" legitimate). That is a fact.
Oh, so you do understand the "SENSE" of the word as I am using it. Ok, well then just STFU because you show that you DO understand my whole point. You're just ignoring it. Seriously. I wish people wouldn't insist on bringing tautological semantics into every single thing just so that they can fog the path and skirt the very issue at hand. It's so damn annoying.
On September 02 2010 21:42 MiraMax wrote: In democratic states "might" is supposed to arise only by consent. I find this system "just", in the sense that it does its job arguably well.
Who's consent are we talking about? The majority? If I consent to the Mafia, does that bring any semblance of legitimacy to the Mafia to extort others who do not consent to it?
Let me ask you something else. Am I free to disagree with you and act on my disagreement? In other words, am I free to not pay taxes? If I am not free to act on my disagreement, am I truly free to disagree or is it just a charade? Are you personally willing to use force against me, either directly or indirectly, in order to extract my taxes?
Sure you are, in the same sense as you can violate any code of conduct. But your actions will have consequences. If you violate a law it might lead to you being forced to pay a punishment or even go to prison and this is right in principle. No, I am not personally willing to use force against you. But should we be living in the same country, I deem it right that you have to pay taxes or leave the country and that force be used to "extract" them. And I would further deem it morally wrong that you to wish to stay and earn money, but are not willing to contribute.
The Mafia is an "immoral organisation" because and only because they seem to be organised for the purpose of committing immoral actions. There is nothing about the structure of the social system underlying the Mafia which makes them immoral. Rules of behaviour are legitimately developed within the Mafia as a social system. The rules themselves might be despicable and the Mafia is surely not organized in a democratic fashion. But not all social systems need to be nor should be organised democratically. Morality or immorality of the Mafia's actions does not help to evaluate the benefits of their social structure. In fact it seems to me, that you should rather endorse their social system, because it is as close as you can get to a functioning social system without a state, imo.
What does my question have to do with the structure of the social system, etc? The Mafia is immoral for its actions of extorting people. That is all. Extremely simple. I don't know why you're bringing all this foggy stuff into it that has little relevance to the very simple yes or no question that I asked.
Extortion should not be considered a legitimate way of acquiring funds. And in-fact, this is how the vast majority of people already understand it when applied to recognised criminal gangs, which is why I bring it up in the first place. And you've already demonstrated that you know the "sense" in which I'm using the word legitimate, so I don't want to hear about how extortion by the Mafia is actually legitimate by some definition. I don't care because it's sidestepping the moral point. And we all understand that the Mafia's extortion isn't legitimate regardless of how successful they are at doing it, or whatever. All I want you to do is use the same exact logic and apply it to the state.
Yes, extorsion is not moral. No, the "state" doesn't use extortion just because you say so. A "state" per se cannot be morally good or bad, just like a "company" per se cannot be morally good or bad. They are both social systems. In order to assess their advantages and disadvantages you need to look at their structure, not at actions which are commited by one or many implementations, unless you can somehow show that their structure leads to this behaviour!
On September 04 2010 04:10 MiraMax wrote: This is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with central planning but with individual understanding. If some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be some people who care for their enforcement. In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced. You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime".
This is just utterly confusing. Enforcement is a bad word for what I am describing; just call it defence. It's not "enforcing the law" when I defend myself from a mugger, for example. Technically I am, but it comes with it other baggage that is not needed if we were to simply call it defence.
What you want to do is make it sound like there will obviously emerge a chaotic system of competing arbitrary and aggressive "laws", all being enforced by different organisations within one neighbourhood. Each one believing that there are "right". Am I correct in that this is what you're ultimately opposing here? So one enforcement agency will be out on the street breaking people's noses for eating beef burgers, because some people think burgers are bad for your health and so they will pay for this action. And another enforcement agency will be out there breaking people's noses for reading the wrong type of literature. It's just a fantasy scare scenario. It a knee jerk response that has no basis in reality. What would actually happen? I mean, how much support would each arbitrary, aggressive "law" get? And especially when contrasted with the support for defence against it.
Is any organisation or individual going to risk their own lives in support of street warfare all for the sake of banning salt from restaurants or something like that? You see, just because democratic governments ban salt from restaurants doesn't mean free individuals would ever dream of doing the same thing. That's the mistake you make. By assuming the people in a democratic government actually get their wishes. Do you think Koreans asked for this, or is it clearly just an extortion racket? Do you think that in a truly free society there will be private law enforcement officers going around shutting down Korean Steam servers? Because after all, Korea is a democracy right? So that's evidence that there must be a lot of demand for this kind of action, right? WRONG.
So, you say, "if some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be people who care for their enforcement". Yes. Why would people not care when they're being mugged or something? If mugging is a big issue, people will care. I fail to understand the point you're making.
"In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced." The non-aggression principle? Basic common sense approach here methinks. People don't like being mugged; they stop muggers. Simples. What's the big issue? Do you need a law degree for that? To recognise the right to stop a mugger? Do you need permission from any central authority or "societal structure" or whatever? Of course not. I don't understand where you're going with this.
"You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime"". You make it sound arbitrary, where as in-fact it's far less arbitrary than a blanket approach by a central authority. I advocate a common sense approach, instead of a superstitious one. The inter-subjective common sense understanding is that initiating violence is immoral. I want people to apply the same understanding to the government too.
No, it is not moral for a landlord to throw a pot-smoker in jail ... unless he can somehow show that this pot-smoker constitutes a significant threat. So what? Did this answer help us? No, not at all. Hmm, maybe we need to look at the bigger picture ...
So then why is it acceptable for governments to do this? Since it has nothing then to do with land ownership then, right? Assuming the government even legitimately owns all the land. If it has nothing to do with land ownership, then what? Because you can vote every 4 years?
You cannot sue cops in your country? The legal system there is utterly corrupt? Then I would advise you to move to the civilized democratic state! No reason to abolish states altogether. I live in a free society and my girlfriend grew up in one too (she is from Italy). So that is clearly possible with a state (and the Mafia) for that matter ...
I can't sue them for failing to defend me. In-fact, you might be surprised to hear that the supreme court of the USA has ruled that police have no obligation to defend anyone. Maybe it's better over there in Germany, but I doubt it. Educate me if I'm wrong. And no, you don't live in a free society and neither does your girlfriend. Free society with a government is an oxymoron.
I am not ignoring your point, I am explaining why your point is moot. Yes, immoral acts can be commited with states. Yes, immoral acts can be committed without states. This leads nowhere. In order to make a point in favor of ancap you need to look at how THE SYSTEM works. You cannot just point at something you don't like and conclude the system is bad. What is so difficult to understand here?
Obvious facts are obvious. We are in no disagreement that immoral acts can be committed without states. Is that supposed to be a defence of immoral acts? You don't defend immoral actions even if they are inevitable.
But actually you are ignoring my point. Because my point relates to the cultural meme that the people calling themselves the government have the right to initiate violence. And it is commonly understood that nobody else but the people in the government have this right. I want it to be applied to the people in the government too. After all, there is nothing special about those human beings that they get an arbitrarily different set of moral rights. So in this sense, consent of the majority is not too dissimilar to a widespread religion. But you haven't addressed that at all.
THE SYSTEM works on the principle that we need somebody to initiate force against peaceful people in some circumstances in order to solve social problems.
Sure you are, in the same sense as you can violate any code of conduct. But your actions will have consequences. If you violate a law it might lead to you being forced to pay a punishment or even go to prison and this is right in principle. No, I am not personally willing to use force against you. But should we be living in the same country, I deem it right that you have to pay taxes or leave the country and that force be used to "extract" them. And I would further deem it morally wrong that you to wish to stay and earn money, but are not willing to contribute.
That's right in principle? Wow. But what if the law is fucking immoral? Was it right to punish Germans hiding Jews from the Gestapo in principle? Because after all they violated the god-damn law, right? Law that you call "legitimate" =) (in the neutral sense of the word, of course)
Do you not see how the morality of a certain law is a modifier that CHANGES EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING? My assertion is that tax laws are immoral. Now you can disagree with me if you think otherwise, and we can then go on to discuss that. But then what you have just said here is not even relevant so there was never any point to you ever making it.
And I like how you wouldn't personally be willing to use force against me. Just send your thugs to do the dirty business eh? =)
Yes, extorsion is not moral. No, the "state" doesn't use extortion just because you say so. A "state" per se cannot be morally good or bad, just like a "company" per se cannot be morally good or bad. They are both social systems. In order to assess their advantages and disadvantages you need to look at their structure, not at actions which are commited by one or many implementations, unless you can somehow show that their structure leads to this behaviour!
But a company CAN be morally bad, so what you just said makes no sense at all. If a "company" is extorting people, it is immoral even by a colloquial, inter-subjective, common sense understanding of what constitutes immorality. The Mafia is an immoral organisation. We don't need to examine the advantages and disadvantages of different political systems in Italy to know that the Mafia is fucking immoral because it extorts people. Do you assert that a company's actions are amoral if it extorts its "customers", because one can only assess the fuzzy advantages and disadvantages of "social structures"? What you're saying is very confusing to me.
But ok fine - you don't think the state uses extortion. That is another topic we can discuss, but at very least you accept that it is an important modifier to everything you have said. Because if not, then why did you even mention it?
It's not "for free" is my point, because if one is to steal beyond a certain point, wealth will start to be diminished in the world, and the society collapses even if people are still willing slaves. I don't question your decision of stealing for your own benefit, it was no moral judgment; I'm just pointing the usually unseen consequences that people don't think of, be them rulers, coercive monopolists, intervetionists, socialists, etc. Even politicians should think more of them. For their own good - there may not be a United States anymore within their generation if they keep screwing it up.
The collapse of wealth isn't as fast as you claim it to be. It would disappear way after you return to the dust. Thus you have no interest in really protecting the accumulation of wealth.
Nope, you don't know what I wish, and it may very well that I may wish for things to happen past my lifetime. My goal in life would be to facilitate those events even though I won't be there to witness. Also, obviously it may not even collapse at all, or it may take a decade, a century, it may take two centuries. I don't know, but I'm just reminding of the possibility that extortionists so easily forget. Nothing wrong with a little fear mongering.
No it doesn't rest on moral argument alone, and if you knew anything about praxeology thus austran economics, is that it is value free, morality free. I'm talking to cooperative human beings that what increasingly greater capital accumulation and living standards for both themselves and society - and how anarcho-capitalism is a much, much better maximizer of that compared to any centrally managed plan.
Also yes, I make moral prescriptions myself but they are not core. Moral discussions are discussions of courses of action - which actions are commendable, and which are reprehensible. Which justify intervetion, and which do not. They ARE VERY relevant to those who care about them (and I very much doubt you do not, even sociopaths can at least pretend to take them into consideration just to save face), but if you don't, I couldn't care less!
Completely misses the point. Maybe I should specify the moral basis is supporting your interests, which is again a moral judgment. You obviously value wealth accumulation. Good, bad, who cares. Its a value.
But Austrian Economics can make prescriptions for any value; which is the point you miss. Even for those who do not care about wealth, and just want to live hedonistically, they too could benefit greatly from cooperation for largely the same reasons.
How do you leech without being coercive, and how do you exploit without coercing? Give me examples, applicable to a decent, non-contradictory private property theory.
Maybe you should have read what I was commenting on before commenting. The whole point is that it IS coercive, not cooperative What if I don't accept your private-property theory. Oh look! Something you mysteriously managed to omit from your responses. Well I guess any response to it wouldn't have really added to the library of anarchist arguments, so whatever.
Maybe you should have read the part where you created such a third class that wasn't supposed to be coercive:
On September 03 2010 11:48 Incognito wrote: this doesn't take into account leechers, who are neither cooperative nor coercive.
If you don't accept private property, and steal my good X, I will steal the good X back. We will keep stealing from one another, and you can't argue against it unless you use some property theory, at which point I would summon you in court. But you probably wouldn't go to court, so most likely you would be seen as an outlaw aaand, I don't know what may or may not happen to you past that point (eviction cough cough jail cough cough), but you're not going to get much help from anyone who understands the most trivial concepts of private property.
to and will be taken care by those owners better than any central planner could take care of him. People who are abused by PDAs can go in the media, go to courts, raise a ruckus, and if they were obviously abused of their self ownership or private property, then the cops will be tried to the full extent of the law. If a guy has been shot DEAD, the PDA cop is liable by MURDER, because it doesn't have any superior authority by law to do squat.
Hard to get the PDA guy arrested/ostracized when you don't know who he is.
Oh really, and how would such an organization be created, financed, and marketed, when people don't even know who they are investing in, nor buying products from? That is ridiculous, no one would spend a dime in an organization without a head to be liable for it, even if it's a puppet. It would be essentially giving money away to a scammer, signing a contract with a ghost.
A feudal system where some nut claims all land (including that of others) but homesteads none, will not be respected by any half-decent court. Much different from what you could do in medieval Europe. Nor would it be enough of a justification to enslave people who are in your land. They still maintain NAP.
Not much different than feudal Europe. Feudal lords didn't homestead the land, or if they did, they took more than the could actually control themselves. Thats why there were serfs.
Well what do you think I'm saying? The land isn't yours until you homestead it. You can't claim unused land as much as you can't claim the moon. The feudal lords were not acting within private property, it was coercive to say they deserve a fraction of all produces in his reign, as much as the government is coercive in collecting property tax (and every other tax for that matter).
What are those non-market forces that can't be valued yet determine human action? Even love is a subjective evaluation.
Friendship. You could measure it quantitatively but most people won't. Even if they don't, friendly favors are cheaper than paying people to do things.
You can, and you don't know that they don't. Certainly they would if the friend asks for $1000. Or if he asked $100 for the tenth time; $10 for the thousandth time; whatever their breakpoint is. Every factor is as much evaluated as people want to, and if they don't evaluate it, then how is it a force? A force that acts on no one? A force that does not change evaluations does not need to be discussed, as it doesn't affect human action.
The economics in Austrian Economics is the study of human action, praxeology. It's not just money that moves people, and AE recognizes that better than any other economical theory.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: On a side note, people say that "Africa is poor! People live on only a dollar a day!" The thing is, people do a lot more familial/friendly favors and people work more as a community. They only make $1 a day because their system isn't monetarized like ours is.
Maybe, I don't know.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: The next comment ignores the point.
it's very clear in the realm of private property. I own myself. I also own what I make, and the resources that I homestead.
You own what you make? Sounds fairly Marxist, not anarchist, but I think you mean to say you are entitled to the fair value of the product you make (minus the fair value of the capital provided by the employer)? (Or not, since fair value would be subjective...but wouldn't the ratio of the value imparted by the employee and the capital imparted by the employer be quantifiable?) Your "I own what I make" statement sure makes things confusing !
Except that marxism ignores the efforts of entrepreneurs - they make things too, and they are as entitled to them as the worker is to his pay. It may be confusing for you who is confused by marxism, and it's ok, because marxism does invoke the fallacy of objective value, multiple times. In the realm of private property, you are entitled to what you make - and you can contract or trade away what you make before it's even done. That is what employment is. A laborer sells his services in making a product and is paid before the product is done. The entrepreneur acts both as a bridge of capital - enabling the worker to get the fruits of his labor now instead of later, essentially serving as a loaner, charging some interest - and also the bridge between worker+capital and consumer, creating feasible and increasingly efficient business models where one did not exist before, to fulfill a certain demand gap. Employer qua capitalist earns money on interest, employer qua entrepreneur earns money on profit. Marxists ignore both services as "exploitation", and their economies would suffer from lacking exactly what those services provide: investment and innovation.
Anyway, the worker sells his services to the employer, so having him claim the finished product would be stealing a sold product. Double counting his efforts. He can't have a claim to both - either he is paid now, or he claims ownership of part of the product's net revenue later.
Really, everyone benefits from living in a clean environment? Can you explain how? And why is that enough of a justification to force people in doing what you think is proper?
I would reckon that since the government owns all land, and you advocate government to protect the environment, it is a failed experiment as is, and will fail again, as it hasn't done shit, selling the environment off like a bitch selling her ass for crack.
People benefit from a cleaner environment by living longer healthier lives. You have no right to trash the environment because you don't own the environment. The government doesn't even "own" the environment. Nobody owns the environment. Or maybe, the environment owns itself. I am not justifying the use of force any more than you are justifying the sanctity of private property. The environment owns itself, and polluting it is the same as doing graffiti over someone's house that they built. Regardless, why is there enough justification for you to use force to protect your private property (value judgment, you didn't create iron out of thin air, you refined it and thus ADDED value to it. Or else I could nail on a gutter to your house and claim your house). Second paragraph is just a statement that says nothing useful.
Same thing for the next statement.
Can the environment sue? lol I'd be scared then. If you use the communist inside you, and see property as a social relation, no one owns anything really. And I don't think that's a bad view at all, in fact there are many things that can be understood that way. People claim to own things and hope that others will respect their claims. The environment though, can't be said to be owned by itself either, it is a matter of whether people will "respect nature". And I don't know, they can, they cannot, but at the end, what it comes down to, is whether people will respect eachothers use of land, and respect their exclusive use of something that previously wasn't used at all.
And guess what, this is a legal matter that can be solved in private property with the homestead principle. It is a matter of conditions of settlement, what is one required to do to homestead previously unowned land? Can he pick an apple from a tree and claim the tree? Can he clear the forest and claim the land? Can he fire a napalm on it? Put fences around it? Put radioactive waste on it? I don't know. I'd say that none of the above are valid means of homesteading, and the best ways to stop them from doing that would be to use the land yourself somehow. Environmentalists, they will have to work their ass to protect the environment. Just saying "you can't do that!" to lands a thousand miles away that they do not have a claim to and aren't affected by, won't do; just as dumping trash in a swamp isn't homesteading either (but it could be). It will depend on what the courts decide, how the private property theory evolved, and how much the environmentalist sentiment has grown.
What I'm sure is that, if you were to clean up a waste area, you could just by that act claim to have homesteaded it. Because, after all, you've improved the land to living conditions. You could make a tourist lodge, a tree-hugger camp, a junkie party-forest, I don't know. Make something up.
And my comentary about the government is very much relevant, because the government doesn't care about the environment either. It cares about making artificial scarcity, about protecting its interest groups, and increasing it's power. The more power they can claim to have, over any excuse of a cause, the better.
Not just corporations, any guy with a gun can offer protection services. People in each specific area will judge who are the best to defend themselves, and will learn to both pay the right people and for the right amounts, in the course of market adjustments. With the government confiscating both people's money and choices, of course they have a harder time today defending their property, more than it is realistically necessary.
I mean, how hard is it to patrol an area? Cops today sit their asses on the highway to get tickets and only go to town for lunch and answer to 911 calls one hour later. Not hard to beat that in efficiency LOL.
Not everyone can afford protection services,
Not everyone can afford food. Not everyone can afford cancer treatments. Does that mean that everyone must be stolen from to pay for the exact service that the central planners determine they deserve? Nope. Not morally, not efficiently. It only aggravates the market and makes things more scarce. It's not working now, and it's not going to work ever.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: you also can't differentiate who did/did not pay for such service, especially if multiple services overlap a particular geographical area.
You really underestimate PDA's ability to cooperate. Are you going to say next that cellphone agencies can't have their customers call one another? Or that banks wouldn't offer the ability to transfer money to other non-members? Even competitors have to cooperate, because if they don't, then the customer can't hire them, and everyone loses. The customer would rather buy a gun himself rather than relying on an uncooperative PDA that can't get past such a trivial issue.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: How hard is it to patrol an area is irrelevant. How hard is it to protect people from assault is more meaningful. The cop sitting on his ass on the highway isn't protecting anyone. The person calling 911 to get help from someone who is trying to rob them (absurd I know!) has to wait for the police to come to his aid. By the time the police get there, who knows what could have gone wrong. I don't think a private police agency will get there quicker to a significant degree.
The private cop wouldn't be sitting on the highway getting his revenue through laws that make everyone a criminal, therefore he would be patrolling downtown, therefore he could actually be of help against the real criminals, for the function he's actually being paid to do.
Property taxes pay for local services AFAIK. And I don't know of anyone who's been able to dodge those. Besides maybe the amish.
There are many many many many ways to pay for a service, any service, drop the arguments from ignorance. I have had mentioned a few already and you chose to pick on the on-demand one. Insurance, monthly plans, the road owners pay for it through tolls, etc. And it doesn't have to be the business who proposes the deal. Whole residential or business neighborhoods could arrange to pay for it together. Also it could indeed be paid on-the-spot, who is to say it cannot? Cars got those ez-pass things that instantly credits your account for every toll you pass; people could have a similar device if they so desired to pay for things like that on the spot, with no hassle. On-demand also means it's as cheap as you need it to be, because you're only paying exactly what you use, so there may be an interest on that by both PDAs and citizens.
You don't pay property taxes unless you own the land. So renters don't pay property tax (not really true, you could say that the landlord passes on the tax to the renter)
Well duh? Tenants pay by proxy, therefore tenants pay for the cops as-is. Therefore it is not a stretch to say, that when these taxes are lifted, everyone should still have enough to pay for the cops if they wanted - but at that point cops would be far less expensive since they're void of monopoly and coercion, so it's even more unplausible to say people wouldn't be able to afford paying police. Which was my point, to point out that -everyone- already pay for the bloated police.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: unless the government subsidizes their housing. Yay. Oh ez pass thing makes more sense now. For monthly/through the community, you still haven't said how it works if 8 ppl pay for service A, 1 person for service B, and 1 person who doesn't pay for the service at all. Then a thug comes along to the neighborhood. What now?
PDA A and PDA B would have already known and contracted on what to do in such situations. To say that they wouldn't, is to say that they'd be so retarded not to think of such a situation happening when even YOU could think of it before they even existed. Don't underestimate businesses please. PDA A would probably be the one responsible to defend the area were most of it's members are located, PDA A would collect some money from PDA B at terms specified before either one was created, and both PDA A and B should know what to do with free riders: talk to them put them aside and let them be robbed, charge them, sue them, or just serve them for free. Yes, serve them for free. It raises the PDA's reputation, so it's not necessarily a loss. The PDAs would have already accounted for such possibilities, better than you or I could.
If you're implying that the education bubble is a market phenomenon, then you might be interested in this. Believing in a bubble isn't lying, so it isn't coercion, so it isn't an issue. If you mean to sue someone because they defrauded you, then you can do so in ancap, better than monopolist courts for natural reasons. Non-issue. And if you haven't proposed something better than the market (lol what), and you haven't advocated for government intervention, then your arguments are non-arguments, you're just crying about the world.
Increase in the price of education could do with increased demand, but a lot of it also has to do with inflation. Government has ignored overleverage as a source of inflation yada yada so that it says inflation is lower than it really is. The CPI doesn't account for technological advancement leading to the decrease in prices of certain goods (like TVs), or imported/outsourced items, which depress the price if it can be manufactured at a lower cost. Stuff like education can't be imported/outsourced, and there are a finite number of Harvards, Yales, Stanfords, etc, the price increases.
Uh, no, it's simpler than that. Government subsidizes both colleges through grants, and students through loans. Both these actions skew demand and supply up, because they forced capital into these businesses when no capital would be invested otherwise, and they've enabled students to gamble in this sphere when otherwise they might not have had. Simple bubble, and the same thing happens and have happened over and over again in many different markets.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: What I'm interested in though is not the price increase. Its the professors selling the myth that its such a great idea to get a law education or whatever. Sure you can say that this isn't coercion, so its a non-issue, but the fact is that convincing people to act against their self interest to get a degree that will get them nowhere just to support the lifestyle of the professors is not a good thing. Its even bad for the economy because instead of working, the student is pursuing meaningless studies, thus depriving society of years of labor. Because this isn't coercion and because it still imposes a negative effect on society, this phenomenon that isn't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Hey! That was my original point. There are still inefficiencies that aren't solved by anarcho-capitalism. Such as this one.
This wasn't caused by free market, and even if it was, it's peoples choice to start building a house they may not finish. The government however makes it worse by ENCOURAGING and STEALING from people to fund such malinvestments.
On September 03 2010 16:57 Incognito wrote: Yes I can propose something that is better than the market. Current (primary) education is basically memorize and plug into a formula. You also pay someone to give you this "knowledge". Not very enlightening education if you ask me. And this doesn't really build up useful skill sets either. Testing children on memory and their ability to spit out facts isn't what I would call education. I'd call it more like indoctrination. What would help more is if children would do projects that would enable them to think critically, work with others, and explore ideas on how to create things. For example, learning to build a website, a video game, a film, a business, etc. The error with the private education system's "market solution" is that it markets a service. Education is not a service (or it shouldn't be). Education is a process. You don't need a curriculum. You also don't necessarily need teachers. Education can be a process where students learn from each other (and maybe also from some older people. Social and community forces should also ensure that students can have access to more experienced people's knowledge database (Parents/family care about their kids' education, right?)). There is a lot of information to be learned without the use of teachers. What education needs is a social network, a forum where students can communicate, pool resources, learn from each other, and bounce ideas. You are not paying for someone to lecture at you, you are learning from each other on how to live, work, and interact in the world you are entering. The great myth of the current education system is that we need teachers to teach students. The current teacher is someone who is deemed an "expert" who is paid to "bestow the gift of knowledge" on the students. It can be done more efficiently than this. You'd also get a better education. (Btw I'd much rather discuss things like this -- practical bottum up ways to improve society: rather than theoretical/moralistic top down ways we can impose a system of governance on society. This paragraph is the reason why I decided to respond to you (again).)
On September 04 2010 02:41 Zzoram wrote: Weak 3rd world countries essentially have this. Their governments are too weak to do anything. Multinational corporations have all the power in those countries, they come in, buy resources and security, and do whatever they want.
Define 'do whatever they want'. Helps pinpoint where evil is. Also, do you find evil to sell one's homesteaded property, if that makes him marginally better? Then do you find evil to buy another's property? Why?
Anarchocapitatalism. What a joke of a concept dreamed up by losers with no basis in reality who were a failure in life so they blame society and the BIG BAD GUVMENT rather than their own shortcomings.
Ignoring all the non-issues and getting to the point.
If you don't accept private property, and steal my good X, I will steal the good X back. We will keep stealing from one another, and you can't argue against it unless you use some property theory, at which point I would summon you in court. But you probably wouldn't go to court, so most likely you would be seen as an outlaw aaand, I don't know what may or may not happen to you past that point (eviction cough cough jail cough cough), but you're not going to get much help from anyone who understands the most trivial concepts of private property.
Your private property theory rests on the fact that you own the entire value of whatever you "produce". There are moral arguments for why you do not own this entire value, and that you morally have a right only to be entitled to a portion of the value. I'm sure you could also form other theories about property too. You are building a society based of of your private property theory, which yes, can be construed as valid from a particular moral point of view. You could also assume that the capitalist entities in your system will support it, and if they agreed with you, then yes you could run an anarcho-capitalist system and eliminate all those who oppose your fundamental concepts through jail/eviction. The assumption here is that durr, everyone agrees with the incontrovertible truth that is private property! Of course this is not so one sided. As shown by your paragraph here the system is enforced by ostracizing people who oppose the fundamental views of your society. The rant against uninitiated use of force ends when people don't agree with the rules. Then you initiate force. Of course from your point of view you think its justified because people are infringing on your "rights", and that therefore you are not initiating force, but are defending yourself against the uninitiated use of force. But in reality these "rights" are arbitrary and based on your principles. Anyone who acts on their moral disagreement with your system you accuse as violating the non aggression principle. Point of view is necessary here. Once you attack the assumptions of the system, you can see that it is merely an ideology that claims to be the one true faith.
The fact is that to outsiders, your system is just like any other type of ideology or dogma. Any explicit opposition to the system results in social rejection or excommunication. Seems no different than people who want to purge the world of non-Christians, non-socialists, or whatever. I guess the common thread between all ideologies is that they do not take into account other points of view, or at least automatically dismiss them as invalid. Perhaps thats why its difficult to have a reasonable discussion with any type of socialist/anarchist/Christian whatever.
Future posters read this before deciding whether or not to comment. If you want to get rid of boredom however just go for it!
P.S. Doesn't matter if "unschooling" or whatever you call it is not new or could be done in anarcho-capitalism. I was merely responding to your challenge of describing a non-government/non-market system of education. But of course you have a knee-jerk reaction to everything everyone else writes. Also I never denied bubbles, and it is a huge part of the problem. But inflation also contributes to the problem. Thing is, there isn't necessarily only one cause for each problem. Of course you will get defensive/accusory.
PDA A and PDA B would have already known and contracted on what to do in such situations. To say that they wouldn't, is to say that they'd be so retarded not to think of such a situation happening when even YOU could think of it before they even existed. Don't underestimate businesses please. PDA A would probably be the one responsible to defend the area were most of it's members are located, PDA A would collect some money from PDA B at terms specified before either one was created, and both PDA A and B should know what to do with free riders: talk to them put them aside and let them be robbed, charge them, sue them, or just serve them for free. Yes, serve them for free. It raises the PDA's reputation, so it's not necessarily a loss. The PDAs would have already accounted for such possibilities, better than you or I could.
Continue writing stuff like this. Maybe without the defensive/accusory tone. An example of a constructive statement in a sea of otherwise unhelpful ones.
On September 04 2010 08:45 EndlessRain wrote: Anarchocapitatalism. What a joke of a concept dreamed up by losers with no basis in reality who were a failure in life so they blame society and the BIG BAD GUVMENT rather than their own shortcomings.
On September 04 2010 04:10 MiraMax wrote: This is plain wrong. It has nothing to do with central planning but with individual understanding. If some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be some people who care for their enforcement. In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced. You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime".
This is just utterly confusing. Enforcement is a bad word for what I am describing; just call it defence. It's not "enforcing the law" when I defend myself from a mugger, for example. Technically I am, but it comes with it other baggage that is not needed if we were to simply call it defence.
What you want to do is make it sound like there will obviously emerge a chaotic system of competing arbitrary and aggressive "laws", all being enforced by different organisations within one neighbourhood. Each one believing that there are "right". Am I correct in that this is what you're ultimately opposing here? So one enforcement agency will be out on the street breaking people's noses for eating beef burgers, because some people think burgers are bad for your health and so they will pay for this action. And another enforcement agency will be out there breaking people's noses for reading the wrong type of literature. It's just a fantasy scare scenario. It a knee jerk response that has no basis in reality. What would actually happen? I mean, how much support would each arbitrary, aggressive "law" get? And especially when contrasted with the support for defence against it.
Is any organisation or individual going to risk their own lives in support of street warfare all for the sake of banning salt from restaurants or something like that? You see, just because democratic governments ban salt from restaurants doesn't mean free individuals would ever dream of doing the same thing. That's the mistake you make. By assuming the people in a democratic government actually get their wishes. Do you think Koreans asked for this, or is it clearly just an extortion racket? Do you think that in a truly free society there will be private law enforcement officers going around shutting down Korean Steam servers? Because after all, Korea is a democracy right? So that's evidence that there must be a lot of demand for this kind of action, right? WRONG.
So, you say, "if some laws are meaningful to enforce there need to be people who care for their enforcement". Yes. Why would people not care when they're being mugged or something? If mugging is a big issue, people will care. I fail to understand the point you're making.
"In order to do so they need somehow to realize which law has to be enforced." The non-aggression principle? Basic common sense approach here methinks. People don't like being mugged; they stop muggers. Simples. What's the big issue? Do you need a law degree for that? To recognise the right to stop a mugger? Do you need permission from any central authority or "societal structure" or whatever? Of course not. I don't understand where you're going with this.
"You simply advocate to enforce laws sometimes and sometimes not for the "same crime"". You make it sound arbitrary, where as in-fact it's far less arbitrary than a blanket approach by a central authority. I advocate a common sense approach, instead of a superstitious one. The inter-subjective common sense understanding is that initiating violence is immoral. I want people to apply the same understanding to the government too.
How can it be common sense if the risk cannot be assessed? I am not saying that the system emerging in an ancap society will be chaotic. I am just saying that ancap does not help in finding a consistent system with universal guidelines to make sure that the same crimes are punished by the same judgements. And this is simply because it will face the exact same problems than a system with a state ... that is unless you argue in favor of situational laws, which are only enforced if there happen to be individuals with sufficient funds. You further misunderstand how markets function: Lots of demand does not necessarily mean that there are lots of people who demand something, but can also mean that there are individuals who are demanding a lot of something. Your "steam server" example is just too funny to even discuss.
No, it is not moral for a landlord to throw a pot-smoker in jail ... unless he can somehow show that this pot-smoker constitutes a significant threat. So what? Did this answer help us? No, not at all. Hmm, maybe we need to look at the bigger picture ...
So then why is it acceptable for governments to do this? Since it has nothing then to do with land ownership then, right? Assuming the government even legitimately owns all the land. If it has nothing to do with land ownership, then what? Because you can vote every 4 years?
You cannot sue cops in your country? The legal system there is utterly corrupt? Then I would advise you to move to the civilized democratic state! No reason to abolish states altogether. I live in a free society and my girlfriend grew up in one too (she is from Italy). So that is clearly possible with a state (and the Mafia) for that matter ...
I can't sue them for failing to defend me. In-fact, you might be surprised to hear that the supreme court of the USA has ruled that police have no obligation to defend anyone. Maybe it's better over there in Germany, but I doubt it. Educate me if I'm wrong. And no, you don't live in a free society and neither does your girlfriend. Free society with a government is an oxymoron.
I am not ignoring your point, I am explaining why your point is moot. Yes, immoral acts can be commited with states. Yes, immoral acts can be committed without states. This leads nowhere. In order to make a point in favor of ancap you need to look at how THE SYSTEM works. You cannot just point at something you don't like and conclude the system is bad. What is so difficult to understand here?
Obvious facts are obvious. We are in no disagreement that immoral acts can be committed without states. Is that supposed to be a defence of immoral acts? You don't defend immoral actions even if they are inevitable.
But actually you are ignoring my point. Because my point relates to the cultural meme that the people calling themselves the government have the right to initiate violence. And it is commonly understood that nobody else but the people in the government have this right. I want it to be applied to the people in the government too. After all, there is nothing special about those human beings that they get an arbitrarily different set of moral rights. So in this sense, consent of the majority is not too dissimilar to a widespread religion. But you haven't addressed that at all.
THE SYSTEM works on the principle that we need somebody to initiate force against peaceful people in some circumstances in order to solve social problems.
That is just empty rhetoric. Being "peaceful" is not always a meaningful quality. Rules can be violated "peacefully" it remains wrong nonetheless. Force can only be initiated against violators of rules. This makes sense. You can discuss the "morality" or rightfulness of one or the other rule, but also in ancap the same general principle would hold. You are just subject to the romantic idea that in ancap only the "right rules" would be developed, but cannot argue why that should be the case. You further seem to have a strange paranoia of "the government" and simply project any deed you consider wrong to their doings. As if the government of a state was a select group of people which never changes. You are further very much confused when you say that "the government" has the right to use force. How so? Can a government member throw somebody in a cage if he so wants? On what basis does he do so? Can a law enforcement officer in ancap just throw somebody in a cage if he so wants? Can you think of any instance where an ill law could only be developed and enforced with a state, but never without?
Sure you are, in the same sense as you can violate any code of conduct. But your actions will have consequences. If you violate a law it might lead to you being forced to pay a punishment or even go to prison and this is right in principle. No, I am not personally willing to use force against you. But should we be living in the same country, I deem it right that you have to pay taxes or leave the country and that force be used to "extract" them. And I would further deem it morally wrong that you to wish to stay and earn money, but are not willing to contribute.
That's right in principle? Wow. But what if the law is fucking immoral? Was it right to punish Germans hiding Jews from the Gestapo in principle? Because after all they violated the god-damn law, right? Law that you call "legitimate" =) (in the neutral sense of the word, of course)
Do you not see how the morality of a certain law is a modifier that CHANGES EVERYTHING YOU ARE SAYING? My assertion is that tax laws are immoral. Now you can disagree with me if you think otherwise, and we can then go on to discuss that. But then what you have just said here is not even relevant so there was never any point to you ever making it.
And I like how you wouldn't personally be willing to use force against me. Just send your thugs to do the dirty business eh? =)
Words have meanings. In order to argue meaningfully, you need to understand their meaning. If something is right in principle, it does not mean that it is right in any situation, but that it is the principle that is right. The immorality of a single law, does not at all make the concept of laws per se immoral, nor the way how laws are derived and enforced. How many murderers have you arrested so far? None? Do you think that murderers should be arrested? Why don't you act then? You propose that in ancap people just hire private agencies to do their "dirty business". Intellectual dishonesty much?
Yes, extorsion is not moral. No, the "state" doesn't use extortion just because you say so. A "state" per se cannot be morally good or bad, just like a "company" per se cannot be morally good or bad. They are both social systems. In order to assess their advantages and disadvantages you need to look at their structure, not at actions which are commited by one or many implementations, unless you can somehow show that their structure leads to this behaviour!
But a company CAN be morally bad, so what you just said makes no sense at all. If a "company" is extorting people, it is immoral even by a colloquial, inter-subjective, common sense understanding of what constitutes immorality. The Mafia is an immoral organisation. We don't need to examine the advantages and disadvantages of different political systems in Italy to know that the Mafia is fucking immoral because it extorts people. Do you assert that a company's actions are amoral if it extorts its "customers", because one can only assess the fuzzy advantages and disadvantages of "social structures"? What you're saying is very confusing to me.
But ok fine - you don't think the state uses extortion. That is another topic we can discuss, but at very least you accept that it is an important modifier to everything you have said. Because if not, then why did you even mention it?
It is not at all an important modifier when you talk about the benefits of states or any social system for that matter. It baffles me that you don't understand this. From saying a company is immoral, it does not follow that all companies are immoral. From saying that the Mafia is immoral, it does not follow that all organisations organised like the Mafia are immoral. From saying that state x is immoral or has an immoral law it does not follow that all states are immoral. Even from saying all states which exists are immoral it does not necessarily follow that the social system of a state is immoral. What is so difficult to comprehend about this?
On September 04 2010 08:45 EndlessRain wrote: Anarchocapitatalism. What a joke of a concept dreamed up by losers with no basis in reality who were a failure in life so they blame society and the BIG BAD GUVMENT rather than their own shortcomings.
Society =/= government
And there is basis in reality - most human relations are essentially anarchic. Art is anarchic, love and friendship is anarchic, science is anarchic, the market is anarchic... yes, they are intervened with by the state, but I argue that most relations are cooperative in nature, and are mutually agreed on without such interference. Anarchism just takes such principle to its full conclusion.
If you don't accept private property, and steal my good X, I will steal the good X back. We will keep stealing from one another, and you can't argue against it unless you use some property theory, at which point I would summon you in court. But you probably wouldn't go to court, so most likely you would be seen as an outlaw aaand, I don't know what may or may not happen to you past that point (eviction cough cough jail cough cough), but you're not going to get much help from anyone who understands the most trivial concepts of private property.
Your private property theory rests on the fact that you own the entire value of whatever you "produce". There are moral arguments for why you do not own this entire value, and that you morally have a right only to be entitled to a portion of the value. I'm sure you could also form other theories about property too. You are building a society based of of your private property theory, which yes, can be construed as valid from a particular moral point of view. You could also assume that the capitalist entities in your system will support it, and if they agreed with you, then yes you could run an anarcho-capitalist system and eliminate all those who oppose your fundamental concepts through jail/eviction.
Wait, no, I don't seek to evict or jail everyone who disagrees with me. I seek to evict/jail those who do ALL of the following: - Steal - Steal again when I take it back - Won't go to court to explain why. Competing theories CAN exist, and I've already mentioned before that anarcho-communism is PERFECTLY viable inside ancap, as long as the ancoms don't steal from the ancaps. The opposite however, cannot, because ancoms feel the right to make any higher order capital they use their private possessions, so THEY would not permit capitalism to exist within their system because it's basically impossible to invest and innovate.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: The assumption here is that durr, everyone agrees with the incontrovertible truth that is private property! Of course this is not so one sided. As shown by your paragraph here the system is enforced by ostracizing people who oppose the fundamental views of your society. The rant against uninitiated use of force ends when people don't agree with the rules. Then you initiate force.
Are you claiming that taking back what I produced is initiating force? And what you did isn't? If what you did was not initiation of force either, then you can't claim that I, by taking it back, am initiating force, my friend. If you wanna go the moral route, then don't be inconsistent.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Of course from your point of view you think its justified because people are infringing on your "rights", and that therefore you are not initiating force, but are defending yourself against the uninitiated use of force. But in reality these "rights" are arbitrary and based on your principles.
They are indeed arbitrary, but so is every other notion or action. Human action is arbitrary for we are born different, and have different wishes! That's not the most important thing about a moral theory. The most important is consistency, and how well it ties to our moral, I argue, genetic framework.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Anyone who acts on their moral disagreement with your system you accuse as violating the non aggression principle. Point of view is necessary here. Once you attack the assumptions of the system, you can see that it is merely an ideology that claims to be the one true faith.
I never said it was, and you haven't presented any better.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: The fact is that to outsiders, your system is just like any other type of ideology or dogma.
The NAP is not dogmatic, and what you say is no fact.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: Any explicit opposition to the system results in social rejection or excommunication. Seems no different than people who want to purge the world of non-Christians, non-socialists, or whatever.
Explore and explain in detail what the reasons are for each eviction, noting the differences. All others completely disregard NAP and private property.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: I guess the common thread between all ideologies is that they do not take into account other points of view, or at least automatically dismiss them as invalid. Perhaps thats why its difficult to have a reasonable discussion with any type of socialist/anarchist/Christian whatever.
Am I calling for your death or eviction right now? Am I asking the lord to send you to eternal statist damnation? No, it was explicitly conditional on you doing two things which I find that other people find most reasonable: -stealing -stealing again - not showing up to court. The one who's unreasonable is you, who has yet to prove why do you have more of a claim over a scarce capital, which you took no part in producing, and did not show up in court to explain yourself. You'd be an outlaw, running from moral justice, not me. I'm face up waiting for an explanation, and you gave me none. So be it - if you don't talk and keep acting like an irrational entity, then I don't have to treat you like a rational entity. I can treat you like a psycho.
Though in the end if we were really in that situation I doubt you either would 1- steal repetitively, nor 2- not explain yourself in court. Because I don't believe you're a thug anymore than you're trying to victimize yourself against all possible theories of property (lol) without having to make any efforts in producing your own.
On September 04 2010 09:12 Incognito wrote: P.S. Doesn't matter if "unschooling" or whatever you call it is not new or could be done in anarcho-capitalism. I was merely responding to your challenge of describing a non-government/non-market system of education. But of course you have a knee-jerk reaction to everything everyone else writes. Also I never denied bubbles, and it is a huge part of the problem. But inflation also contributes to the problem. Thing is, there isn't necessarily only one cause for each problem. Of course you will get defensive/accusory.
Well congratulations on coming up with that on your own, but none of these ideas are that hard to invent independently, the hard part is getting outside of the statist perspective one is born into.
PDA A and PDA B would have already known and contracted on what to do in such situations. To say that they wouldn't, is to say that they'd be so retarded not to think of such a situation happening when even YOU could think of it before they even existed. Don't underestimate businesses please. PDA A would probably be the one responsible to defend the area were most of it's members are located, PDA A would collect some money from PDA B at terms specified before either one was created, and both PDA A and B should know what to do with free riders: talk to them put them aside and let them be robbed, charge them, sue them, or just serve them for free. Yes, serve them for free. It raises the PDA's reputation, so it's not necessarily a loss. The PDAs would have already accounted for such possibilities, better than you or I could.
Continue writing stuff like this. Maybe without the defensive/accusory tone. An example of a constructive statement in a sea of otherwise unhelpful ones.
On September 04 2010 09:37 MiraMax wrote: How can it be common sense if the risk cannot be assessed? I am not saying that the system emerging in an ancap society will be chaotic. I am just saying that ancap does not help in finding a consistent system with universal guidelines to make sure that the same crimes are punished by the same judgements. And this is simply because it will face the exact same problems than a system with a state ... that is unless you argue in favor of situational laws, which are only enforced if there happen to be individuals with sufficient funds. You further misunderstand how markets function: Lots of demand does not necessarily mean that there are lots of people who demand something, but can also mean that there are individuals who are demanding a lot of something. Your "steam server" example is just too funny to even discuss.
Risk can be assessed. I never said that it couldn't. I just said that all risk assessments made by all individuals cannot be expressed as a single value. So in order to "cover all the bases", one must play it safe by banning something outright under all circumstances. Assuming you don't just allow people to make their own decisions with their own bodies. So another example might be setting the age of consent at 18. This is something that is literally completely fucking arbitrary, and makes a criminal out of a person who is 17yrs 364 days old if they decide to have sex. Even if they're mature enough to get into a sexual relationship. But you have to play it safe by setting it high and imposing a single blanket "solution" on all young people, and that is actually disconnected from reality. You just cannot take the "maturity factor" of all young people and reduce it to a single age and impose it on everyone. This creates chaos rather than solves it. And now I bet in your head you think that I'm saying that 6 year olds should or would have sexual relationships in a free society. I can hear it now. ANCAP DOESN'T SOLVE 6 YEAR OLDS HAVING SEX, OMIGADS!
You have literally said nothing here. It's frustrating even discussing this with you. I struggle to understand what your point even is. Literally. Please just simplify it for me. Are you saying that there would be people who do not have sufficient funds for defence, or just that if there are people without sufficient funds for something then they cannot pay for it? Because obviously that's true if we accept your premise, because it's merely tautologically true. But it's a completely vacuous thing to say. It brings nothing to the table. Answer WHY people don't have sufficient funds, or why whatever problems you foresee occurring would happen. Not that you'd even need "funds" to defend yourself in most circumstances, and not least of all because there would be less crime anyway due to the fact that most people would probably own a gun and be willing to use it against aggressors.
I'm not in favour of "situational laws" in the way that I think you mean it. Again you make it sound like I'm advocating arbitrariness when in-fact everything I have said is very significantly NOT arbitrary at all. To anyone. Ever. Your point about markets, I don't know what you're talking about. That if not collectives, then rich individuals would pay a lot of money to ban salt from restaurants? LOL. Obviously it's a funny example; that's the point. It needs to be ridiculous for you to see how fucking ridiculous that sort of shit all is. Where is your problem with what I have said exactly, if not the supposed chaos of "situational laws" and "arbitrary law enforcement"? If not that, then what? Please tell me in very simple terms just what problems there are so we can talk about them.
That is just empty rhetoric. Being "peaceful" is not always a meaningful quality. Rules can be violated "peacefully" it remains wrong nonetheless. Force can only be initiated against violators of rules. This makes sense. You can discuss the "morality" or rightfulness of one or the other rule, but also in ancap the same general principle would hold. You are just subject to the romantic idea that in ancap only the "right rules" would be developed, but cannot argue why that should be the case.
You are FULL of empty rhetoric. Here is a perfect example of it. Am I to address this? I don't even know what you're saying or trying to say. So I can discuss the morality or rightfulness of one or the other rule, but also in ancap the same general principle would hold. What? The principle that I can discuss the morality or rightfulness of one or the other rule would hold? Yes, it would hold. It's called freedom of speech lol? I literally cannot figure out what you're saying. It has nothing to do with romantic notions, for if the "right rules" were not developed for some reason in ancap then I would argue against those "rules". So if salt becomes banned from restaurants in an anarchistic society then I would argue against it.
Of course, that would never happen because it's fucking obvious how stupid the notion is that it would ever even occur in the first place. Imagine it, private "security" forces breaking into a restaurant armed to the teeth, shooting up the establishment for the sole purpose of confiscating salt. Because of course, they'd have to start shooting in order to achieve their end goal because the restaurant owners would likely shoot them. So it takes the existence of a state to ban salt from restaurants.
You further seem to have a strange paranoia of "the government" and simply project any deed you consider wrong to their doings. As if the government of a state was a select group of people which never changes.
I'm not projecting anything. What exactly am I projecting? Give me a specific thing that I am projecting onto the state that is unwarranted and let's talk about it. But if you can't do that then you're not even saying anything at all. The fact that the people making up the government change is irrelevant.
You are further very much confused when you say that "the government" has the right to use force. How so? Can a government member throw somebody in a cage if he so wants? On what basis does he do so? Can a law enforcement officer in ancap just throw somebody in a cage if he so wants?
Taxation for one. It's involuntary, you know. Legal tender. Sodomy laws. Banning guns. Banning salt. Banning steam from Korea. The list is endless. These are all examples of the initiation of force that the government has the supposed right to do, but not private individuals. So long as a democratically elected government can push something through their legislative process then they have the supposed "right" to do it. Is this not so?
Can you think of any instance where an ill law could only be developed and enforced with a state, but never without?
Sure, I've given you plenty of examples where it is not economically or socially feasible that it could be developed without a state. Such as banning steam from Korea, or banning salt from restaurants. Or banning smoking from bars. There are plenty, and they're not all about banning things =)
I suppose you think this would still happen if there was no state too? Private florist police going round. Yeah.
Words have meanings. In order to argue meaningfully, you need to understand their meaning. If something is right in principle, it does not mean that it is right in any situation, but that it is the principle that is right.
No that's not what it fucking means. If something is right in principle, then it means that the "something" is the thing that is right DUE TO THE PRINCIPLE. It doesn't mean that the principle is the thing that is right. And if it did, then what the fuck has the SOMETHING got to do with it then?!
The immorality of a single law, does not at all make the concept of laws per se immoral, nor the way how laws are derived and enforced. How many murderers have you arrested so far? None? Do you think that murderers should be arrested? Why don't you act then? You propose that in ancap people just hire private agencies to do their "dirty business". Intellectual dishonesty much?
I never fucking said that it did. Arguing with you is like rubbing my face up against a fucking cheese grater. No offence.
It is not at all an important modifier when you talk about the benefits of states or any social system for that matter. It baffles me that you don't understand this. From saying a company is immoral, it does not follow that all companies are immoral. From saying that the Mafia is immoral, it does not follow that all organisations organised like the Mafia are immoral. From saying that state x is immoral or has an immoral law it does not follow that all states are immoral.
I never once said that because one state is immoral that it therefore follows that all states are immoral. Obviously that is invalid logic, but I never said that did I?! Fuck. States are inherently immoral. States acquire their income through coercive practices and violently impose a monopoly on defensive services. States are immoral in the same way that the Mafia is immoral. I merely asked you whether a single fucking entity being immoral is justified if the majority of people "consent" to it, and you can't help but infer a faulty syllogism that was never even implied, get it wrong and then straw man me! Gah!
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.
On September 04 2010 10:56 Yurebis wrote: The one who's unreasonable is you, who has yet to prove why do you have more of a claim over a scarce capital, which you took no part in producing, and did not show up in court to explain yourself.
The big fallacy here is that I need to propose another alternative theory of private property or that I have to justify why I "have more of a claim over a scarce capital".
People do not have to argue with anarcho-capitalists on their own terms.
The fundamental difference between anarcho-capitalists and other less radical political philosophies is that anarcho-capitalism places the private property issue at the top of the moral priority list and emphasizes it so strongly to the point that private property trumps almost all other moral considerations. Anarcho-capitalism is so absolute in its stance regarding the homestead principle that it rejects anything that compromises the private property rights. However, most of the other less radical political philosophies balance social considerations with private property considerations.
The fact is that the anarcho-capitalist love for private property stems out of pragmatism. Objectively, private property helps build wealth. Fact. However, just like the pursuit of love or friendship, the pursuit of wealth is something that humans value subjectively. People in opposition to anarcho-capitalism shouldn't let the facts distract them from this crucial understanding.
The anarcho-capitalist tries to dominate the conversation and puts the opposition on the defensive by giving the opposition the burden of proof in refuting the homestead principle. This attack attempts to focus the discussion around the issue of property, and any other subject brought up by the opposition is redirected either back to the property issue, or economic efficiency. For example, attempts to discuss government or privatized police force comes down to “private is cheaper” and more efficient. Any attempts thereafter to say that this wouldn’t allow the poorest to afford defense gets redirected to private property rights by means of the “man was raised in the mud” statement, followed by the argument that nobody is entitled to anything except by being productive through homesteading, improving resources, building capital, and trading for desired goods or services. It is not difficult to see here that any suggestion made by the opposition that compromises private property is rerouted through the economics area and then back to the absolutist proposition presented by the homesteading principle. The round about way in which the anarcho-capitalist forms his arguments helps distract the opposition from realizing that his proposition is no different from theirs in that it is built on nothing but moral principle. The anarcho-capitalist likes using the term “rights” to get dismiss the more feeling-oriented and empathetic inclinations of the opposition and entice them to think in a more legalistic manner. The fact is that rights are subjectively assigned, and are based upon moral values. This strategy helps the anarcho-capitalist gain “logic points” which allows him to mock the opposition and paint them as illogical while he can point to his legalistic arguments and declare them to be irrefutable “logic”. Thus, the clever anarcho-capitalist takes his system, which really has its foundations in relative, arbitrary morals, and is able to pass it off as logic. Anarcho-capitalist “crazies”, as they are called by the general population, may be trolls, but they are clever trolls. Props to them for that. Fortunately, the non-anarcho-capitalist can level the playing field by re-balancing the discussion to include a healthy mix of subjective moralizing and objective pragmatism, all the while refusing to focus the discussion on property “rights”.
There is no reason why I must either a) accept the homestead principle to the exclusion of anything compromising its stated private property rights, or b) prove why the homestead principle is incorrectly assigning ownership (aka, proving why other people have a right to homesteaded resources). There are numerous reasons why current governments are inefficient, and will always be inefficient. However, that inefficiency can be substantially decreased. While the anarcho-capitalist model sees inefficiency strictly in terms of economic inefficiency accompanied by decreased quality, people who keep the allowance for a state should point out that the government’s role should be to balance economic efficiency and social welfare. The tradeoff between economic efficiency and social welfare will no doubt vary, but non-anarcho-capitalists should argue that quality of life, social values, and equity should not be eliminated merely to turn life into a grind for ever increasing overall material wealth. The argument that taxation will destroy all the world's wealth and incentive to build wealth is overstated.
The anarcho-capitalists' rhetoric ends here. See the anarcho-capitalist argument for what it is and don’t let numbers turn humanity into a darwinistic game of survival of the fittest.
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.
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 08:03 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.
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.
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?
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 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 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.
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).
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 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 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).
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 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.
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 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).
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.
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?
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 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.
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 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 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 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 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 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.
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 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 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?
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.
Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back.
Family feuds are not resolved peacefully in political environments where families or clans are the foremost political units. In clan society, family feuds are generally multi-generational, and form the basis of what modern states call political factions.
The histories of Corsica, Renaissance Italy, Sicily, or early-modern Scotland are not only dotted, but painted by the preeminence of violent family strife and semi-vigilante militancy.
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
The feudal aristocracy did not derive their legitimacy from the serfs but from their lords.
Feudalism was an outgrowth of tribal tradition whereby the relationship between a lord and his followers was not governed by territorial hierarchies, but by tribal loyalty. The feudalism which emerged in Western Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries represented a decentralization of central royal power, when the Kings of the Franks were no longer capable defending their domains against barbarian invasion, necessitating the delegation of defense to either their followers, or to the invaders themselves. The feudal oath was a method of integrating all the hostile elements of a territory into a loose commonwealth framework: the Normans, the invaders of Normandy, were converted into the guardians of Normandy, who defended it on behalf of the Frankish King.
As neither the peasantry nor freemen nor Kings were capable of effective collective defense, this task fell upon the nobility. In other words, their authority was accepted because it was the only effective authority. The legal relationships of a noble were these: he undertook the task of defense on behalf of both his lord and his tenants and serfs, in lieu of which he was granted authority over land by his lord and a tax on the labour of his tenants.
...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.
Unfortunately, the experience of antiquity does not lend support to a teleological theory of liberty. Ancient Greece was a furnace of political experimentation and theory, and by the fourth century they gave the world its most enduring insights on politics. Among them, that democracy (rule of the people in the sense that you use it) is generally the antecedental condition of tyranny. The Peisistratan tyranny of Athens is a classical example of this process. The tyrant originates from the democratic faction of the ruling class (Aristotle had the insight to recommend that the demos were ordinarily incapable of supplementing or even challenging an elite, the exceptions occurring when a faction within the elite speaks in their name, or on their behalf.) He gathers the support of the common people (demagogue: "leader of the common people") in a bid to defeat the opposing political faction.
Tyranny in ancient parlance didn't particular mean non-democratic government, (the Spartans were the self-proclaimed enemies of the tyrants,) but arbitrary (non-constitutional, extra-legal) power. Tyranny was government in contravention of law. It was not necessarily oppressive (although it tended to be towards enemy factions) nor was it particularly revolutionary (once in power tyrants rarely destroy the previous social order, but compromise to win its acceptance.) The basis of its legitimacy however was force (often popular force.) The Athenian tyranny ranked among the most prosperous decades of its history, and set the economic foundations for her golden age.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
With this in mind, tyranny is not a suitable name to give the transition from Roman to feudal society. The key is to be found not in the historical progress of liberty, but in the circumstances which made a certain transformations necessary at certain times. The relationship is furthermore indirect: the Roman order was supplanted not by feudalism but by tribal kingship, which was in turn supplanted by feudalism. Furthermore, the two processes although occurring under different circumstances, exhibit similar tendencies: enfeeblement of the central authority, and conversion and integration of hostile forces into crutches of the old system.
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.
Realistically governments are not at all disinterested. Yes codified laws have to be backed by force, but that does not imply that they have to be backed by force from ONE organization and that violence must be monopolized.
The so called disinterested government is composed of the wealthiest and most powerful people in the world and they do, in fact, use that position to further their own interests.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power?
If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate.
What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate?
What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power?
If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate.
What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate?
What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory.
I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
Family feuds are resolved peacefully. The ones provoking and shooting are the statist warlords and foreigners wanting the power back.
Family feuds are not resolved peacefully in political environments where families or clans are the foremost political units. In clan society, family feuds are generally multi-generational, and form the basis of what modern states call political factions.
The histories of Corsica, Renaissance Italy, Sicily, or early-modern Scotland are not only dotted, but painted by the preeminence of violent family strife and semi-vigilante militancy.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent? I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
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
The feudal aristocracy did not derive their legitimacy from the serfs but from their lords.
So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for.
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: Feudalism was an outgrowth of tribal tradition whereby the relationship between a lord and his followers was not governed by territorial hierarchies, but by tribal loyalty. The feudalism which emerged in Western Europe in the 10th and 11th centuries represented a decentralization of central royal power, when the Kings of the Franks were no longer capable defending their domains against barbarian invasion, necessitating the delegation of defense to either their followers, or to the invaders themselves. The feudal oath was a method of integrating all the hostile elements of a territory into a loose commonwealth framework: the Normans, the invaders of Normandy, were converted into the guardians of Normandy, who defended it on behalf of the Frankish King.
As neither the peasantry nor freemen nor Kings were capable of effective collective defense, this task fell upon the nobility. In other words, their authority was accepted because it was the only effective authority. The legal relationships of a noble were these: he undertook the task of defense on behalf of both his lord and his tenants and serfs, in lieu of which he was granted authority over land by his lord and a tax on the labour of his tenants.
Basically, the central planner's bitten more than he could chew? So he loosened the chains a bit for a more efficient rule? Okay.
...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.
Unfortunately, the experience of antiquity does not lend support to a teleological theory of liberty. Ancient Greece was a furnace of political experimentation and theory, and by the fourth century they gave the world its most enduring insights on politics. Among them, that democracy (rule of the people in the sense that you use it) is generally the antecedental condition of tyranny. The Peisistratan tyranny of Athens is a classical example of this process. The tyrant originates from the democratic faction of the ruling class (Aristotle had the insight to recommend that the demos were ordinarily incapable of supplementing or even challenging an elite, the exceptions occurring when a faction within the elite speaks in their name, or on their behalf.) He gathers the support of the common people (demagogue: "leader of the common people") in a bid to defeat the opposing political faction.
I'm very aware of the issues with democracy, even if I didn't know that historical background - I just call it freer for comparison, in the contexts where others think it's a less coercive system.
On September 10 2010 00:47 MoltkeWarding wrote: Tyranny in ancient parlance didn't particular mean non-democratic government, (the Spartans were the self-proclaimed enemies of the tyrants,) but arbitrary (non-constitutional, extra-legal) power. Tyranny was government in contravention of law. It was not necessarily oppressive (although it tended to be towards enemy factions) nor was it particularly revolutionary (once in power tyrants rarely destroy the previous social order, but compromise to win its acceptance.) The basis of its legitimacy however was force (often popular force.) The Athenian tyranny ranked among the most prosperous decades of its history, and set the economic foundations for her golden age.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
With this in mind, tyranny is not a suitable name to give the transition from Roman to feudal society. The key is to be found not in the historical progress of liberty, but in the circumstances which made a certain transformations necessary at certain times. The relationship is furthermore indirect: the Roman order was supplanted not by feudalism but by tribal kingship, which was in turn supplanted by feudalism. Furthermore, the two processes although occurring under different circumstances, exhibit similar tendencies: enfeeblement of the central authority, and conversion and integration of hostile forces into crutches of the old system.
I appreciate the historical passage, but I really have not much else to say about that. When I use tyranny, you know I don't just mean a political system either.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power?
If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate.
What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate?
What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory.
I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
You hardly even answered the question, but "custom and habit" only means that if you get away with it enough times, it becomes legitimate. Which is true, that makes reality, but I would not describe that as legitimate.
Tyranny is then by definition illegitimate power, a definition which does not govern the relationship between lord and serf, which was a legal relationship of reciprocal duty.
Which opens the door to the most important question relating to this topic: what is "legitimate" power?
If I consent that I want you to have power over me, most would agree that is legitimate.
What if I do not consent, but a group with more power says that I should be governed? Does their power make it legitimate?
What if I do not consent, but a majority says that I should be governed? Do their numbers make it legitimate?
Legitimacy becomes legitimate in the same way anything else become legitimate, by custom and by habit. This is not to say that it's left to chance. The trials of history and of experience show what works and what doesn't within the limited span of human memory.
I should also mention that the ancient conception of political movement was circular, not linear. A generation always adapts against the last generation, forgetting why the last generation was that way in the first place. Eventually the last generation adapts itself into the first.
I never thought of it like that. Well, my love for whig theory was only superficial anyway.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
So they don't "surpass" free thinking individuals, they just run the currency, the legal system, the education system, the police, and the military. What do you mean by surpass?
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
Edit: I'm more of a conspiracy theorist than you may think, and as much as I wanted to think that some Rothschild out there has everything figured out, I've been increasingly convinced by Austrian economics that it can't be the case. At most, it's a spontaneous, loosely affiliated power elite on the top, that don't control everything directly as other theorists can imagine.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
Gaining exclusive access to the wealthiest country on earth's money supply is not a short sighted get rich quick scam.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits...
It's not, I didn't say it was short term, but it's not something that any single elitist could figure out. It had to be a decentralized development in the greater scope of things. If you want to include media disinformation, the military industrial complex, all the secret agencies, big oil, big pharma, big anything... there can't be a single evil genius to rule them all directly, even if he tried.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits...
Sure it has limits that that does not mean they are stupider than the general population who spends the majority of their time working to pay them taxes and watching TV.
I agree it is not something a single elitist could figure out, it is something they have been studying and improving for generations the same as any other science.
On September 10 2010 00:40 Treemonkeys wrote: 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.
Disagree, they may have the incentives, but they don't have every tool. Central planners will always be "dumber" than the general population, and always be more likely to be outsmarted by any one out of millions than to outsmart everyone of the millions by themselves. Thanks to the internet, it is increasingly so.
So, they have obscene amounts of wealth, enough to literally get nearly anything on this earth.
They have power.
They have personal security for the rest of their lives.
Sign me up for being "dumber" then.
What tool are they missing exactly when the millions of "smarter" people are paying the "dumber" ones on a consistent basis? When they command the military? When they write the laws? When they print the money?
You have not done a very good job of thinking this through.
Not even government employees know that what they do is coercion... they're as ignorant as the rest. Not even politicians. The state isn't as much a malevolent, brilliantly executed plan as much as a social myth that is still being carried on.
I may not have thought too much about it, but I'm sure Mises had, on the economics of central planning and how it won't ever surpass free thinking individuals.
And do you also think the people who own the Federal Reserve have no idea what they are doing? Really?
I am giving you the benefit of the doubt because it seems you have read a bit, I'm assuming you know all about the Federal Reserve.
Yes, but even they could only know so much about what they were doing - manipulating monetary systems; how to fool the legislature, how to portrait the legislation as beneficial for society. It was a great plan on their part, for their own benefit and power, but not even them at the time could know how far it would go. Same for every president that has escalated the state intervention.
And you know this how? If I can consider how far it will go, certainly they can as well.
You have the benefit of hindsight... but okay, they know and are able to predict some more than you do, due to specialization, but the human mind has limits...
Sure it has limits that that does not mean they are stupider than the general population who spends the majority of their time working to pay them taxes and watching TV.
I agree it is not something a single elitist could figure out, it is something they have been studying and improving for generations the same as any other science.
Yeah, okay, but the opportunity is still open for others to acquire such information as well. It's not iron clad exactly because of that - if there isn't direct command and a structural hierarchy of compartmentalization in a large scale, then it can't be as bad as conspiracists think. Fact at hand being, that it's possible to know what they're doing. Another fact being, that most of their actions in plain sight are explainable by state inefficiency, "human error", and things like that, because sometimes it can be so. People at every point of the pyramid bought and still buy their plans, even those who are aware of the risks. It is not compartmentalization for the most part - it is the spontaneous heritage and desire of... power, for the lack of a better word.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent? I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for.
A serf became a serf one of two ways: either by being born a serf, or by entering into a contract of bondage of his own accord. This contract generally included some provision of perpetual loyalty, so revolt would have presumably been in violation of that oath. Not all tenants of a lord was a serf, of course. If you never satisfied one of the above conditions, you were a free tenant.
As to why serfs respected the arrangement, respect for hierarchy was embedded in the consciousness of the aristocratic ages. Asking a serf why he respected the authority of his lord would be like a serf asking a democrat why he respects public opinion. It's because manorialism was a system bound by rules and conventions. Revolts are not the same things as revolutions. Revolts object to the way the system is implemented, they do not generally oppose the system itself. A revolt bases itself on some conventional standard of legitimacy which is being violated by the other party. Simply objecting to being a serf wouldn't have been seen as legitimate even by serfs.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent? I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
So the serfs have no say on the subject? They can't revolt, or choose to kill themselves trying to fight evil? There had to be some degree of respect, and that was the point - that is what I use the word 'legitimacy' for.
A serf became a serf one of two ways: either by being born a serf, or by entering into a contract of bondage of his own accord. This contract generally included some provision of perpetual loyalty, so revolt would have presumably been in violation of that oath. Not all tenants of a lord was a serf, of course. If you never satisfied one of the above conditions, you were a free tenant.
As to why serfs respected the arrangement, respect for hierarchy was embedded in the consciousness of the aristocratic ages. Asking a serf why he respected the authority of his lord would be like a serf asking a democrat why he respects public opinion. It's because manorialism was a system bound by rules and conventions. Revolts are not the same things as revolutions. Revolts object to the way the system is implemented, they do not generally oppose the system itself. A revolt bases itself on some conventional standard of legitimacy which is being violated by the other party. Simply objecting to being a serf wouldn't have been seen as legitimate even by serfs.
Well, someone had to someday convince enough people for a revolution, so it's no absolute that they couldn't see an illegitimacy. Good parallels though. One is either born a citizen, or enters the country through a contract with the immigration department... the central planning body aka state claims power over land it hasn't homesteaded itself, and makes anyone who homesteads it their tenants.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent? I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide.
This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
You may hear and read lot about the disputes, but have you read any text that comparatively tries to make the case for or against political decentralization? Like, comparing which one is apparently the least violent? I don't want to simply object, but historical texts do report on violence more than peacefulness, and there's a natural selection bias in that sense, you know?
You know as well as I that there's no real answer to that. As some historian once said: people rarely succeed in adapting circumstances to ideas, but often succeed in adapting ideas to circumstances. If there were really any political system which minimizes violence, the inverse relationship would probably be more powerful: the necessity of violence affects the political system of the involved parties. The point was that most political systems built on theory collapse and fall prey to the weight of circumstances. The most enduring political theories are descriptive, and not prescriptive: they observe the record of how things have generally happened.
That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide.
This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
On September 10 2010 09:36 Yurebis wrote: That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide.
This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
Why do you insist on naming everything that is not an-cap 'centrally planned'? Do you believe that a functioning liberal democracy (not the US) is some sort of conspiracy? One central ruler? I am not defending dictatorships, but defending liberal democracies - the reasonable state, the trias politica, constitutional rights.
In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
I'd also like to call you out on ignoring many points, not only in my post, but in the entire thread.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
You also do not adress any of the points I make about the fragility of the freedom of speech and laws against discrimination that exists in an ancap, and ignore my question about the importance of economic interests in ancap law.
On September 10 2010 09:36 Yurebis wrote: That is fine, you would agree with me then, that the most effective law system is one which describes the popular moral sentiments, not prescribes them the way a central planner thinks its best?
I've been following this thread on and off for a while, and never had got the time to post, but for this I will take some time. Surely you don't believe that 'popular sentiment' is a solid base for legislation? Sentiment is by definition irrational, short-sighted and subject to rapid change. Law by popular sentiment leads to dictatorships (the French Revolution, for example), discrimination and genocide.
This problem is a very big one for an ancap - what will ensure a rationally functioning market, that leads to long-term prosperity, when popular sentiment can be so irrational? What ensures that the freedoms that we see as the basis of a civilized society, for example freedom of speech and laws against discrimination, are protected. These rights are generally acknowledged to lead to (to mention one of many benefits) a more productive society, but if a majority of people in an ancap decide that free speech would harm their short-term interests, they could present their case in whatever random law-court would exist. Would economic interests weigh heavier? One can never predict the quality of law in any anarchy - but your proposal of law by 'popular moral sentiment' does not reassure me.
Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
Why do you insist on naming everything that is not an-cap 'centrally planned'? Do you believe that a functioning liberal democracy (not the US) is some sort of conspiracy? One central ruler? I am not defending dictatorships, but defending liberal democracies - the reasonable state, the trias politica, constitutional rights.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
So citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement is more responsive and safer than people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law ?
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: I'd also like to call you out on ignoring many points, not only in my post, but in the entire thread.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Peace is popular because it's inherent in our evolutionary biology to be cooperative towards our own species. And yes, it is an illogical argument to say that man overall is evil, yet man in these arbitrary settings is going to behave perfectly as a piece of paper prescribes (constitution). I don't care much about your empirical evidence, first because it doesn't matter that a liberal democracy has or has not fought another, when liberal democracies have waged war against any third world country it could, has bases all over the planet, expropriating 50% of the GDP, incarcerating victimless crime offenders, killing millions of people, etc. etc. etc. It is hardly proper to pretend liberal democracies are the angels of the world.
Second, because you have not a-priori exposed why should we believe such a thing. No one in this thread at least has logically demonstrated what are the incentives for a man in the state to do a better job at doing what their voters want, than a man in the market doing what their customers want; what better mechanisms there are; which leads me to believe there isn't anything better to brag about.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: You also do not adress any of the points I make about the fragility of the freedom of speech and laws against discrimination that exists in an ancap, and ignore my question about the importance of economic interests in ancap law.
1- What laws exactly? Demonstrate a hypothetical 2- How do you know if they would or would not exist 3- Why do you think such laws are necessary, and why should everyone else care
Economic interests happens in liberal democracies as well, thats what corruption is called. And it's much easier to do when law and enforcement are monopolized and centralized. The way to diminish corruption is not to make up arbitrarily complicated schemes that eventually will be broken by lobbyists and politicians, it is to abolish political power and resolve everything through free market entry (also known as competition), allowing better lawmakers and enforcers to leave and enter unrestrained by an x year election cycle. Politicians are necessarily more unresponsive to demand and supply (for better politicians) compared to a noncoercive system.
On September 11 2010 09:45 Yurebis wrote: Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
Why do you insist on naming everything that is not an-cap 'centrally planned'? Do you believe that a functioning liberal democracy (not the US) is some sort of conspiracy? One central ruler? I am not defending dictatorships, but defending liberal democracies - the reasonable state, the trias politica, constitutional rights.
I agree that socialism is far from ideal - I too believe that the market is necessary for our wealth, however, I believe there are many roles for a state to fullfill to ensure a stable, reasonable market. Institutions that temper inflation, environmental laws, social policy. You do not convince me with an argument against socialism, because you use them against liberal democratic, mixed economies.
You can present some fables about how the market can handle every task, but the truth is that you will never find a majority of economists, let alone voters, willing to cede every single responsibility to the market.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
So citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement is more responsive and safer than people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law ?
Again you do not adress my points, and pose a question instead. Yes, I believe it is safer. Responsive, no, that much is clear from the above. Why must I point this out? Representatives, in a functioning democracy, such as North-West European countries, have integrity, act in a trustworthy way, and make better decisions than some sort of mob rule that you would prefer. I explained earlier how sentiment leads to a dictatorship - do you not realize how fragile a system is when the whim of the majority can ruin it?
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: I'd also like to call you out on ignoring many points, not only in my post, but in the entire thread.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Peace is popular because it's inherent in our evolutionary biology to be cooperative towards our own species. And yes, it is an illogical argument to say that man overall is evil, yet man in these arbitrary settings is going to behave perfectly as a piece of paper prescribes (constitution). I don't care much about your empirical evidence, first because it doesn't matter that a liberal democracy has or has not fought another, when liberal democracies have waged war against any third world country it could, has bases all over the planet, expropriating 50% of the GDP, incarcerating victimless crime offenders, killing millions of people, etc. etc. etc. It is hardly proper to pretend liberal democracies are the angels of the world.
Second, because you have not a-priori exposed why should we believe such a thing. No one in this thread at least has logically demonstrated what are the incentives for a man in the state to do a better job at doing what their voters want, than a man in the market doing what their customers want; what better mechanisms there are; which leads me to believe there isn't anything better to brag about.
In an earlier post you state that genocide happens because it lies in human nature, now you say peace is human nature. I like to see peace as the result of a working system - and you have not made clear to me how an ancap will gaurantee peace. Will people be more cooperative when they have to fight for every penny, when differences between rich and poor become unbridgeable divides instead of gaps?
As I have stated many times, I am talking about functioning democracies - the dirty wars the US has fought or supported over the globe are not my idea of a functioning democracy. Europe has generally been at peace since WW2, with military actions being done multilaterally through organizations such as NATO or the UN. How can you state that this does not matter? Europe is experiencing it's longest peace since the Pax Romana, and with a few US-led exceptions, has not committed any war-crimes in other nations.
Regarding the second, I believe this comparison is moot, because you have not provided a convincing argument showing that consolidation and corporate government will not come to exist. The market will always consolidate and some form of rulership will start to exist. Why would a monopolist do a better job than a representative in a democracy?
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: You also do not adress any of the points I make about the fragility of the freedom of speech and laws against discrimination that exists in an ancap, and ignore my question about the importance of economic interests in ancap law.
1- What laws exactly? Demonstrate a hypothetical 2- How do you know if they would or would not exist 3- Why do you think such laws are necessary, and why should everyone else care
Economic interests happens in liberal democracies as well, thats what corruption is called. And it's much easier to do when law and enforcement are monopolized and centralized. The way to diminish corruption is not to make up arbitrarily complicated schemes that eventually will be broken by lobbyists and politicians, it is to abolish political power and resolve everything through free market entry (also known as competition), allowing better lawmakers and enforcers to leave and enter unrestrained by an x year election cycle. Politicians are necessarily more unresponsive to demand and supply (for better politicians) compared to a noncoercive system.
1 - The freedom of speech is obvious, I hope? Anti discrimination laws are, for example, that employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, or religion (though they still do, but if it can be proven one can go to court). Other laws: the freedom of religion or gay marriage.
2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
3 - I believe such laws are the fundamentals of a tolerant, peaceful and wealthy nation. You should care about your freedom of speech. You should care about the freedom of religion. They do not have these rights in Somalia.
Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
On September 11 2010 09:45 Yurebis wrote: Vis-a-vis, it can't be the case that one central ruler offers a more stable jurisdiction than as many judges as people want to pay. For the law to change in the former, you only have to persuade a few men; for the latter, tens of thousands, at the very least.
And the question of whether people can be easily persuaded to support mass murder is one of human nature - even if it is the case, then man is doomed to kill itself no matter what - more so with the help of the state I will claim of course. Peace is generally more popular these days I feel.
Why do you insist on naming everything that is not an-cap 'centrally planned'? Do you believe that a functioning liberal democracy (not the US) is some sort of conspiracy? One central ruler? I am not defending dictatorships, but defending liberal democracies - the reasonable state, the trias politica, constitutional rights.
I agree that socialism is far from ideal - I too believe that the market is necessary for our wealth, however, I believe there are many roles for a state to fullfill to ensure a stable, reasonable market. Institutions that temper inflation, environmental laws, social policy. You do not convince me with an argument against socialism, because you use them against liberal democratic, mixed economies.
You can present some fables about how the market can handle every task, but the truth is that you will never find a majority of economists, let alone voters, willing to cede every single responsibility to the market.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
So citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement is more responsive and safer than people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law ?
Again you do not adress my points, and pose a question instead. Yes, I believe it is safer. Responsive, no, that much is clear from the above. Why must I point this out? Representatives, in a functioning democracy, such as North-West European countries, have integrity, act in a trustworthy way, and make better decisions than some sort of mob rule that you would prefer. I explained earlier how sentiment leads to a dictatorship - do you not realize how fragile a system is when the whim of the majority can ruin it?
Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.
If you're able to understand that much, then you could see that the state is not necessary for order to exist - and you would also comprehend the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)
The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: I'd also like to call you out on ignoring many points, not only in my post, but in the entire thread.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Peace is popular because it's inherent in our evolutionary biology to be cooperative towards our own species. And yes, it is an illogical argument to say that man overall is evil, yet man in these arbitrary settings is going to behave perfectly as a piece of paper prescribes (constitution). I don't care much about your empirical evidence, first because it doesn't matter that a liberal democracy has or has not fought another, when liberal democracies have waged war against any third world country it could, has bases all over the planet, expropriating 50% of the GDP, incarcerating victimless crime offenders, killing millions of people, etc. etc. etc. It is hardly proper to pretend liberal democracies are the angels of the world.
Second, because you have not a-priori exposed why should we believe such a thing. No one in this thread at least has logically demonstrated what are the incentives for a man in the state to do a better job at doing what their voters want, than a man in the market doing what their customers want; what better mechanisms there are; which leads me to believe there isn't anything better to brag about.
In an earlier post you state that genocide happens because it lies in human nature, now you say peace is human nature. I like to see peace as the result of a working system - and you have not made clear to me how an ancap will gaurantee peace. Will people be more cooperative when they have to fight for every penny, when differences between rich and poor become unbridgeable divides instead of gaps?
You seem to be under the illusion that the state is an equalizer of sorts, and the ultimate guarantee against violence. Well, the soviet union also guaranteed its people against starvation, guess what happened...
There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: As I have stated many times, I am talking about functioning democracies - the dirty wars the US has fought or supported over the globe are not my idea of a functioning democracy. Europe has generally been at peace since WW2, with military actions being done multilaterally through organizations such as NATO or the UN. How can you state that this does not matter? Europe is experiencing it's longest peace since the Pax Romana, and with a few US-led exceptions, has not committed any war-crimes in other nations.
Regarding the second, I believe this comparison is moot, because you have not provided a convincing argument showing that consolidation and corporate government will not come to exist. The market will always consolidate and some form of rulership will start to exist. Why would a monopolist do a better job than a representative in a democracy?
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: You also do not adress any of the points I make about the fragility of the freedom of speech and laws against discrimination that exists in an ancap, and ignore my question about the importance of economic interests in ancap law.
1- What laws exactly? Demonstrate a hypothetical 2- How do you know if they would or would not exist 3- Why do you think such laws are necessary, and why should everyone else care
Economic interests happens in liberal democracies as well, thats what corruption is called. And it's much easier to do when law and enforcement are monopolized and centralized. The way to diminish corruption is not to make up arbitrarily complicated schemes that eventually will be broken by lobbyists and politicians, it is to abolish political power and resolve everything through free market entry (also known as competition), allowing better lawmakers and enforcers to leave and enter unrestrained by an x year election cycle. Politicians are necessarily more unresponsive to demand and supply (for better politicians) compared to a noncoercive system.
1 - The freedom of speech is obvious, I hope? Anti discrimination laws are, for example, that employers are not allowed to discriminate based on sex, race, or religion (though they still do, but if it can be proven one can go to court). Other laws: the freedom of religion or gay marriage.
Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right. Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition. Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 3 - I believe such laws are the fundamentals of a tolerant, peaceful and wealthy nation. You should care about your freedom of speech. You should care about the freedom of religion. They do not have these rights in Somalia.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.
Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...
I agree that socialism is far from ideal - I too believe that the market is necessary for our wealth, however, I believe there are many roles for a state to fullfill to ensure a stable, reasonable market. Institutions that temper inflation, environmental laws, social policy. You do not convince me with an argument against socialism, because you use them against liberal democratic, mixed economies.
You can present some fables about how the market can handle every task, but the truth is that you will never find a majority of economists, let alone voters, willing to cede every single responsibility to the market.
What roles exactly?
Wow, way to skip over my post. I stated the answer to your question literally in that post - I see the state as necessary to administer a certain degree of macroeconomic policy (like tempering inflation), to protect the environment (air can not be owned), and to have some social policy. In what degree this all should happen is up for debate, but anyone would agree the market by itself cannot fulfill these roles.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
So citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement is more responsive and safer than people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law ?
Again you do not adress my points, and pose a question instead. Yes, I believe it is safer. Responsive, no, that much is clear from the above. Why must I point this out? Representatives, in a functioning democracy, such as North-West European countries, have integrity, act in a trustworthy way, and make better decisions than some sort of mob rule that you would prefer. I explained earlier how sentiment leads to a dictatorship - do you not realize how fragile a system is when the whim of the majority can ruin it?
Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.
If one billion people want me dead for a unlawful reason, it is my right to be protected by the state. This is what we call civilization. In an ancap, you'd better not be different - if people want to kill you, they will.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the state is not necessary for order to exist
No, lets relive militias and vigilante justice!!
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)
Direct democracy =/= liberal/constitutional democracy. Have you ever read Aristotle?
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.
Do you truly believe that an ancap will exist for a long time? When power is consolidated - be it by a criminal organization, a powerful corporation, or by citizens who feel the need to organize - we can't even call it an anarchy any more, can we? What stops this from happening? If the people move to create a political union, are they free to do so? Do you truly believe that everyone (or even a majority!!) would agree to your system?
This is what I mean by fragile - even if your system would work, it still runs the risk of being undone by itself.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: In an earlier post you state that genocide happens because it lies in human nature, now you say peace is human nature. I like to see peace as the result of a working system - and you have not made clear to me how an ancap will gaurantee peace. Will people be more cooperative when they have to fight for every penny, when differences between rich and poor become unbridgeable divides instead of gaps?
You seem to be under the illusion that the state is an equalizer of sorts, and the ultimate guarantee against violence. Well, the soviet union also guaranteed its people against starvation, guess what happened...
The state is an equalizer insofar as the unlimited market is a divider. And yes, liberal democracies are the most peaceful nations around the globe. Take a look at another thread in general: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151310 . Pretty sure stateless somalia is at the bottom there, and evil socialist scandinavia at the top. Btw, why do you guys always come up with socialism or the USSR, when we talk about democracies. Socialism is a totalitarian system, far from anything I support.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.
And again, look at the facts - liberal democracies are peaceful. This isn't a 'loud assertion' , it's simply the truth. Rulers do not have unlimited power in these states, and will not get it, because mob rule is impossible. There are no safegaurds against a group of people getting power and abusing it in an ancap..
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right. Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition. Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)
'Disappear over time' ... you believe that every problem, however horrible, should be left alone, because in time it will be solved? Sure, racism will slowly vanish, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.. I do like your idea of marriage though, it is quite appealing - but would everyone agree to it? Would a majority think this to be a good idea? Mob rule undermines your system again.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...
Pretty vague answer there mate - disputes often profit one of the parties involved.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 3 - I believe such laws are the fundamentals of a tolerant, peaceful and wealthy nation. You should care about your freedom of speech. You should care about the freedom of religion. They do not have these rights in Somalia.
I really don't get your point. Do you have objective statistics about corruption? Can you assert that these nations are corrupt? Cheap shot and a dodge imo.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.
Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...
Why is the state an untameable beast? If it even is a beast, at least it is one, and can be observed, and taught to not shit on the carpet - you would rather create an entire menagerie of smaller animals that will soon fill your house with turds.
I don't share your trust in the consumer - led on by trends, quantity over quality, lazy in general. For the common consumer to keep an eye on the mass of businesses (if they don't consolidate and form power blocs, that is), seems unrealistic. Economic theory ignores the limits of the common man.
I agree that socialism is far from ideal - I too believe that the market is necessary for our wealth, however, I believe there are many roles for a state to fullfill to ensure a stable, reasonable market. Institutions that temper inflation, environmental laws, social policy. You do not convince me with an argument against socialism, because you use them against liberal democratic, mixed economies.
You can present some fables about how the market can handle every task, but the truth is that you will never find a majority of economists, let alone voters, willing to cede every single responsibility to the market.
What roles exactly?
Wow, way to skip over my post. I stated the answer to your question literally in that post - I see the state as necessary to administer a certain degree of macroeconomic policy (like tempering inflation), to protect the environment (air can not be owned), and to have some social policy. In what degree this all should happen is up for debate, but anyone would agree the market by itself cannot fulfill these roles.
The bureaucrats who can deliver you such damned 'necessary' services... they're not going to disappear. They're not angels either, nor super heroes - their abilities aren't super powers activated by the power of the constitution. No, they're just men offering services. They might still be around ancap, trying to convince the people and the banks that counterfeiting money is good for society, and that the banks should just do it. They're paid as advisors, consultants, book writers. If they're able to convince mostly everyone that printing more money and lending out at near zero interest rates is good, then there is no question that the banks will do it on self interest, and no one will complain... on the very next day; no legislature to force them is needed. If they don't convince anybody.. then hell, why should anyone be forced into doing what they advise, then? They would be put in competition against (other) economists, and banks+people would be choosing between hard, fiat, and mixed currencies. Most ancaps think the former would tend to be more popular, but there's nothing nothing stopping people from choosing the latter for any reason.
Can they just force everyone to take counterfeit money? No, probably not, but that's not a bad thing by far. Today, you can barely force an Amish to take it either, they only barter around with themselves, and use money just to sell and buy stuff in town, what's the problem there? They don't hurt you by not taking part in your Keynesian scheme. If your scheme is demonstrably great, and everyone is better off when the banks loan out more money than they should have, certainly many will be willing to depreciate their wealth with you lol, to sustain some sort of bubble.
Obligatory Austrian economics plug - but interest rates mean something, they're not just a convenient variable that you can adjust with no consequences. It is the price on time, on opportunity cost. You forcibly change that, and you have forcibly changed the rate at which people save, invest, loan, consume, to artificial levels. They save less when otherwise they'd save more, invest more in things that wouldn't be invested, loan more, consume more, leading to both an unsustainable boom, where both consumption and investment is up; and a bust once the malinvestments give no return and go bust... You can search for the 'Austrian business cycle theory' for more detail if you want.
Protecting the environment... thinking in a dispute resolution kind of way, who's the plaintiff? Can you sue someone from misusing a natural resource? Hm I don't think so, it would come into question why do you feel you have a greater claim over a resource you don't even use, than those who are trying to profit off it. If at any point their practices come to afflict you however, I have no question that you'd be able to take it to court, and air pollution issues can be resolved that way...
Social policy... pick one? The welfare programs that perpetuate poverty, the regulations that help no one, the laws which arrest victimless crime offenders, or some other one? I can't answer them all, I've written far too much on the previous issues already.
On September 11 2010 22:38 Piretes wrote: In a democracy, laws are subject change by the legislature, which is in turn subject to the whim of the popular vote. However, the representatives in the legislature are devoted full-time to weighing the consequences of their decisions, while in an ancap, with a mass vote, this oversight would be missed. Furthermore, in a liberal democracy, the trias politica defends the judiciary from influence from the legislature. These kinds of safe-gaurds are non-existent in any anarchy. As you put it, if tens of thousands (I assume this means a majority) believe the law should be changed, it shall. This opens the way to the oppression of the majority, which in turn leads to civil strife.
So citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement is more responsive and safer than people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law ?
Again you do not adress my points, and pose a question instead. Yes, I believe it is safer. Responsive, no, that much is clear from the above. Why must I point this out? Representatives, in a functioning democracy, such as North-West European countries, have integrity, act in a trustworthy way, and make better decisions than some sort of mob rule that you would prefer. I explained earlier how sentiment leads to a dictatorship - do you not realize how fragile a system is when the whim of the majority can ruin it?
Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.
If one billion people want me dead for a unlawful reason, it is my right to be protected by the state. This is what we call civilization. In an ancap, you'd better not be different - if people want to kill you, they will.
The state can't even protect you from a downtown thug, much less a billion people! The point is that there is no guarantee in any system, you have to see the merits and incentives for each. Start with the courts, monopolized judges v. competitive judges, then monopolized lawmakers v. competing lawmakers, then monopolized cops v. competing cops...
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the state is not necessary for order to exist
No, lets relive militias and vigilante justice!!
How about let's stop saying "let's". You do what you want, I do what I want, and if it so happens that we're both cooperative human beings, and not thugs trying to force one another into practicing or paying for X, then we will find a way to defend ourselves efficiently, we will find agreeable law codes, and we will settle disputes in court. We deal with criminals for the criminals they are, for their noncooperation with law and invasions of private property; not by assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)
Direct democracy =/= liberal/constitutional democracy. Have you ever read Aristotle?
Is the majority not electing its representatives by majority vote? Can't those representatives change or interpret the constitution in any manner that is popular? I hate to agree with GWB (not for the same reasons of course), but "the constitution is just a piece of paper"... politicians only have a loose obligation in following it; in the end, it's only the "social contract" that matters. If they can kidnap civilians and put them in detention camps (i.e. asian americans held captive during WWII), and the rest of society be fine with it, then they can, and no lines on a piece of paper is going to stop them. Government can't both be the people and not be the people. They are elected by majority vote, and they can change the constitution as they see fit, and as much as people tolerate. So the constitution is, by proxy, as relevant as people want it to be. So is the code of law... Government doesn't endow people with law and morality. Government makes up its laws on its own inefficient ways, and hopes people reelects them next season (and don't revolt).
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.
Do you truly believe that an ancap will exist for a long time? When power is consolidated - be it by a criminal organization, a powerful corporation, or by citizens who feel the need to organize - we can't even call it an anarchy any more, can we? What stops this from happening? If the people move to create a political union, are they free to do so? Do you truly believe that everyone (or even a majority!!) would agree to your system?
Anyone can create any group they want, they just can't force people in. There could be insurance companies for example that ascribed to certain law codes, and required its members to be contractually obligated to do the same - or be penalized with higher premiums and penalties. Like reckless drivers have to pay more to insurance, because the insurance companies are managing their liability for them, so will violent citizens have to pay more "defense insurance". Also not unlike the state does with the state streets (don't be mistaken, public property is after all, state property), other people may disallow entry to their property for people without certain insurances (and roads are also privately owned of course). People without insurance may find it harder to get jobs, buy contractual utility services, or even food at the store, if those businesses require from them some insurance that they're not trouble-makers. It may be that small towns choose not to pay for all those risk-reducing arrangements, but large cities may. Again, as needed - some towns may just find it easier to resolve all disputed reactively, in court, or yes, even taking law to their hands - but that too raises other risks. But anyway, basically, the mechanisms of law that the state socializes and forces upon everyone can be created privately as well, more efficiently at that, since the localities' and client's preferences on risk management are maximized (everyone only pays as much as they want to, and require from each other as much as they want to too), when otherwise they'd have to abide by arbitrary federal and state legislation, that always provide either too much or too little insurance, or rather, too much or too little assurance, protection and enforcement.
Insurance companies will also know how to best address the risks of itself becoming too big for its customers, because just as much as you're worried about them, I am too, and so would every other anarcho-capitalist, after the fall of the state, no one would want such a coercive institution to come back, and they would be very weary of that. Separation of powers doesn't happen today because the state is good willed either, it happens because the bloodthirsty revolutionaries of the past required such arbitrary assurances - and so any type of assurance that is demanded can be supplied voluntarily too... I've drawn this comparison before ("people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law" v. "citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement") but I didn't elaborate, I was waiting to see if you'd understand any of it in your own but I guess I can only fault myself.
The market mechanisms are more versatile in checking the profitable activities of a company, than democratic systems are in keeping representatives honest. There is far more response and flexibility in constant market exchanges, than elections every x years, or sending letters to representatives pleading them to do what you want (without contractual obligation, which is a sad joke - the citizen has a "social contract" to obey, one that he didn't even sign, but the representative has no contract to do what he promised to do, nor is he even required to follow the constitution he made an oath to respect). From the consumer<->business relation, any type of arrangement can occur, including the very same inefficient voting scheme, if the customers so desired: they could all pay equal premiums to an insurance company, and the company gives every member and equal vote in what law codes, courts, and PDAs to follow for the year. It is a silly idea of course, as people would be bearing the risk costs of others, but it could be done. I rather support consumer <-> insurance company -> PDAs/courts/laws, but there's an infinite number of business models possible... and companies everywhere would be competing to deliver the most reliable, efficient one.
There is so much room for innovation if you just let go of the coercive monopoly, the state, paradigm.
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: This is what I mean by fragile - even if your system would work, it still runs the risk of being undone by itself.
There's always a risk for anything... the question should be how to best minimize them.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: In an earlier post you state that genocide happens because it lies in human nature, now you say peace is human nature. I like to see peace as the result of a working system - and you have not made clear to me how an ancap will gaurantee peace. Will people be more cooperative when they have to fight for every penny, when differences between rich and poor become unbridgeable divides instead of gaps?
You seem to be under the illusion that the state is an equalizer of sorts, and the ultimate guarantee against violence. Well, the soviet union also guaranteed its people against starvation, guess what happened...
The state is an equalizer insofar as the unlimited market is a divider. And yes, liberal democracies are the most peaceful nations around the globe. Take a look at another thread in general: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151310 . Pretty sure stateless somalia is at the bottom there, and evil socialist scandinavia at the top. Btw, why do you guys always come up with socialism or the USSR, when we talk about democracies. Socialism is a totalitarian system, far from anything I support.
Because it's no different in class... morally and economically, just different in degree.
Some paper rated Somalia dead last. What does that prove? That willing slaves make for a more peaceful society? Would it rate the US in times of revolutionary war low, because the british were attacking? What does that prove? What does it define peace as? It is key in the interpretation of peace, to rank something high or low, so the whole evaluation is arbitrary. Somalia is relatively a violent place right now because of it's neighbors, because of the warlords in the south that want to restore the state. The north part is the one hanging on in there, and even still, it is rather unfair to take an index and pretend you know all about the region. You don't know crap - I don't either, but I fear I know more than the guy who just picked a bunch of numbers together and claims to know what's going on. More than that, with a twisted definition of what peace is - funny how the site seems to imply UN peacekeeping is a good thing, LOL at that...
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.
And again, look at the facts - liberal democracies are peaceful. This isn't a 'loud assertion' , it's simply the truth. Rulers do not have unlimited power in these states, and will not get it, because mob rule is impossible. There are no safegaurds against a group of people getting power and abusing it in an ancap..
Define peace. Also, define abuse of power. Bonus points if you define power. I would do it, but I want to see what you think the words you're using mean first.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right. Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition. Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)
'Disappear over time' ... you believe that every problem, however horrible, should be left alone, because in time it will be solved? Sure, racism will slowly vanish, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.. I do like your idea of marriage though, it is quite appealing - but would everyone agree to it? Would a majority think this to be a good idea? Mob rule undermines your system again.
Problems should be left alone? Yes, if by left alone you mean the state shouldn't force it's solution upon it. I believe problems should be dealt with in the most efficient manner that the plaintiff and defendant can settle with. Like healthcare is better delivered in a doctor-patient relationship, no arbitrary, centrally planned scheme will ever solve what it promises to fix. Because of the information problem. Because of the incentive problem. Because it brings ever-increasingly more problems.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...
Pretty vague answer there mate - disputes often profit one of the parties involved.
If by profit you mean, one can subjectively get away with more satisfaction than what he expected by engaging in the activity, then yes, they certainly can, but the goal of arbitration is to make both parties happy, not just one. Courts are to be respected on their impartiality and strictness to the rule of law; every time it is biased in its decision, its reputation is directly impaired, and so it will lose clients... If by profit you mean, some evil guy can pay off multiple courts to shut them up and profit off what would be illegal activities, then that guy should be happy for living in a state for he can already to so more easily, because it's cheaper to corrupt a single, coercively monopolized judge/court, as opposed to multiple competing ones. It is also easier to corrupt the law code when all it takes is a few senators to lobby it for you.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 3 - I believe such laws are the fundamentals of a tolerant, peaceful and wealthy nation. You should care about your freedom of speech. You should care about the freedom of religion. They do not have these rights in Somalia.
I disapprove of that as much as you do. Are you going to blame all the world's strict religion sentiment on the free market too? How can the state fix that anyway? By being the greatest aggressor of all? Would hardly be a fix.
I really don't get your point. Do you have objective statistics about corruption? Can you assert that these nations are corrupt? Cheap shot and a dodge imo.
Can you assert that they aren't corrupt? It's a perception index. A popularity context, on which people have the greatest post-purchase rationalization, not necessarily which have the best 'product'. That isn't even what's being attempted to be measured, let alone proving anything... I'm not an empiricist at any rate, I dwell in empiricism only for demonstrative purposes, and in a responsive manner to other's empirical assertions.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.
Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...
Why is the state an untameable beast? If it even is a beast, at least it is one, and can be observed, and taught to not shit on the carpet - you would rather create an entire menagerie of smaller animals that will soon fill your house with turds.
I don't share your trust in the consumer - led on by trends, quantity over quality, lazy in general. For the common consumer to keep an eye on the mass of businesses (if they don't consolidate and form power blocs, that is), seems unrealistic. Economic theory ignores the limits of the common man.
Expanding on the cage analogy, it isn't fit to describe the market, because there is no public domain, cage, in which everyone is responsible for or lives in (and therefore creates a tragedy of the commons type of situation). Each person makes their cages as they want to, and they can share them as they want to. They can put a cage inside a cage, interconnected cages, interlocked cages, they can make up all sorts of separations of powers that they find fit - the only difference being, that they can't legitimately drag people into their cages...
If man as a customer can't even bother analyzing what they're spending their money on (which is wrong, they do as much as they want to; people go to multiple dealers to find the best car car, spend hours picking the best plasma TV...), when they supposedly have the greatest amount of interest invested into such choice, then how can the voter be bothered into voting for the best candidate, a choice which affects others much more than himself? If man can't decide what's best for himself, then what of choosing for others?
As far as generalities go, again, you have to, have to have to have to, think of the incentives involved. There are far less incentives for one to vote right, than for one to hire the right lawyer, or bodyguard. To say that people wouldn't care which insurance company to subscribe to, or which cops to hire, and the worst, most corrupt institutions would end up being heavily funded, is equivalent to saying people will buy $5000 crappy plasma tvs that can't be wired into, or cars that run 10 miles then break down on the way up a steep hill, and then all cars and tvs will be crap. It's just not true. As much thought is put in the process as one has to gain or lose. People will have everything to lose, investing in a defense agency that is likely to backstab them, so it's an even greater consideration than spending $5000 on a device that doesn't work - it's speding $5000 on a device that can kill you. As worried as you are, people will be, and they will make sure appropriate contracts, assurances, insurances are made, to minimize that risk, as best as they can...
The state minimizes the risk of the emergence of a coercive monopoly of aggression by being a coercive monopoly of aggression itself... which is contradictory to say the least, but even if you were fine with it, it's still the case that socializing these decisions creates the type of moral hazard that makes people irresponsible. If their can only vote between democan or republicrat, how much of a conscious effort goes into the choice? What are the costs? What are the benefits? That's what a socialized system does...
On September 14 2010 06:55 Gaga wrote: i dindt read the thread but i have to add my thoughts in a few words..
you should define "work" ..
a system that is just controlled by the survival of the fittest would reduce humans to animals again.
Take "work" to mean making a society which is at least as desirable as the one that currently is. And systems don't change human nature, they change the incentives and private property theories. Anarcho-capitalism just takes the concept of private property to its fullest extent, calling out the state for its unjustified invasion of such.
Animals don't have a concept of private property, and therefore can't solve control disputes civilly. I would rather call the democratic process a reduction to animal instincts, because everyone gains and equal opportunity to exploit another's property through redistributing welfare, subsidies, regulations, at the cost of a 'free' vote - when they would have to bear the full costs of implementing such schemes otherwise. The government actually facilitates stealing and herd behavior.
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: I see the state as necessary to administer a certain degree of macroeconomic policy (like tempering inflation), to protect the environment (air can not be owned), and to have some social policy. In what degree this all should happen is up for debate, but anyone would agree the market by itself cannot fulfill these roles.
The bureaucrats who can deliver you such damned 'necessary' services... they're not going to disappear. They're not angels either, nor super heroes - their abilities aren't super powers activated by the power of the constitution. No, they're just men offering services.
I never said that they were superheroes. I'm saying that civil responsibility is very real in a working democratic system. I've asserted that many things are better off without a profit motive, and to keep the state honest, I believe that corruption and other problems can be minimized by structuring the system well. This is what I mean with constitution - things like the trias politica and political accountability.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: there's nothing nothing stopping people from choosing the latter for any reason.
See this is the problem - Even if I did believe that you are right about printed money being counterfeit and whatnot, I'd still assert that there is nothing stopping the formation of other currencies. We then get some sort of competition between currencies, and the stronger will win - guess what happened to gold? You would assert that this cannot happen without a state to intervene, but what is a state but a powerful group, and what kind of group could create a currency? Power will always be centralized.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Obligatory Austrian economics plug - but interest rates mean something, they're not just a convenient variable that you can adjust with no consequences. It is the price on time, on opportunity cost. You forcibly change that, and you have forcibly changed the rate at which people save, invest, loan, consume, to artificial levels. They save less when otherwise they'd save more, invest more in things that wouldn't be invested, loan more, consume more, leading to both an unsustainable boom, where both consumption and investment is up; and a bust once the malinvestments give no return and go bust... You can search for the 'Austrian business cycle theory' for more detail if you want.
I'm not ignorant to economics, so you don't need to lecture me. I'm sure the central bankers who change interest rates to coincide with economic circumstances aren't ignorant either. Leave it to a scattering of bankers to adjust their own interest rates, and soon we will see one outcome - because of runaway competition many will go bust, and the strong survive, eventually in cycles this will result in a consolidation of power to a scale where banks will cooperate, and voila - we have a central bank.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Protecting the environment... thinking in a dispute resolution kind of way, who's the plaintiff? Can you sue someone from misusing a natural resource? Hm I don't think so, it would come into question why do you feel you have a greater claim over a resource you don't even use, than those who are trying to profit off it. If at any point their practices come to afflict you however, I have no question that you'd be able to take it to court, and air pollution issues can be resolved that way...
So what happens if a factory is polluting your air? I guess you would propose a few options - move away, or judicial proceedings. Guess what? Both are not going to happen overnight, and both will cost you alot. Sure, you can pool resources with others, and hope you win in court - as there are no laws regulating air pollution, and it's up to an arbitrary view of pollution. People will need laws, and will create them, and eventually create a state.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.
If one billion people want me dead for a unlawful reason, it is my right to be protected by the state. This is what we call civilization. In an ancap, you'd better not be different - if people want to kill you, they will.
The state can't even protect you from a downtown thug, much less a billion people! The point is that there is no guarantee in any system, you have to see the merits and incentives for each. Start with the courts, monopolized judges v. competitive judges, then monopolized lawmakers v. competing lawmakers, then monopolized cops v. competing cops...
Competing judges and lawmakers sounds just wonderful. So if I were to go to court with someone, we'd have to have another argument about which law to use, which court to go to? Where does there exist order in this?
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the state is not necessary for order to exist
No, lets relive militias and vigilante justice!!
How about let's stop saying "let's". You do what you want, I do what I want, and if it so happens that we're both cooperative human beings, and not thugs trying to force one another into practicing or paying for X, then we will find a way to defend ourselves efficiently, we will find agreeable law codes, and we will settle disputes in court. We deal with criminals for the criminals they are, for their noncooperation with law and invasions of private property; not by assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Guess what mate? We already have this system! Only a vocal minority believes taxation is stealing, even in batshit crazy america. Guilty before proven innocent? What kind of fractured reality do you have? In what liberal democracy?
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)
Direct democracy =/= liberal/constitutional democracy. Have you ever read Aristotle?
Is the majority not electing its representatives by majority vote? Can't those representatives change or interpret the constitution in any manner that is popular?
No. They will probably need 66% of the vote (and when one gets an progressive nation so unified, it's probably needed - we are not talking a 2-party system here) and assent from the head of state, who is independent. Bottom line, there are much more safegaurds.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: I hate to agree with GWB (not for the same reasons of course), but "the constitution is just a piece of paper"... politicians only have a loose obligation in following it; in the end, it's only the "social contract" that matters. If they can kidnap civilians and put them in detention camps (i.e. asian americans held captive during WWII), and the rest of society be fine with it, then they can, and no lines on a piece of paper is going to stop them.
Luckily for you, the same would happen in your system. What would happen if your society got attacked like America in WW2? Privately owned defence would fight them off? And what if all asians were seen as a threat by the populace? Would they be spared?
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.
Do you truly believe that an ancap will exist for a long time? When power is consolidated - be it by a criminal organization, a powerful corporation, or by citizens who feel the need to organize - we can't even call it an anarchy any more, can we? What stops this from happening? If the people move to create a political union, are they free to do so? Do you truly believe that everyone (or even a majority!!) would agree to your system?
Anyone can create any group they want, they just can't force people in. There could be insurance companies for example that ascribed to certain law codes, and required its members to be contractually obligated to do the same - or be penalized with higher premiums and penalties. Like reckless drivers have to pay more to insurance, because the insurance companies are managing their liability for them, so will violent citizens have to pay more "defense insurance".
Who decides this? Why should the citizen agree? And how will defence insurance work? Everyone wears some kind of flashy signal, protect me and not him?
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: People without insurance may find it harder to get jobs, buy contractual utility services, or even food at the store, if those businesses require from them some insurance that they're not trouble-makers.
Here starts the cycle of poverty that will entrap a large portion of the population. No job, cant get insurance because of money, in turn no job - and clearly no food either haha. Tough luck man. And needing insurance to be trusted - what a breakdown of society.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: more efficiently at that, since the localities' and client's preferences on risk management are maximized (everyone only pays as much as they want to, and require from each other as much as they want to too), when otherwise they'd have to abide by arbitrary federal and state legislation, that always provide either too much or too little insurance, or rather, too much or too little assurance, protection and enforcement.
You believe that individual people will know exactly how much of every service they need? The state can at least consult experts (if everyone has to consult an expert, your efficient system goes down the drain) and create standards. If your neighbor skimps on fire insurance your house might get burned down.
You really do believe that the state is always wrong, no matter what?
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Insurance companies will also know how to best address the risks of itself becoming too big for its customers,
I trust a powerful business (insurance companies are going to have alot of power in your system) to keep itself limited as much as you trust the state to keep limited.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Separation of powers doesn't happen today because the state is good willed either, it happens because the bloodthirsty revolutionaries of the past required such arbitrary assurances - and so any type of assurance that is demanded can be supplied voluntarily too...
Separation of powers is very real in any European democracy.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: I've drawn this comparison before ("people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law" v. "citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement") but I didn't elaborate, I was waiting to see if you'd understand any of it in your own but I guess I can only fault myself.
Oh but its not like that. In a liberal democracy is much more like = citizens <-> representatives <-> law -> courts and enforcement. Laws keep representatives in check, as do citizens in a transparent system.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: The market mechanisms are more versatile in checking the profitable activities of a company, than democratic systems are in keeping representatives honest.
I disagree. I´ve explained the liberal democratic safegaurds already. Market mechanisms make companies like BP pursue cut-rate operations and then absolve themselves from the blame with a report designed to fight in courts. In an ancap, you´re going to have alot of fun fighting in courts. Sure, boycotts will hurt, but these have been done to other companies before and have not had long term implications, as long as the company is offering goods cheap.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: There is far more response and flexibility in constant market exchanges, than elections every x years, or sending letters to representatives pleading them to do what you want (without contractual obligation, which is a sad joke - the citizen has a "social contract" to obey, one that he didn't even sign, but the representative has no contract to do what he promised to do, nor is he even required to follow the constitution he made an oath to respect). From the consumer<->business relation, any type of arrangement can occur, including the very same inefficient voting scheme, if the customers so desired: they could all pay equal premiums to an insurance company, and the company gives every member and equal vote in what law codes, courts, and PDAs to follow for the year. It is a silly idea of course, as people would be bearing the risk costs of others, but it could be done. I rather support consumer <-> insurance company -> PDAs/courts/laws, but there's an infinite number of business models possible... and companies everywhere would be competing to deliver the most reliable, efficient one.
This is all based on the assumption that consumers can and will vote with their feet/wallet. I´m not so sure a consumer can get out of one of these business models you see as a replacement for law, quickly and without have losses. This system will be as least as inefficient - for a small town, how many companies do you see offering these services? A neighborhood? Would there indeed be a choice, the choice that keeps power away from business?
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: This is what I mean by fragile - even if your system would work, it still runs the risk of being undone by itself.
There's always a risk for anything... the question should be how to best minimize them.
Whatever man. You keep offering forms of pseudo-government, but nothing keeps people from choosing to create some form of non-profit state.
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: The state is an equalizer insofar as the unlimited market is a divider. And yes, liberal democracies are the most peaceful nations around the globe. Take a look at another thread in general: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151310 . Pretty sure stateless somalia is at the bottom there, and evil socialist scandinavia at the top. Btw, why do you guys always come up with socialism or the USSR, when we talk about democracies. Socialism is a totalitarian system, far from anything I support.
Because it's no different in class... morally and economically, just different in degree.
What? You think modern-day Denmark is fundamentally comparable to the USSR? You are delusional.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Some paper rated Somalia dead last. What does that prove? That willing slaves make for a more peaceful society? Would it rate the US in times of revolutionary war low, because the british were attacking? What does that prove? What does it define peace as? It is key in the interpretation of peace, to rank something high or low, so the whole evaluation is arbitrary.
It means the government has failed to protect it´s monopoly of force and a whole bunch of warlords are tromping around the country killing people in the name of Allah. It might have rated the US low, and the British low as well. Revolutions are by nature bloody. Peace means nobody feels the need to fight a bloody insurrection. For example, failed state Russia is low on the list, partly due to fighting in Chechnya, while democratic Spain, although having seperatists in Basque and Catalonia, does not have to send their military to supress violence. This is because the state is respected by the general population.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.
And again, look at the facts - liberal democracies are peaceful. This isn't a 'loud assertion' , it's simply the truth. Rulers do not have unlimited power in these states, and will not get it, because mob rule is impossible. There are no safegaurds against a group of people getting power and abusing it in an ancap..
Define peace. Also, define abuse of power. Bonus points if you define power. I would do it, but I want to see what you think the words you're using mean first.
Allright, in short - Peace is when a nation or region is free from war, oppression and wanton violence. Abuse of power is when a ruler uses his power to further his own ends, instead of those of the general population. Power in this situation is the ability of a ruler to influence a society.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right. Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition. Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)
'Disappear over time' ... you believe that every problem, however horrible, should be left alone, because in time it will be solved? Sure, racism will slowly vanish, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.. I do like your idea of marriage though, it is quite appealing - but would everyone agree to it? Would a majority think this to be a good idea? Mob rule undermines your system again.
Problems should be left alone? Yes, if by left alone you mean the state shouldn't force it's solution upon it. I believe problems should be dealt with in the most efficient manner that the plaintiff and defendant can settle with. Like healthcare is better delivered in a doctor-patient relationship, no arbitrary, centrally planned scheme will ever solve what it promises to fix. Because of the information problem. Because of the incentive problem. Because it brings ever-increasingly more problems.
You mean, when your courts, influenced by the opinions of the majority, decide against racism. But the majority must first agree to it. And on the miniscule scale that these courts can exist in your system, I believe that it would be hard to keep up with the laws in every single neighborhood. In one neighborhood, dominated by blacks, a white man might need to pay twice, as his insurance would not be recognized, while in the next, black men would not be able to get a job. Love that society.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...
Pretty vague answer there mate - disputes often profit one of the parties involved.
If by profit you mean, one can subjectively get away with more satisfaction than what he expected by engaging in the activity, then yes, they certainly can, but the goal of arbitration is to make both parties happy, not just one. Courts are to be respected on their impartiality and strictness to the rule of law; every time it is biased in its decision, its reputation is directly impaired, and so it will lose clients...
But if those clients that are lost go to court against a client who still recognizes the former court, where would they handle their legal proceedings? I don´t see how this will be efficient, and fair.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: If by profit you mean, some evil guy can pay off multiple courts to shut them up and profit off what would be illegal activities, then that guy should be happy for living in a state for he can already to so more easily, because it's cheaper to corrupt a single, coercively monopolized judge/court, as opposed to multiple competing ones. It is also easier to corrupt the law code when all it takes is a few senators to lobby it for you.
Remember, vis-a-vis...
I´d say its not easier, seeing as the price would be much higher - he would not have to pay off multiple law courts, just the one he is using, unless you assert that legal proceedings would be pursued in multiple courts at the same time!!
I really don't get your point. Do you have objective statistics about corruption? Can you assert that these nations are corrupt? Cheap shot and a dodge imo.
Can you assert that they aren't corrupt? It's a perception index. A popularity context, on which people have the greatest post-purchase rationalization, not necessarily which have the best 'product'. That isn't even what's being attempted to be measured, let alone proving anything... I'm not an empiricist at any rate, I dwell in empiricism only for demonstrative purposes, and in a responsive manner to other's empirical assertions.
Well seeing as every single aspect of your system depends on a giant popularity contest - people choosing what they like the most and believe in the most, I thought that that list might be recognized as legit. Because if we were to grab 100 people who wanted to live in a corruption free nation, this research shows that they would probably choose a liberal democracy.
Your whole system is based on perception. Your point is invalid.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.
Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...
Why is the state an untameable beast? If it even is a beast, at least it is one, and can be observed, and taught to not shit on the carpet - you would rather create an entire menagerie of smaller animals that will soon fill your house with turds.
I don't share your trust in the consumer - led on by trends, quantity over quality, lazy in general. For the common consumer to keep an eye on the mass of businesses (if they don't consolidate and form power blocs, that is), seems unrealistic. Economic theory ignores the limits of the common man.
Expanding on the cage analogy, it isn't fit to describe the market, because there is no public domain, cage, in which everyone is responsible for or lives in (and therefore creates a tragedy of the commons type of situation). Each person makes their cages as they want to, and they can share them as they want to. They can put a cage inside a cage, interconnected cages, interlocked cages, they can make up all sorts of separations of powers that they find fit - the only difference being, that they can't legitimately drag people into their cages...
They´ll find ways to keep people in there. People like stability and quickly get used to a certain situation, they won´t be hopping around as soon as one ´cage´ is perceived to be slightly better. Add vague contracts and commercial interest in there, and you create mini-states.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: If man as a customer can't even bother analyzing what they're spending their money on (which is wrong, they do as much as they want to; people go to multiple dealers to find the best car car, spend hours picking the best plasma TV...), when they supposedly have the greatest amount of interest invested into such choice, then how can the voter be bothered into voting for the best candidate, a choice which affects others much more than himself? If man can't decide what's best for himself, then what of choosing for others?
Point granted. People will spend time choosing what seems best. But people believed toyota´s to be of a high safety quality, and suddenly they are falling apart on the road. This would be an even bigger problem in an ancap, when there are no safety gaurantees (or, different ones from the one insurance to the next).
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: As far as generalities go, again, you have to, have to have to have to, think of the incentives involved. There are far less incentives for one to vote right, than for one to hire the right lawyer, or bodyguard. To say that people wouldn't care which insurance company to subscribe to, or which cops to hire, and the worst, most corrupt institutions would end up being heavily funded, is equivalent to saying people will buy $5000 crappy plasma tvs that can't be wired into, or cars that run 10 miles then break down on the way up a steep hill, and then all cars and tvs will be crap. It's just not true. As much thought is put in the process as one has to gain or lose. People will have everything to lose, investing in a defense agency that is likely to backstab them, so it's an even greater consideration than spending $5000 on a device that doesn't work - it's speding $5000 on a device that can kill you. As worried as you are, people will be, and they will make sure appropriate contracts, assurances, insurances are made, to minimize that risk, as best as they can...
The state minimizes the risk of the emergence of a coercive monopoly of aggression by being a coercive monopoly of aggression itself... which is contradictory to say the least, but even if you were fine with it, it's still the case that socializing these decisions creates the type of moral hazard that makes people irresponsible. If their can only vote between democan or republicrat, how much of a conscious effort goes into the choice? What are the costs? What are the benefits? That's what a socialized system does...
I told you, I support liberal democracies, not the perverted corporate ´democracy´ in the US. There is much more transparency in northern European countries.
The biggest problem with your argument is that for every problem, there are multiple choices. I don´t believe this is true at all. Even if everything was left over to the market, do you really believe there would be multiple police forces to choose from in a given neighborhood? And if you were to travel, would that force protect you all the way? Small scale might be good for competition, but unpractical in the long run. Same goes for defense - if there is a strong agressor, you´re not going to have much choice about what defence to pick, there will not be 10 defense agencies, all strong enough to handle the task, lined up..
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: I see the state as necessary to administer a certain degree of macroeconomic policy (like tempering inflation), to protect the environment (air can not be owned), and to have some social policy. In what degree this all should happen is up for debate, but anyone would agree the market by itself cannot fulfill these roles.
The bureaucrats who can deliver you such damned 'necessary' services... they're not going to disappear. They're not angels either, nor super heroes - their abilities aren't super powers activated by the power of the constitution. No, they're just men offering services.
I never said that they were superheroes. I'm saying that civil responsibility is very real in a working democratic system. I've asserted that many things are better off without a profit motive, and to keep the state honest, I believe that corruption and other problems can be minimized by structuring the system well. This is what I mean with constitution - things like the trias politica and political accountability.
What things? What things are better off without a profit motive, and what motive can better replace it? What things, that aren't aberrations of the state itself? Civil responsibility is a condition of the state, so is trias politica, so is political accountability. None of those would be issues if the state didn't exist, because private property would take its place instead. No tragedy of the commons issues.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: there's nothing nothing stopping people from choosing the latter for any reason.
See this is the problem - Even if I did believe that you are right about printed money being counterfeit and whatnot, I'd still assert that there is nothing stopping the formation of other currencies. We then get some sort of competition between currencies, and the stronger will win - guess what happened to gold? You would assert that this cannot happen without a state to intervene, but what is a state but a powerful group, and what kind of group could create a currency? Power will always be centralized.
Well perhaps you missed the part where the state has been confiscating gold and silver coins/bars all over the world for decades now, and raiding competing currency companies trying to offer their own hard money alternatives to the dollar. See what happened to the "liberty dollar" less than a few years ago. See the whole history on gold confiscation... not only are there legal tender laws that obligate people to accept dollars as debt settlement, but they shut down the competition too. Fiats have hardly came about voluntarily...
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Obligatory Austrian economics plug - but interest rates mean something, they're not just a convenient variable that you can adjust with no consequences. It is the price on time, on opportunity cost. You forcibly change that, and you have forcibly changed the rate at which people save, invest, loan, consume, to artificial levels. They save less when otherwise they'd save more, invest more in things that wouldn't be invested, loan more, consume more, leading to both an unsustainable boom, where both consumption and investment is up; and a bust once the malinvestments give no return and go bust... You can search for the 'Austrian business cycle theory' for more detail if you want.
I'm not ignorant to economics, so you don't need to lecture me. I'm sure the central bankers who change interest rates to coincide with economic circumstances aren't ignorant either. Leave it to a scattering of bankers to adjust their own interest rates, and soon we will see one outcome - because of runaway competition many will go bust, and the strong survive, eventually in cycles this will result in a consolidation of power to a scale where banks will cooperate, and voila - we have a central bank.
Runaway competition? The banks today are a state cartel... a global cartel even. To be able to compete with them you have to, have to be initiated into the federal reserve policies, else you don't get even close to offer the same rates. You have to make the deal with the devil, so you can leech the blood of every person who holds an increasingly depreciated note. I suggest you read into the federal reserve and what it does, what is required from banks, what benefits the banks get by being affiliated... it becomes clear that it's not a case of the free market at all. Not for as long as banks are not only allowed, but incentivized and insured for expanding the money supply. The taxpayer and depositors are those who pay the costs of a socialized, poorly managed currency... not unlike any other socialized service.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Protecting the environment... thinking in a dispute resolution kind of way, who's the plaintiff? Can you sue someone from misusing a natural resource? Hm I don't think so, it would come into question why do you feel you have a greater claim over a resource you don't even use, than those who are trying to profit off it. If at any point their practices come to afflict you however, I have no question that you'd be able to take it to court, and air pollution issues can be resolved that way...
So what happens if a factory is polluting your air? I guess you would propose a few options - move away, or judicial proceedings. Guess what? Both are not going to happen overnight, and both will cost you alot. Sure, you can pool resources with others, and hope you win in court - as there are no laws regulating air pollution, and it's up to an arbitrary view of pollution. People will need laws, and will create them, and eventually create a state.
Uh, no, you missed the whole train on market law. But nonetheless, it is hardly an efficient solution to just call some guys with guns to shut down the factory for you, if thats what you propose. Guys who everyone has to pay for, and guys who have to be altruistic enough to not screw you over instead (which always ends up happening).
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Uh, the will of the majority is, first of all, always going to be affecting a minority, no matter the system. If one billion people want you dead, government included or not, you're probably going to be killed. They can raise a huge bounty, they can hire hitmen, they can find out where you live and kill you with a pitchfork. That's just an observation of what one billion people are able to do if they so wished. But fear not. It is not the case that they may wish to do so, and the constititon, law, and moral systems, are not what keeps them back. No, it is their moral sentiment, it is their utilitarian evaluations of who's worth killing, who's a friend and who's a foe. The state reflects upon that demand for order, it does not provide it out of itself.
If one billion people want me dead for a unlawful reason, it is my right to be protected by the state. This is what we call civilization. In an ancap, you'd better not be different - if people want to kill you, they will.
The state can't even protect you from a downtown thug, much less a billion people! The point is that there is no guarantee in any system, you have to see the merits and incentives for each. Start with the courts, monopolized judges v. competitive judges, then monopolized lawmakers v. competing lawmakers, then monopolized cops v. competing cops...
Competing judges and lawmakers sounds just wonderful. So if I were to go to court with someone, we'd have to have another argument about which law to use, which court to go to? Where does there exist order in this?
Order is for one to make. You aren't entitled to order just as much as you aren't entitled to bread. To housing, to work. Order, as in, law, comes at a price, comes from the service of others - judges, administrators, deputies, lawmakers, secretaries, the court space, maintenance, etc. etc.. Those are scarce resources, and the best answer to allocate them isn't found in any one person or council, it is found in the market's aggregate decisions on who can most efficiently provide such.
To answer your question quite simply, you choose court A, the other person chooses court B; both courts can then talk to one another and settle the dispute for you two. That's just a trivial example.
Just because you have been born into a system where service X has always been socialized, doesn't mean it can't be delivered voluntarily, and it certainly doesn't mean this is the best or only way possible either... again, see the system for its merits, not for mere prejudice or arguments from ignorance.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the state is not necessary for order to exist
No, lets relive militias and vigilante justice!!
How about let's stop saying "let's". You do what you want, I do what I want, and if it so happens that we're both cooperative human beings, and not thugs trying to force one another into practicing or paying for X, then we will find a way to defend ourselves efficiently, we will find agreeable law codes, and we will settle disputes in court. We deal with criminals for the criminals they are, for their noncooperation with law and invasions of private property; not by assuming that everyone is guilty until proven innocent.
Guess what mate? We already have this system! Only a vocal minority believes taxation is stealing, even in batshit crazy america. Guilty before proven innocent? What kind of fractured reality do you have? In what liberal democracy?
It may have been the case where serfs also believed it was right for them to obey their lords and clergy... I pity such appeal to tradition... and if that's all you can blame me for, then I'm guilty as charged.
Citizens are considered subjects of the state; they are required to pay taxes or go to jail. Either the state owns all land (false in any sane property theory), or it is an invasion of property and NAP. Citizens are guilty and charged for not paying taxes and following regulations, even if it hasn't done nor taken anything from the state. The Amish for example have their own organizations, but feds have always pestered them, requiring them social security, or income taxes, when the state hasn't done anything for them. If you think that's fair, I don't know how to better demonstrate the offense... nothing more to add ATM.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: the multiple fallacies of democracy being somehow mob-rule resistant (when the majority of the people elects the rulers.. funny that, I would think such a system would be the definition of mob-rule, but you wish to project it upon me! Okay. No insult taken.)
Direct democracy =/= liberal/constitutional democracy. Have you ever read Aristotle?
Is the majority not electing its representatives by majority vote? Can't those representatives change or interpret the constitution in any manner that is popular?
No. They will probably need 66% of the vote (and when one gets an progressive nation so unified, it's probably needed - we are not talking a 2-party system here) and assent from the head of state, who is independent. Bottom line, there are much more safegaurds.
66% of the vote hardly means anything when congress approval ratings can go as low as 10% and their regulations+constitutional interpretations still matter. This isn't efficient. If the state were a private company in competition, it would have gone bankrupt the moment it overstepped its contracts. Long before it could go multiple times the GDP into debt, long before approval ratings go below 70% even...
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: I hate to agree with GWB (not for the same reasons of course), but "the constitution is just a piece of paper"... politicians only have a loose obligation in following it; in the end, it's only the "social contract" that matters. If they can kidnap civilians and put them in detention camps (i.e. asian americans held captive during WWII), and the rest of society be fine with it, then they can, and no lines on a piece of paper is going to stop them.
Luckily for you, the same would happen in your system. What would happen if your society got attacked like America in WW2? Privately owned defence would fight them off? And what if all asians were seen as a threat by the populace? Would they be spared?
America provoked Japan to get attacked on Pearl Harbor, so war is hardly a matter of spontaneously evil men who draft people to kill one another for no reason. Well, kinda. But anyway, not Japan, nor Germany, nor any foreign entity would even have a reason to attack ancap, that has no central, subsidized, socialized military to pose a threat against it; a society without bases and headquarters to focus on; no state to overthrow and milk the population through the infrastructure that is already in place. A statist invading ancap would be like USA invading Iraq, but 10x worse of a quagmire. It wouldn't make sense even if it was for natural resources, because those could be bought more cheaply than invading it with like, half a million men.
Also, incarcerating asians wasn't a popular choice. Give me a break. No war or initiation of force in modern history is a popular choice, it's something the leaders coerce the population into doing it or accepting it. War is extremely unpopular, and leaders get away with doing it because they have the socialized, subsidized apparatus for free. They get away with it by fraud that is the social contract; by provoking other short wired, coercive military entities into attacking their peons; and fooling those same peons into thinking it's necessary.
If people were to voluntarily assemble and PAY to kidnap, imprison, and feed asians for some stupid national security reason, they would be far less likely to agree with it. Who the butt would want to pay out of pocket for that? Incarcerating peaceful citizens on the off chance they may be secret agents against the state? It can only be done when you coerce everyone into sharing that stupid, "necessary" burden. Without the state, there wouldn't even be secret agents to which be against anyway.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: The fragile system is the one dependent on goodwill rulers; dependent on a monopoly of power, that can be corrupted at any time. The least fragile is necessarily the most dissipated, and there's no more decentralization than the lowest common denominator.
Do you truly believe that an ancap will exist for a long time? When power is consolidated - be it by a criminal organization, a powerful corporation, or by citizens who feel the need to organize - we can't even call it an anarchy any more, can we? What stops this from happening? If the people move to create a political union, are they free to do so? Do you truly believe that everyone (or even a majority!!) would agree to your system?
Anyone can create any group they want, they just can't force people in. There could be insurance companies for example that ascribed to certain law codes, and required its members to be contractually obligated to do the same - or be penalized with higher premiums and penalties. Like reckless drivers have to pay more to insurance, because the insurance companies are managing their liability for them, so will violent citizens have to pay more "defense insurance".
Who decides this? Why should the citizen agree? And how will defence insurance work? Everyone wears some kind of flashy signal, protect me and not him?
There are multiple ways to arrange private security in a manner that everyone who pays for it is satisfied, including or not including, free riders. Here are some: road owners who already toll any passersby can pay for PDAs too and transfer the costs to drivers; home insurers could include PDA costs; neighborhood organizations could form and pay, shunning and discrediting those who don't; local businesses organizations could do the same, passing the cost to the local consumers; any number of agreements and contracts between landlord and tenant to newly constructed areas where everything would be set up and insured beforehand; insurance companies; PDAs offering the service on-demand; private donations; PDAs patrolling the area and serving everyone, including free riders, whilst being paid by any combination of models, and advertising their services in return. Yes, I do believe people would demand security, and I do believe they would be willing to pay for it in any number of ways. Because they already do - everyone already pays an overpriced crap service that the state monopoly provides.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: People without insurance may find it harder to get jobs, buy contractual utility services, or even food at the store, if those businesses require from them some insurance that they're not trouble-makers.
Here starts the cycle of poverty that will entrap a large portion of the population. No job, cant get insurance because of money, in turn no job - and clearly no food either haha. Tough luck man. And needing insurance to be trusted - what a breakdown of society.
I didn't say it is needed, I said people can require from one another, just like employers can require employees to have a diploma, or starcraft clans can require you to be 800+ diamond. Your assertion that human resources would go wasted, and that no entrepreneur would dare touch an uninsured person just flies over the fact that employers both today and in the past have aways hired illegal alliens, criminals, unlicensed individuals, etc. all without state approval and even at the increased risk of being arrested themselves.
It is just not true that the poor would have less opportunities - when the risks and costs in employing them are comparatively less. The poor would actually have far greater opportunities to work, without government regulation and taxation, ironically, because the myth says that regulations help the employees is puppy poop. Regulations are always there to increase artificial scarcity, to benefit the oligarchies and unions at the expense of the consumer aka the general population; at the expense of free market entry aka competition. And taxing the employer to pay the poor also just increases the administrative and state bureaucratic overhead. Forced retirement plans aka social security, also another big scam that reduces choices and opportunities... Every regulation necessarily reduces voluntary opportunities, and therefore hinder the economy, not help it. Lies lies lies.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: more efficiently at that, since the localities' and client's preferences on risk management are maximized (everyone only pays as much as they want to, and require from each other as much as they want to too), when otherwise they'd have to abide by arbitrary federal and state legislation, that always provide either too much or too little insurance, or rather, too much or too little assurance, protection and enforcement.
You believe that individual people will know exactly how much of every service they need? The state can at least consult experts (if everyone has to consult an expert, your efficient system goes down the drain) and create standards. If your neighbor skimps on fire insurance your house might get burned down.
Only the state has experts? Hmmm the state has the worst experts dude. Tune in your congressional channel (cspan here) and listen to all the garbage they ramble about... their expertize is only as deep as their talking points or what they manage to learn while reading off the teleprompter often times. They have near 0 interest in learning anything but how to get elected - that is what they're truly experts on, I'll give you that. That's because they gain little to no returns on their investments and choices. They have no incentives to do a decent job, beyond what is needed to show off on a TV ad. They can't even begin to know what they should be doing, hence the calculation problem that you seem to ignore... they just act on stuff that give them easy political points, short term plans, bridges to nowhere, and whatever their lobbyists pay them to do.
Believe me, you'd be better off searching for non-monopolized experts yourself, than trusting any central planner.
On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote: You really do believe that the state is always wrong, no matter what?
I have my reasons to. Read any of the books in the OP...
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Insurance companies will also know how to best address the risks of itself becoming too big for its customers,
I trust a powerful business (insurance companies are going to have alot of power in your system) to keep itself limited as much as you trust the state to keep limited.
The difference being, if you don't like what they're doing, you can not pay them. It is then as if they didn't exist to you. But with the state, you can't avoid it. You go arrested if you don't pay for it, no matter how dumb their policies are. Best you can do is cast a ballot and cross your fingers for more of the same, er, change, or whatever. Please think of the incentive structure. The market signals that are absent... read human action maybe... meh.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Separation of powers doesn't happen today because the state is good willed either, it happens because the bloodthirsty revolutionaries of the past required such arbitrary assurances - and so any type of assurance that is demanded can be supplied voluntarily too...
Separation of powers is very real in any European democracy.
I didn't say it doesn't exist, I said it is conditional on the will of the people to keep pressuring it's representatives. The market does so in a much more efficient, direct, and responsive manner through the profit motive and pricing structure, instead of relying on the goodwill and hunches of politicians.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: I've drawn this comparison before ("people <-> courts and enforcement <-> law" v. "citizens -> voting every 4 years -> representatives -> law -> courts and enforcement") but I didn't elaborate, I was waiting to see if you'd understand any of it in your own but I guess I can only fault myself.
Oh but its not like that. In a liberal democracy is much more like = citizens <-> representatives <-> law -> courts and enforcement. Laws keep representatives in check, as do citizens in a transparent system.
How many checks happen between citizen <-> representatives, as compared to customer <-> business? Which one best addresses demand? Shouldn't be hard to notice a representative can't even begin to evaluate what does he has to do; how much he has to tax; how much he has to spend; on what; when; how; Shouldn't also be hard to notice that a representative has far less to gain from a profitable model than a businessman. The country can go broke, and the politician can blame 'market failure' and stay in charge. Hundreds of thousands of people die in socialized roads, and the state gets away with blaming people themselves, instead of being blamed by their shitty roads and traffic management/maintenance, for example. The statist not only gets a free pass for mistakes, he gets insured of it, hell, he gets PROMOTED because of it. The failed department of education keeps growing no matter how bad schools deteriorate. Because that's the statist incentive - do things bad so you can justify taxing more, to try and fix what's bad...
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: The market mechanisms are more versatile in checking the profitable activities of a company, than democratic systems are in keeping representatives honest.
I disagree. I´ve explained the liberal democratic safegaurds already. Market mechanisms make companies like BP pursue cut-rate operations and then absolve themselves from the blame with a report designed to fight in courts. In an ancap, you´re going to have alot of fun fighting in courts. Sure, boycotts will hurt, but these have been done to other companies before and have not had long term implications, as long as the company is offering goods cheap.
Who leased the underwater reservoirs to BP? Isn't that same institution the supposedly ultimate defender of the environment? Why are you blaming BP first and foremost? Blaming BP is like blaming the lousy waiter who spilled drink on the restaurant floor. Yes, he is guilty, but more importantly, so is the manager who hired him. The manager is the one responsible for what happens in the restaurant, not the waiter... I rest my case.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: There is far more response and flexibility in constant market exchanges, than elections every x years, or sending letters to representatives pleading them to do what you want (without contractual obligation, which is a sad joke - the citizen has a "social contract" to obey, one that he didn't even sign, but the representative has no contract to do what he promised to do, nor is he even required to follow the constitution he made an oath to respect). From the consumer<->business relation, any type of arrangement can occur, including the very same inefficient voting scheme, if the customers so desired: they could all pay equal premiums to an insurance company, and the company gives every member and equal vote in what law codes, courts, and PDAs to follow for the year. It is a silly idea of course, as people would be bearing the risk costs of others, but it could be done. I rather support consumer <-> insurance company -> PDAs/courts/laws, but there's an infinite number of business models possible... and companies everywhere would be competing to deliver the most reliable, efficient one.
This is all based on the assumption that consumers can and will vote with their feet/wallet. I´m not so sure a consumer can get out of one of these business models you see as a replacement for law, quickly and without have losses. This system will be as least as inefficient - for a small town, how many companies do you see offering these services? A neighborhood? Would there indeed be a choice, the choice that keeps power away from business?
I can't answer those questions. That's not how the market works. If I were able to answer how everything should be done, it would be a case for central planning, not decentralized market. The point of the market is that everyone has the opportunity to innovate and create business models that outperform the currently popular ones. The point of being against the state, is to reject the idea that any single authority can even think better than the whole population, let alone execute the best idea efficiently. It cannot. Only the many entrepreneurs acting on the profit motive can best identify if a new company would be profitable; if a second choice would be desirable for the consumers. It most most usually IS. And even in the case that it isn't, it doesn't mean anything, it only means people are perfectly happy with the service and won't buy anything else remotely subpar. A business can't be both exploitative and the only desirable choice. It is a contradiction in terms, and in catallactics as well. If a business is being exploitative, overpricing, it means there is a profit window to be made by other entrepreneurs...
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: This is what I mean by fragile - even if your system would work, it still runs the risk of being undone by itself.
There's always a risk for anything... the question should be how to best minimize them.
Whatever man. You keep offering forms of pseudo-government, but nothing keeps people from choosing to create some form of non-profit state.
Not a government by my definition. Law businesses, defense businesses, are neither coercive, nor do they coercively shut down competition (or threaten to shut down potential competition).
On September 13 2010 22:34 Piretes wrote: The state is an equalizer insofar as the unlimited market is a divider. And yes, liberal democracies are the most peaceful nations around the globe. Take a look at another thread in general: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/viewmessage.php?topic_id=151310 . Pretty sure stateless somalia is at the bottom there, and evil socialist scandinavia at the top. Btw, why do you guys always come up with socialism or the USSR, when we talk about democracies. Socialism is a totalitarian system, far from anything I support.
Because it's no different in class... morally and economically, just different in degree.
What? You think modern-day Denmark is fundamentally comparable to the USSR? You are delusional.
"What? You think enslaving soulless blacks is fundamentally comparable to feudal serfdom? You are delusional." Just because you don't see the coercion doesn't mean it's not there. Tell me, can you choose not to pay taxes? Without being arrested? Or killed in the case you resist? Even if you don't use the government service which the tax is being paid for? I would call that theft. Do you not agree? Can you open your own private defense agency or court? I would call that a coercive monopoly. Can you secede from such institution? Not without moving. But do they own the land you live in, or your body? I would think not, in which case, it is a violation of the non-aggression principle...
A man who steals your money is a thief, that much you'd agree. But a man who steals your money and has a badge, is a tax collector, and isn't. Why? A man who kills another man is a murderer. But a man that kills another man, prized with medals, is a soldier and a hero. Why? A man who prints money in his basement is a counterfeiter. But a man who works under the federal reserve is a banker. Why?
Do these questions help at all or am I just delusional still?
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: Some paper rated Somalia dead last. What does that prove? That willing slaves make for a more peaceful society? Would it rate the US in times of revolutionary war low, because the british were attacking? What does that prove? What does it define peace as? It is key in the interpretation of peace, to rank something high or low, so the whole evaluation is arbitrary.
It means the government has failed to protect it´s monopoly of force and a whole bunch of warlords are tromping around the country killing people in the name of Allah. It might have rated the US low, and the British low as well. Revolutions are by nature bloody. Peace means nobody feels the need to fight a bloody insurrection. For example, failed state Russia is low on the list, partly due to fighting in Chechnya, while democratic Spain, although having seperatists in Basque and Catalonia, does not have to send their military to supress violence. This is because the state is respected by the general population.
The state doesn't have a right nor obligation to "protect its monopoly of force", because no such thing is legitimate. The Somali state was no more legitimate in claiming control over all the citizens in its land than the current southern warlords are trying to claim now. It may be the case that such perturbed notion is widespread, and people all over the world claim to own each other, and respect each others' weird claims to each other. but that's irrelevant to me. As irrelevant as a claim to own the moon or something like that. Because you see, I have a consistent theory of private property, one that doesn't allow a house to both be owned by you and the state at the same time; one that doesn't allow you to both have full share over your paycheck, and the state to have some share to your paycheck as well. Taxes and regulations are inconsistent to a theory of private property, unless the government owns all land and leases back to the people in a feudalistic manner; which is certainly not the case that is generally argued in defense of it. You at least, won't make such argument, I hope...
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: There are no guarantees in any system. Men can and have genocided in the past. But that's not the point. You have to see the merits in the arguments, and try to imagine which one best deters violence, not the one who's loudest in its assertions. I think disasters like these happen less when the men who do it are not subsidized in their powers through coercion. Who is to be an arm for the state to aggress the population, if not the population itself? The way to minimize these large scale operations is to not allow rulers to get the means for free. Easy come, easy go.
And again, look at the facts - liberal democracies are peaceful. This isn't a 'loud assertion' , it's simply the truth. Rulers do not have unlimited power in these states, and will not get it, because mob rule is impossible. There are no safegaurds against a group of people getting power and abusing it in an ancap..
Define peace. Also, define abuse of power. Bonus points if you define power. I would do it, but I want to see what you think the words you're using mean first.
Allright, in short - Peace is when a nation or region is free from war, oppression and wanton violence.
Okay, instead of asking you what each word means (I can already notice it will go nowhere), I will ask you examples to what you think are peaceful relations or not. Consider person A and person B in a room. 1- Person A wants B to do X. Person B agrees. Both perform X. 2- A wants X. B disagrees. Nothing is done. 3- A wants X. B disagrees. A swears at B. 4- A wants X. B disagrees. A threatens B with physical force if he doesn't do X. B does X. 5- A wants X. B disagrees. A punches B in the face. 6- B, after being threatened and about to get punched, shoves A off balance, knocking him down to stop him. 7- B has been punched in the face by A. He punches A back. 8- B has been punched in the face by A. He punches A's friend, Person C. 9- B has been punched in the face by A. He kills A's wife and three kids.
Tell me which of these are violent acts. This is not even everything, I left out property for the time being, which I may not even touch on if you don't answer these consistently.
On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote: Abuse of power is when a ruler uses his power to further his own ends, instead of those of the general population. Power in this situation is the ability of a ruler to influence a society.
Tell me which of these are abuses:
1- Politician P promises X, Y, Z, and is elected. Politician does X, Y and Z. 2- P promises X Y Z, does X Y. 3- P promises X Y Z, does X. 4- P promises X Y Z, does nothing. 5- P promises X Y Z, does X Y Z and L, campaigns paid by a rich and evil lobby. 6- P promises X Y Z, does X Y Z and U, paid by an union. 7- P promises X Y Z, does X Y Z and I, paid by some other interest group. 8- P promises X Y Z, does L U I, paid by all of the above. 9- P promises X Y Z, does X Y Z, paid by all of the above. 10- P promises X Y Z, does nothing, paid by all of the above. 11- P promises X Y Z, does X Y Z L U I, paid by all of the above.
Jumping to the conclusion: there are no contractual obligations, therefore any series of choices could be legitimate and consistent to any arbitrary concept of what "abuse of power" means. They can do anything; the social contract is loose and volatile. Hardly something controllable, ever.
On September 13 2010 11:25 Yurebis wrote: Freedom of speech is covered in private property theory... no court would deny such right. Anti discrimination laws are an invasion of private property, and it's a completely misguided way to solve cultural "inefficiencies". Racism can naturally disappear over time as people notice it is better not to discriminate, thus lose customers and talented employees, than discriminate and lose opportunities due to cultural superstition. Superstitions are self-correcting period. Do we need laws against people avoiding black cats, or avoiding walking under ladders? Not really Freedom of religion... again, forcing one to practice anything is a violation of property... and gay marriage is only relevant insofar as the state approves such relation (again, irrelevant since there would be no state to dictate which relations are marital or not, people can have different definitions and assemble in whatever way is voluntary)
'Disappear over time' ... you believe that every problem, however horrible, should be left alone, because in time it will be solved? Sure, racism will slowly vanish, but that doesn't mean it should be ignored.. I do like your idea of marriage though, it is quite appealing - but would everyone agree to it? Would a majority think this to be a good idea? Mob rule undermines your system again.
Problems should be left alone? Yes, if by left alone you mean the state shouldn't force it's solution upon it. I believe problems should be dealt with in the most efficient manner that the plaintiff and defendant can settle with. Like healthcare is better delivered in a doctor-patient relationship, no arbitrary, centrally planned scheme will ever solve what it promises to fix. Because of the information problem. Because of the incentive problem. Because it brings ever-increasingly more problems.
You mean, when your courts, influenced by the opinions of the majority, decide against racism. But the majority must first agree to it. And on the miniscule scale that these courts can exist in your system, I believe that it would be hard to keep up with the laws in every single neighborhood. In one neighborhood, dominated by blacks, a white man might need to pay twice, as his insurance would not be recognized, while in the next, black men would not be able to get a job. Love that society.
Such businesses would be acting against their own profit maximization, as they would lose clients and opportunities due to silly superstitions. It can happen, but it would happen less than if they were given the socialized opportunity to act on those superstitions at the cost of a free vote.
To jump into empiricism for once, the racist Jim Crow laws didn't come out of nowhere, and while the government has been revered for abolishing them, the fact that it was the creator of them in the first place is completely ignored. Funny double standards, you see. Government is regarded as the ultimate abolisher of superstitions; but that it also is and has been the greatest enabler and enforcer of superstitions, no one seems to note!
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: 2 - These would not exist in an ancap unless they are profitable. Tell me if they are.
Disputes are always profitable to solve... the laws you've given however are almost completely non-issues, without a defendant or plaintiff; or otherwise private property violations, in which case they will be handled just as well if not better...
Pretty vague answer there mate - disputes often profit one of the parties involved.
If by profit you mean, one can subjectively get away with more satisfaction than what he expected by engaging in the activity, then yes, they certainly can, but the goal of arbitration is to make both parties happy, not just one. Courts are to be respected on their impartiality and strictness to the rule of law; every time it is biased in its decision, its reputation is directly impaired, and so it will lose clients...
But if those clients that are lost go to court against a client who still recognizes the former court, where would they handle their legal proceedings? I don´t see how this will be efficient, and fair.
The courts, those dispute resolution specialists, certainly will know how to solve inter-court disputes civilly. They will either have already agreed before hand on a third party, before the courts were even built close to one another, or would otherwise have established an agreeable hierarchy. Businesses in the market don't work chaotically like the state does, in the common SNAFU situation "oh shit what do we do now". Obvious problems like those are dealt with before entrepreneurs even open their doors. If you can think of a problem, chances are, the people putting tens of thousands of dollars in it, at the very least, have thought of it too.
The main problem, if any, is to get people into putting down the gun first. Past that, everything is relatively easy-peasy...
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: If by profit you mean, some evil guy can pay off multiple courts to shut them up and profit off what would be illegal activities, then that guy should be happy for living in a state for he can already to so more easily, because it's cheaper to corrupt a single, coercively monopolized judge/court, as opposed to multiple competing ones. It is also easier to corrupt the law code when all it takes is a few senators to lobby it for you.
Remember, vis-a-vis...
I´d say its not easier, seeing as the price would be much higher - he would not have to pay off multiple law courts, just the one he is using, unless you assert that legal proceedings would be pursued in multiple courts at the same time!!
No, he would HAVE to pay multiple courts, because there is such a thing as an appeal; courts would necessarily allow appeals to be made, and transit cases from court to court. Even if they don't, it becomes glaringly obvious if the plaintiff simply asks for a second opinion from another court, and every other court, and they all rule in his favor but the court of the defendant. Everyone will see that the defendant court is obviously out of line with the most agreeable law code, and they would lose reputation.
Courts are just opinions. I say rulings, but that's just the legal term. In ancap, courts' decisions are just their opinions. What validates those opinions are their reputation. The bigger reputation, the bigger the fall, the cost, the risk of getting caught too, as competitors are always looking to burn the leading company...
Legal proceedings CAN be pursued in multiple courts at the same time, there's nothing stopping that. It's just likely to be the case that courts, seeking to minimize the redundancy of work, will make agreements and have systems in place to avoid such a waste of time, and have hierarchies and fast revisions where one court can quickly agree to accept another's verdict. There would probably be appeal processes like there are today, just in a more horizontal hierarchy instead.
I really don't get your point. Do you have objective statistics about corruption? Can you assert that these nations are corrupt? Cheap shot and a dodge imo.
Can you assert that they aren't corrupt? It's a perception index. A popularity context, on which people have the greatest post-purchase rationalization, not necessarily which have the best 'product'. That isn't even what's being attempted to be measured, let alone proving anything... I'm not an empiricist at any rate, I dwell in empiricism only for demonstrative purposes, and in a responsive manner to other's empirical assertions.
Well seeing as every single aspect of your system depends on a giant popularity contest - people choosing what they like the most and believe in the most, I thought that that list might be recognized as legit. Because if we were to grab 100 people who wanted to live in a corruption free nation, this research shows that they would probably choose a liberal democracy.
Your whole system is based on perception. Your point is invalid.
Uh... that's an appeal to tradition, and you haven't made a single valid objection yet, to be honest... The popularity context thing, I've told you already, it's inevitable as long as there are more than two human beings in the world. It just so happens that a majority can and always will be able to crush a minority if they wished. That is not an objection against ancap, nor democracy. And if it was, it would be more so to democracy, not ancap, because in democracy, the power is socialized; everyone has an equal vote to change policy, so politics suffers from the tragedy of the commons, and the majority can even more easily crush a minority without even putting an effort into raising a coercive institution on their own, the state essentially makes everyone pay for everyones coercion... but I'm repeating myself sadly. Perhaps this approach won't do to convince you... hmm... I can't think of something else at the moment, sorry.
On September 13 2010 10:31 Piretes wrote: Isn't corruption kind of linked to supply and demand? Your answer would be to totally let loose all control over it - mine would be to cut of supply. Make a transparent system, and corruption drops drastically. I'm afraid an ancap would be totally untransparent.
By cutting supply, you should have meant limiting the power of the coercive monopoly aka state... which is my answer (to the fullest conclusion that it must be dissolved). Yours is just trying to tame the untameable beast, or put more cameras around it, have more tamers inside the cage (which eventually become beasts themselves or just rather die), which isn't addressing the question that is whether we even need the beast at all.
Organizations are as transparent as people tolerate them to be. In the case of the state, it has to be tolerable enough so there aren't revolts or revolutions against it; in the case of for-profit institution, it has to be more tolerable than the competitors to gain an edge. It's hardly easy to fool a million people into paying for something they don't know what does, or haven't compared to other sellers. The state gets away with being less transparent because there's no state to compare it to, within the same cultural context. If you understand anything about monopolies (even the perverted mainstream version), you should understand why a monopoly can get away with being more secretive...
Why is the state an untameable beast? If it even is a beast, at least it is one, and can be observed, and taught to not shit on the carpet - you would rather create an entire menagerie of smaller animals that will soon fill your house with turds.
I don't share your trust in the consumer - led on by trends, quantity over quality, lazy in general. For the common consumer to keep an eye on the mass of businesses (if they don't consolidate and form power blocs, that is), seems unrealistic. Economic theory ignores the limits of the common man.
Expanding on the cage analogy, it isn't fit to describe the market, because there is no public domain, cage, in which everyone is responsible for or lives in (and therefore creates a tragedy of the commons type of situation). Each person makes their cages as they want to, and they can share them as they want to. They can put a cage inside a cage, interconnected cages, interlocked cages, they can make up all sorts of separations of powers that they find fit - the only difference being, that they can't legitimately drag people into their cages...
They´ll find ways to keep people in there. People like stability and quickly get used to a certain situation, they won´t be hopping around as soon as one ´cage´ is perceived to be slightly better. Add vague contracts and commercial interest in there, and you create mini-states.
Uh... why is it a state if it adheres to private property, and doesn't deny the right to competition? A state doesn't allow other cages to exist, you see... But I guess you don't know a thing about my theory of private property either... though it would take so long to explain that... sigh.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: If man as a customer can't even bother analyzing what they're spending their money on (which is wrong, they do as much as they want to; people go to multiple dealers to find the best car car, spend hours picking the best plasma TV...), when they supposedly have the greatest amount of interest invested into such choice, then how can the voter be bothered into voting for the best candidate, a choice which affects others much more than himself? If man can't decide what's best for himself, then what of choosing for others?
Point granted. People will spend time choosing what seems best. But people believed toyota´s to be of a high safety quality, and suddenly they are falling apart on the road. This would be an even bigger problem in an ancap, when there are no safety gaurantees (or, different ones from the one insurance to the next).
Since when toyota's cars are falling apart? lol... Again, you seem to be under the impression that the state completely insures something... it does not, it's a fraud... the police force doesn't assure that even 10% of the cases are solved, the FCC doesn't assure that bank runs won't happen, the FDA doesn't assure people won't die from eating food, the FAA doesn't assure people that planes won't be hijacked... the DOE doesn't assure children will be educated leaving highschool... sigh. It's a false sentiment. You have to understand the incentives and mechanisms which allow for such assurances to be made. It's a matter of epistemology; knowledge, how is knowledge learned, and then how can it best be used. Central planners, devoid of market signals, can't even begin to know what has to be done... much less insure something. Their insurance is equivalent to a pimp promising his whore that he will give her all she wants; that he won't beat her if she comes short; that he will treat her nice... lol.
On September 14 2010 06:25 Yurebis wrote: As far as generalities go, again, you have to, have to have to have to, think of the incentives involved. There are far less incentives for one to vote right, than for one to hire the right lawyer, or bodyguard. To say that people wouldn't care which insurance company to subscribe to, or which cops to hire, and the worst, most corrupt institutions would end up being heavily funded, is equivalent to saying people will buy $5000 crappy plasma tvs that can't be wired into, or cars that run 10 miles then break down on the way up a steep hill, and then all cars and tvs will be crap. It's just not true. As much thought is put in the process as one has to gain or lose. People will have everything to lose, investing in a defense agency that is likely to backstab them, so it's an even greater consideration than spending $5000 on a device that doesn't work - it's speding $5000 on a device that can kill you. As worried as you are, people will be, and they will make sure appropriate contracts, assurances, insurances are made, to minimize that risk, as best as they can...
The state minimizes the risk of the emergence of a coercive monopoly of aggression by being a coercive monopoly of aggression itself... which is contradictory to say the least, but even if you were fine with it, it's still the case that socializing these decisions creates the type of moral hazard that makes people irresponsible. If their can only vote between democan or republicrat, how much of a conscious effort goes into the choice? What are the costs? What are the benefits? That's what a socialized system does...
I told you, I support liberal democracies, not the perverted corporate ´democracy´ in the US. There is much more transparency in northern European countries.
Right. My arguments hold.
On September 14 2010 22:08 Piretes wrote: The biggest problem with your argument is that for every problem, there are multiple choices. I don´t believe this is true at all. Even if everything was left over to the market, do you really believe there would be multiple police forces to choose from in a given neighborhood? And if you were to travel, would that force protect you all the way? Small scale might be good for competition, but unpractical in the long run. Same goes for defense - if there is a strong agressor, you´re not going to have much choice about what defence to pick, there will not be 10 defense agencies, all strong enough to handle the task, lined up..
"If the soviet union stopped giving me bread, would there be bread to eat?"...
I'm sorry, but I've been far too redundant answering that same argument at least twice in this very post. I will think of a different approach to present it to you, because what I've written so far is obviously not enough. It seems to be no easy task, convincing people to trust themselves...
On September 14 2010 06:55 Gaga wrote: i dindt read the thread but i have to add my thoughts in a few words..
you should define "work" ..
a system that is just controlled by the survival of the fittest would reduce humans to animals again.
Take "work" to mean making a society which is at least as desirable as the one that currently is. And systems don't change human nature, they change the incentives and private property theories. Anarcho-capitalism just takes the concept of private property to its fullest extent, calling out the state for its unjustified invasion of such.
Animals don't have a concept of private property, and therefore can't solve control disputes civilly. I would rather call the democratic process a reduction to animal instincts, because everyone gains and equal opportunity to exploit another's property through redistributing welfare, subsidies, regulations, at the cost of a 'free' vote - when they would have to bear the full costs of implementing such schemes otherwise. The government actually facilitates stealing and herd behavior.
without a state your private property would only belonge to you if you are strong enough to defend it from someone wo wants to take it from you. (and there will be always people/corporations who will want to get what you have... man behaves like that)
there would be a constant fight about your private property without a state securing your private property... not what i would call a desirable society.... if you are weak you loose.
there would probably arise some sort of social system where the people of that system will be granted some rights of property again ... but thats just again a system of a state and not anarchie.
On September 14 2010 06:55 Gaga wrote: i dindt read the thread but i have to add my thoughts in a few words..
you should define "work" ..
a system that is just controlled by the survival of the fittest would reduce humans to animals again.
Take "work" to mean making a society which is at least as desirable as the one that currently is. And systems don't change human nature, they change the incentives and private property theories. Anarcho-capitalism just takes the concept of private property to its fullest extent, calling out the state for its unjustified invasion of such.
Animals don't have a concept of private property, and therefore can't solve control disputes civilly. I would rather call the democratic process a reduction to animal instincts, because everyone gains and equal opportunity to exploit another's property through redistributing welfare, subsidies, regulations, at the cost of a 'free' vote - when they would have to bear the full costs of implementing such schemes otherwise. The government actually facilitates stealing and herd behavior.
without a state your private property would only belonge to you if you are strong enough to defend it from someone wo wants to take it from you. (and there will be always people/corporations who will want to get what you have... man behaves like that)
there would be a constant fight about your private property without a state securing your private property... not what i would call a desirable society.... if you are weak you loose.
there would probably arise some sort of social system where the people of that system will be granted some rights of property again ... but thats just again a system of a state and not anarchie.
1- The general population already pays for its own police force, there is no reason why it can't be organized again, more efficiently so, given the coercive monopoly is gone. 2- It is my opinion that you don't understand what private property is, if you talk of it like it's a right to be "granted" by someone to someone else. If you want me to elaborate on my theory of private property, I may, but I won't be typing long paragraphs for naught.
I'm curious about this, since you have so many thoughts about the state, what is your definition of a state? You might have already posted it earlier, and if so, then my bad. But if you haven't posted it yet, then I would really like to know how you define it. It is of course a complicated question, but important none the less.
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.
This doesn't even make sense, I'm guessing you meant to say that there is no way *other than having a limited state*?
For any form of society to *work* you have to have depend on those capable of defending themselves to not oppress others, having a state does not in any way make it impossible for people with more weapons/strength to oppress other people. All you are doing is giving all the guns to a different group of people and hoping for the best. It is very clear in history that this has worked out well for some and horribly for others. To say that having a limited state prevents this is delusional from both a historical and modern perspective. A "limited" state is only going to be limited by either A) it's conscience or B) it's inability to act aggressive towards larger groups and organizations. The former can go either way, the latter makes the state's ability to actually perform it's role questionable. This applies to all forms of society and to both individuals and groups, a state is nothing more than a fancy way of giving one group all the guns and hoping for the best.
On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote: So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)
That already applies to the entire world. The "strong" do in fact dominate the weak. Human organization cannot reverse the nature of evolution and existence. Strong isn't the best word to use though, as organisms that are clever, able to hide, etc. often win out vs. the biggest and best at killing in the long run.
On September 14 2010 06:55 Gaga wrote: i dindt read the thread but i have to add my thoughts in a few words..
you should define "work" ..
a system that is just controlled by the survival of the fittest would reduce humans to animals again.
Take "work" to mean making a society which is at least as desirable as the one that currently is. And systems don't change human nature, they change the incentives and private property theories. Anarcho-capitalism just takes the concept of private property to its fullest extent, calling out the state for its unjustified invasion of such.
Animals don't have a concept of private property, and therefore can't solve control disputes civilly. I would rather call the democratic process a reduction to animal instincts, because everyone gains and equal opportunity to exploit another's property through redistributing welfare, subsidies, regulations, at the cost of a 'free' vote - when they would have to bear the full costs of implementing such schemes otherwise. The government actually facilitates stealing and herd behavior.
without a state your private property would only belonge to you if you are strong enough to defend it from someone wo wants to take it from you. (and there will be always people/corporations who will want to get what you have... man behaves like that)
there would be a constant fight about your private property without a state securing your private property... not what i would call a desirable society.... if you are weak you loose.
there would probably arise some sort of social system where the people of that system will be granted some rights of property again ... but thats just again a system of a state and not anarchie.
...and with a state private property only belongs to you as long as the state allows you to keep.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Wait what?
I'm going to count on both my hands how much democracy's the U.S overthrew with black ops military force and money, and I'm going to run out of fingers and have to use my toes.
On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote: So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)
1- Security is no different than any other service... you are as doomed as much as if you can't pay for your own food, your own shelter, your own anything; there's still private charity though, and even that will be more efficient in ancap where there isn't taxation on donations.
On September 15 2010 05:06 Hasudk wrote: I'm curious about this, since you have so many thoughts about the state, what is your definition of a state? You might have already posted it earlier, and if so, then my bad. But if you haven't posted it yet, then I would really like to know how you define it. It is of course a complicated question, but important none the less.
An institution which claims to legitimately have at least some control over all land, and initiates force against anyone for any reason on that predicament; also forbids and physically stops any other institution to compete against its services.
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Wait what?
I'm going to count on both my hands how much democracy's the U.S overthrew with black ops military force and money, and I'm going to run out of fingers and have to use my toes.
Also, Pakistan and India.
For all you or I know, he can be defining 'liberal democracies' in such a way that the US itself doesn't count as one anymore... But such an argument is silly anyway. It's like... "no white man has beaten another white man", which even if it were true, what does it prove, heheh... that we all should be white men, so the other whites don't beat on us?
war is only profitable if you can offload the cost of war to other people. It would be impossible to raise an army in the first place if you do not already have a monopoly on force to coerce other people into doing your bidding. Also, you wont be able to raise the capital for weapons without taxation. Because your business model to potential investors will be:
"hey guys pay me now so i can stockpile all these weapons and then maybe in a few years after we've killed a bunch of people I can pay you back."
"what can you do/give me to guarantee that this wont be a wasted investment for me?"
"erm...well........i promise not to shoot you! >:0!"
"but I am the one selling weapons."
"..."
-----
Also, 99% of you people say that the strong crushes the weak in nature and that is the natural evolution state of the wild ectect. But actually nature is 90% cooperating and boring coexistence. Going out to attack other people is an incredibly bad idea because there is the off chance that they will fight back and wound you. And if you are hurt then you a) now need assistance from other people to do the most easy mundane things, and b) are now a easy target to people stronger than you.
And, when you get down to it, the state doesn't protect you from criminals. A desperate druggie who needs cash right now for his fix will still shoot you in the face in current society. At the end of the day you are still defending yourself because the cops are far away and they are human too so they also dont want to be in an armed engagement. The cops only come for cleanup and future consequences, but by then it doesnt matter to you anymore because you will have already been hurt. People perceive a false dichotomy between the current state and "a state of nature." When in fact, you have never left "the state of nature." And currently, you are the weak that the strong is feasting upon, ridiculously over-charging you for "benefits" that you haven't asked for in the first place.
Cops today also have like, a 10% crime solving rate lol. To insist that no one can do any better... is clingy at best imo. okay maybe not 10% on average but in bad neighborhoods yeah. okay maybe I should drop the statistics.
I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising. Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money. Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote: I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising. Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money. Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
I used the term "profit motive" because the person who I was responding to used it first. Austrian economics doesn't rely on utility maximization functions, money, or even material things at all; it relies on the subjective value theory and praxeology. In the case of art, the profit motive is just otherwise the want for creativity, inspiration, aesthetics, fame, whatever. (The last which can be monetized anyway). Any one motive isn't key; they key is allowing people to seek their own motives, unrestrained by the coercion of others - that is when they can fully realize what they want. Consider this table.
Re:BBC, I hope you're not implying that the UK people should be glad the government steals from every single one of them and pays off the BBC so that they could deliver such a camera shoot... this is wrong in so many levels lol.
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote: I've read a lot of this discussion, but not all of it, and at 44 pages I think I'll just land up repeating what people say if I voice my natural objections to anarcho-capitalism. So I'll just try and focus on one point, which I haven't seen others bring up.
A page back, you asked what things are better without a profit motive. I think many things are, but in particular- art. In Britain, state support for art continually impresses me. For me in particular, Radio 3 is able to offer incredibly in depth documentaries and discussions of obscure composers, with no advertising. Because of the smaller audience and need for concentration that goes with classical music, I don't think a commercially based radio station can offer as much - so far I'm yet to hear one. Music critic Alex Ross (in the Rest is Noise) argues the same - saying that England has the best classical music programming in the world.
How is it a good thing that your government takes money from the private sector so that you can enjoy documentaries about composers? There are people in poverty in your country, but you would rather see your government inefficiently redistribute resources so that you can enjoy this service, without having to fund it yourself?
If a commercial radio station could offer as much you wouldn't be likely to see it as no business would be foolish enough to try and compete with a government sponsored entity. In a free market you might see a similar radio station, but as long as your government has a strong presence in this particular market no private company is likely to try and compete with it.
On September 15 2010 12:02 Tal wrote: To give another example, in the BBC's Planet Earth series, there is some breathtaking footage of a snow leopard. Getting the footage was a huge task, requiring so much time and money (and IIRC an entire second expedition) - the result of which only took up a small portion of the programme. The programme didn't need it - they already had more than enough material for it to be hugely successful. But those fragile few minutes with the snow leopard give the whole series something much more - something which is hard to define in times of money. Once again, I know of no commercial enterprise which is able to match the quality of these documentaries, and am inclined to guess it's unlikely one will exist.
Perhaps in other ways Anarcho-Capitalism can work - but these two examples give me the impression there is at least some case for not letting profit into everything.
The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources.
Isn't it an artist more free if supported by the government, rather than having to worry about making ends meet? More able to realise what they want?
Actually I guess with the BBC that is my point (though as is common in this debate, I don't see taxation as stealing). My point is simply that the public sector can offer extraordinary things that the private sector cannot. The morals of it are probably too difficult to get into, but at least I think there's some place for achieving timeless excellence - even if it does cost the tax payer. As it happens, in this example, the worldwide success of BBC documentaries probably actually save the tax payer money, but that's not part of what I'm trying to say.
Evade[clean]. No, that's not my point. Clearly, I want my Government to deal with poverty - but taking money out of the (fairly small) arts budget to deal with that is self defeating. You can help people while also creating a better society for them to live in. As someone who has paid and will pay UK taxes (currently in China for a year so not paying them right now), I am partly funding it myself. Across the world there are many free market opportunities for the station you suggest, but I'm yet to hear one measure up to Radio 3. So while you can see the BBC kills competition locally, worldwide I'd have expected some kind of competitor (according to your argument).
The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources.
Well this is where I disagree. By not always worrying about efficiency, they created something amazing. In the long term, I would say that is actually more efficient - but it seems optimistic to hope the market looks 200 years down the line.
Perhaps overall leaving things to the market would be better, but I just want to get across that there are some things it simply does not do as well, and that's good to bear in mind.
Why do you think an artist would be more free if supported by government. Doesn't history show that government sponsored art will always bend to the will of the government that commissioned it? Won't an artist be forced to only produce art that is in line with the governments point of view? How does this make the artist more free?
Further, why do you think that an artist should be free of worrying about what everyone else has to worry about? Do you view artists as superior to those who choose other professions? Should artists not have to pay for food or shelter? Artists, like any other profession only exist in order to meet demand for their products or services. If there is no demand for a product that you think an artist should be producing then you are free to pay an artist to do what you want. What gives you any right to force other people to share this cost with you when they might not value art at all. Who are you to dictate what creates an ideal society or that art would even be present in one?
It doesn't matter that you are partly funding it yourself, you are sharing the burden equally with millions of other people who certainly will not all share your viewpoint on your countries art budget. Also, I live in the USA and I get BBC channels over here. And, it is also possible that there is not a great enough demand for a channel similar to Radio 3. If that is the case then it just shows that people prefer the resources that could be used for a competitor to Radio 3 be used in some other way which is just further proof that Radio 3 is inefficiently using resources.
Isn't it an artist more free if supported by the government, rather than having to worry about making ends meet? More able to realise what they want?
If what they want is to be fed at the expense of others, yes. But that is no different than a thief, and so it's a-priori irrelevant what he does with the money afterwards. Whatever he does, it is going to be a subpar use compared to what would have happened had the money not been expropriated.
Also, an artist is freer when he gets government contribution as much as an academics is freer to research or teach whatever he wants. Thats just not what happens. Government subsidy always stifles the market and limits people's choices, even on the receiving end.
The market distributes resources in a way that the participants of that market deem efficient. If there were enough people like you willing to pay a bunch of money to see a snow leopard on television than there would be plenty of shows dedicated to providing this service. If this show could only exist with government sponsorship then it should not exist. As the people in this market would have deemed it an inefficient use of resources.
Well this is where I disagree. By not always worrying about efficiency, they created something amazing. In the long term, I would say that is actually more efficient - but it seems optimistic to hope the market looks 200 years down the line.
Perhaps overall leaving things to the market would be better, but I just want to get across that there are some things it simply does not do as well, and that's good to bear in mind.
Just because they created what you deem to be an amazing show does not make it right. If you spend enough money on something there will always be people who think the final product is amazing, the market regulates this. If a company spends to much money developing a product that people do not desire then they will have a loss. A government does not have its own money, it just takes money from the private sector to fund its expenditures so it is not subject to the same restrictions of a private company. Do you not see how this dangerous?
The market looks much further down the line than you do or governments do. Government typically only looks as far down the road as the next election cycle. There are companies that have been in business for decades, whereas politicians are rarely in the same office for a long period of time. Most companies have balanced budgets because the people working for the company know that if they run a deficit their company will end up going bankrupt and they will be unemployed. Nearly all governments have unbalanced budgets and run huge deficits because they people employed by government know that they will no longer be in the same position when it is time to deal with any deficit they created. Thus they spend as much as they deem necessary to further their political careers.
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote: (haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Anarcho-Capitalism is just Austrian Economics taken a step further. There are plenty of economic professors that are adhere to Austrian Economics. Although, a lot of them are just libertarians I am sure there are some that believe Anarcho-Capitalism is possible and some that would undoubtedly think it is preferable to our current economic system.
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote: (haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
You ignore my points about the weaknesses of law by sentiment, simply stating that, I paraphrase: 'if mass murder lies in human nature, it is going to happen anyway'. Did you know that there has never been a military conflict between liberal democracies? Peace is 'popular' because it is the fundament of our society - will this be the same in an ancap? What if it is profitable to make war? Does that justify it?
Wait what?
I'm going to count on both my hands how much democracy's the U.S overthrew with black ops military force and money, and I'm going to run out of fingers and have to use my toes.
Also, Pakistan and India.
The U.S. has never actually declared war on any of these nations, or they would have to have had the support of the public. This was never required, because the safegaurds that exist in liberal democracies were non existent, because of the executive power of the president. There exists no effective control in the US system.
Pakistan and India are far from liberal democracies themselves, and the origin of their conflict is historical - the mismanagement of the decidedly undemocratic British Raj.
Yurebis - These posts are taking way to much of my free time, and I believe we will never understand each other. You live in some world of government conspiracies - You state the US somehow made the Japanese attack pearl harbor to be able to coerce their subjects into war.
I live on a different continent and culture and cannot understand the possibilities of markets and problems of government you see. I hope you understand that every politically engaged person I know here trusts the government and only looks at ways to improve on the system we have. Call this ignorance, serfdom, whatever, but I only see open minds and open hearts.
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote: (haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect.
I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself.
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote: (haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect.
I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself.
There is a world outside the US, you know, and last time I checked Austria was in Europe. Anarcho-capitalism is almost exclusively an american phenomenon and it's kind of funny that you mention the Ludvig von Mises Institute. Most famous institute for austrian school economics? Who do you want to kid? Mises and Hayek both rejected anarchy (which you surely know as you have read their works, I guess) and most of their European and American scholars do too. It is only a minority among austrian scholars who think that ancap might work and their definition of ancap is rather conflicting especially with regard to how a law system should be established. Since they also prefer to write books and don't publish too much in economic journals, they take hardly any part in the academic discussion. If you really disagree with that, you are severely misrepresenting the actual debate in economics. Of course this doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that their view is an extreme position which is not "popular" among todays scholars, even among those in the austrian tradition. I also don't see how I equivocate or misrepresent your position. Is it not true that austrian scholars generally reject empiricism and argue in favor of their theories deductively? Is it further not true that there is no empirical data which favours that an ancap society could work, mainly due to the fact that it basically never came about historically (yes, I know, the wild wild west)? Where did I say that you chose ancap first and then found a justification?
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote: So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)
1- Security is no different than any other service... you are as doomed as much as if you can't pay for your own food, your own shelter, your own anything; there's still private charity though, and even that will be more efficient in ancap where there isn't taxation on donations.
2- Define "completely dominate".
1- In Germany there is a state that won't let u die on the streets and give u food, shelter and security if you don't have any... what you say is true if there is no state. To make everyone a beggar and dependant on the good will of others... if he is weak ... i don't believe that this would work in any way better than in a social state... especially not in a system where everyone has to constantly fear about loosing his stuff.
2- dominate them more than they do in a social state that at least tries to balance stuff a bit... by wellfare.
On September 15 2010 21:00 Piretes wrote: Yurebis - These posts are taking way to much of my free time, and I believe we will never understand each other. You live in some world of government conspiracies - You state the US somehow made the Japanese attack pearl harbor to be able to coerce their subjects into war.
I live on a different continent and culture and cannot understand the possibilities of markets and problems of government you see. I hope you understand that every politically engaged person I know here trusts the government and only looks at ways to improve on the system we have. Call this ignorance, serfdom, whatever, but I only see open minds and open hearts.
On September 15 2010 14:00 Orome wrote: (haven't read most of the thread)
I get confused every time this discussion comes up. There seems to be a decent amount of theory behind all this, but when I start reading the articles, they always seem to ignore the most basic and obvious problems. Problems and limitations of the free market that every economy student learns in his first semesters and other very obvious problems caused by the absence of certain government institutions.
Now anarcho-capitalism seems to be mostly an American thing - I've never seen this discussion anywhere outside of TL -, is it something that's being taken seriously by the academic world? Do any acclaimed professors of economic theory actually think this would be possible?
Well, the "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. Outside of that, no.
Actually, only a scarce minority of "Austrian School" professors believe it is possible. But it's not surprising that ancap proponents might label themselves as "Austrian School" since they usually question the validity of empirical arguments in economics. This is a kind of comfortable stance given that there basically is no emiprical evidence in favor of ancap. Yurebis shows how to argue for ancap quite formidably, however, he uses his "out-of-prison-card" a bit too often for my taste. Sure, if you believe that markets will function efficiently and can solve all problems ancap will just work fine ... no doubt about it. The fact remains that - under these assumptions - ancap should form automatically and finally overthrow the inefficient and coercive state. This never happened historically, however. In fact ancap does not even offer a convincing route to realizing its occurrence peacefully. You would need the state to abolish itself, which in effect meansthat you would need enough people who believe in the justification and ability of the state to do just that ... which rather contradicts the typical assessment of the state held up by ancap proponents...
It's not a minority, if you know anything about the lvmi, the most famous institute on austrian economics... I would say at the very least 70% of the members and speakers are ancaps.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering. For one, I didn't choose ancap first and then looked for a justification, that is a ridiculous and empty accusation. I chose moral and economical consistency, and it then follows that the state, as a function of private property defense, is a complete contradiction in terms and in practice, for it violates exactly that which it claims to protect.
I used to be a minarchist, by the way. I just got tired of lying to myself.
There is a world outside the US, you know, and last time I checked Austria was in Europe. Anarcho-capitalism is almost exclusively an american phenomenon and it's kind of funny that you mention the Ludvig von Mises Institute. Most famous institute for austrian school economics? Who do you want to kid? Mises and Hayek both rejected anarchy (which you surely know as you have read their works, I guess) and most of their European and American scholars do too. It is only a minority among austrian scholars who think that ancap might work and their definition of ancap is rather conflicting especially with regard to how a law system should be established. Since they also prefer to write books and don't publish too much in economic journals, they take hardly any part in the academic discussion. If you really disagree with that, you are severely misrepresenting the actual debate in economics. Of course this doesn't mean that they are wrong, just that their view is an extreme position which is not "popular" among todays scholars, even among those in the austrian tradition. I also don't see how I equivocate or misrepresent your position. Is it not true that austrian scholars generally reject empiricism and argue in favor of their theories deductively? Is it further not true that there is no empirical data which favours that an ancap society could work, mainly due to the fact that it basically never came about historically (yes, I know, the wild wild west)? Where did I say that you chose ancap first and then found a justification?
Okay, a majority here in the US then. Mises and Hayek didn't focus on political science at all, they're awesome for their economical contributions.
The old argument of "if ancap is so good, why doesn't it exist" is an equivocation. No one said it should exist. And no one is saying everything is perfect for ancap to arise. No, it is undoubtedly the case that it well isn't, when everyone still thinks using guns to organize society is a good thing, certainly ancap may not find an opportunity at all. I'm saying that, in a world where people understand the inefficiencies of government, and the economical issues with it that I repeat so much, then ancap will arise and it will outcompete then. I don't know all the factors needed. Which is another reason why I made the thread.
You put a gun to my head and ask me to sing, and before I complete a verse you shoot. That's about the extent of the historical experiment with anarchism (let alone ancap).
Edit: To make it clear, I think it should exist, but it's not a norm, because there is no objective norm. I find it desirable, and I'm explaining why I think so. So do take my words with a grain of salt, and if you don't agree, well too bad, sorry for not being of use.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
On September 15 2010 04:54 Gaga wrote: So if you cant pay for your security you are doomed ?
doesn't change the fact that this creates a system where the strong completely dominate the weak. (animal behaviour)
-> not desireable in my opinion.
(my english isnt very good so granted may be the wrong word ... you don't have to explain what your understanding of private property is)
1- Security is no different than any other service... you are as doomed as much as if you can't pay for your own food, your own shelter, your own anything; there's still private charity though, and even that will be more efficient in ancap where there isn't taxation on donations.
2- Define "completely dominate".
1- In Germany there is a state that won't let u die on the streets and give u food, shelter and security if you don't have any... what you say is true if there is no state. To make everyone a beggar and dependant on the good will of others... if he is weak ... i don't believe that this would work in any way better than in a social state... especially not in a system where everyone has to constantly fear about loosing his stuff.
2- dominate them more than they do in a social state that at least tries to balance stuff a bit... by wellfare.
1- An in statism, you're dependent on the state being nice and using the money they stole 'properly'. I don't think you're comparing correctly. Who's more likely to give you what you want, a clerk, or a politician? How and why?
2- Why do you call a private entity having full rights over exactly what they're due "domination", while the state who controls everything is "balance"? A little biased maybe?
You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
I dont know if this has come up yet but i'd be interested what you (yurebis) think of resource based economy and lifestyle at all. The way i would imagine this would be a government be it world or state based doesnt matter. Each individual is supplied with everything they would need to live (and do so comfortably without taking others the chance to live on an equal level of "luxury") Reasoning behind this being limited resources that are available to mankind which i would see becoming a problem for an anarcho-capitalistic design. Im no expert on this matter, in fact i'm a complete stranget to the topic but as i see it this kind of environment would encourage people to follow their real interests instead of "working for a living" (which should still be required up until a certain age in my resource based model). Each job "paying" the same there would be no reason to go for a job solely for monetary reasons, so in the end your personal interest will be what matters. Education for those who want it, "lower end jobs" for those who dont want to get educated.
Of course with a system like this theres a lot of potential to abuse it, but i guess we can agree that would be no different in an anarcho capitalistic system or any other system we have.
Being pretty much the exact opposite of your system i would like to see how you think about a resource based system rather than a currency based one. My reason behind bringing this up is pretty much my being a very social guy having no problem with getting the shit taxed out of my salary so the less fortunate might live on a level thats not even close to mine but still a whole lot better than having to live only on private charity.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
Oh wow okay. Let me try something...
Investment and consumption together form market spenditure: M government spending is spending which has first detracted from M through taxes,: G taxes is T G = T final market spenditure M` = M-T So... okay never mind, that's fail.
You can't put the broken window fallacy, and praxeology into math. You aggregate too much, and break methodological individualism... Numbers and charts will never reflect human action... because human preference isn't quantifiable. Prices are just approximations, and the more you expand on such a shaky foundation, the more likely you'll be wrong in your predictions.
Trying to put millions of men's demands into math... who am I kidding, that would require a God.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
On September 16 2010 10:19 waffling1 wrote: ok so lets say anarcho capitalism doenst work. no worries, cz that has nothing to do with capitalism.
It has something to do, since it is the ultimate expression of capitalism. But since capitalism is so burned these days, obviously it's a bad thing heh heh
On September 16 2010 10:23 ChinaRestaurant wrote: I dont know if this has come up yet but i'd be interested what you (yurebis) think of resource based economy and lifestyle at all. The way i would imagine this would be a government be it world or state based doesnt matter. It would to a certain degree be like communism but at a more democratic level. Each individual is supplied with everything they would need to live (and do so comfortably without taking others the chance to live on an equal level of "luxury") Reasoning behind this being limited resources that are available to mankind which i would see becoming a problem for an anarcho-capitalistic design. Im no expert on this matter, in fact i'm a complete stranget to the topic but as i see it this kind of environment would encourage people to follow their real interests instead of "working for a living" (which should still be required up until a certain age in my resource based model). Each job "paying" the same there would be no reason to go for a job solely for monetary reasons, so in the end your personal interest will be what matters. Education for those who want it, "lower end jobs" for those who dont want to get educated.
Of course with a system like this theres a lot of potential to abuse it, but i guess we can agree that would be no different in an anarcho capitalistic system or any other system we have.
Being pretty much the exact opposite of your system i would like to see how you think about a resource based system rather than a currency based one. My reason behind bringing this up is pretty much my being a very social guy having no problem with getting the shit taxed out of my salary so the less fortunate might live on a level thats not even close to mine but still a whole lot better than having to live only on private charity.
If someone manages to make self-replicating robots that can supply good x abundantly for infinity, then he could choose between charging at the second best price, or giving it out for free. I don't see the need to abolish private property still, even if such a thing were to occur. You would still have a private property theory to at least establish who has the right to maintain the robots and infrastructure.
I say that there isn't a single system which doesn't have a theory of property rights. Even communism, tribalism, or the venus project has to have one. Even if not formalized or "not necessary" (I doubt it wouldn't be, you'd at least own your own body eh.)
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
*More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
Ok. Crusoe economics. Man's wants are W. Man's means are M. Means have inputs and outputs. I and O. Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M. Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E. Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X. A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is... W = M - Z W = M - (X-E) Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics. Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange. So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C. C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me. edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc
You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct? Also I support unschooling (as well?).
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc
You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct? Also I support unschooling (as well?).
I cant really tell you if its true or not, but it certainly seems this way to me. Employers only get who they want and the rest can die of poverty for all they care since its not longer their concern. Employers are after employees that increase their monetary wealth, so theyll get only as many as they need to stay in the competition game with other companies. In my system there wouldnt be an "employer" in the sense of the word but rather an obligation to contribute to society in some way or another. This would mean there is no real limit to how many people get employed and with the limited salary each individual is granted, there should(!) be no problem in making sure people dont get left behind because of miscalculations etc; of course this is highly theoretical and most commmunist states have proved that its not as easy as i picture it. What i dont like about the current situation is the amount of waste our economy produces. With the need to constantly and instantly supply people theres a lot of excess production especially in the food industry which makes me rage hard. People starving in certain regions of the world just so that John Doe can get his Big Mac in less than a minute? The amount of food (and other goods) simply thrown away is a testament to the opportunistic way western businesses have to please the customer to stay in the competition. Im not a big fan of this wasteful behaviour even tho im not better than most probably, but whatever. What would life be if you couldnt do some ranting.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
Oh hi L
Case in point.
I really don't think I need empirical proof, as much as an abolitionist didn't. And I already said, there is no double standard, one can desire a state for any number of ends, praxeologically so. Just as much people can jump off buildings thinking they can fly. The role of the libertarian is not to prove that it should always be the case that people will prefer peace, just to argue that peace is a much better means for almost any wants, long term.
On September 16 2010 11:02 ChinaRestaurant wrote: Of course there would be private property to a certain degree, but the government would supply each individual with a certain standard of base goods (housing food electricity water etc) and for their labour a certain amount of currency to satisfy their personal interests with, key being that each individual no matter in which position gets the same. As i said what i find most interesting about this concept is that education is really a matter of interest rather than obligation.
I dont see where you go with self replicating robots. Why do you think they would be necessary? Even though it might not be the fairest system, people without a certain degree of education would have to work somewhere to justify their existance in this system by doing ANY kind of work the government would issue them. Its not an utopian scheme at all, everyone with a bit of sense would see this in a second, but i think it would allow for an overall better lifestyle for the individual.
In our current situation theres unemployment really only for the reason that current wages wouldnt be realistic if each person able to work a job would because the need for working hours would drop to a minimum, talking about like 3 hours a day here maybe. This way theres a sense of artificial scarcity that employers can abuse to cherrypick whoever they like and lots of other applications simply go into the trashcan. In austria for instance theres an extreme shortage of civil servants like in much of europe really. Still theyre jobs that need to be filled and why shouldnt they if it would only take a fraction of time of what it has to be now. Some would have to work on agriculture while others work in retirement homes etc. Education would be a huge sector in this kind of system since its the only thing which would differentiate between individuals. In my opinion the whole educational system is (pretty much across the globe i think) a lot LOT LOT worse than it could be, and to advance as a race, which this whole concept should be about, education is the key to advance faster and with fewer setbacks, while supporting our planet by not exploiting its riches for "imaginary" wealth.
Holy crap sorry for my crappy post structure, i just like writing what gets in my head instead of thinking about it, organizing it and then posting it. ;P
Also thanks for reminding me of the venus project, was wondering about the name for some time and forgot where i saw it.
edit: typo etc
You seem to be under the impression that employers make employment artificially scarce. Is this correct? Also I support unschooling (as well?).
I cant really tell you if its true or not, but it certainly seems this way to me. Employers only get who they want and the rest can die of poverty for all they care since its not longer their concern. Employers are after employees that increase their monetary wealth, so theyll get only as many as they need to stay in the competition game with other companies. In my system there wouldnt be an "employer" in the sense of the word but rather an obligation to contribute to society in some way or another. This would mean there is no real limit to how many people get employed and with the limited salary each individual is granted, there should(!) be no problem in making sure people dont get left behind because of miscalculations etc; of course this is highly theoretical and most commmunist states have proved that its not as easy as i picture it. What i dont like about the current situation is the amount of waste our economy produces. With the need to constantly and instantly supply people theres a lot of excess production especially in the food industry which makes me rage hard. People starving in certain regions of the world just so that John Doe can get his Big Mac in less than a minute? The amount of food (and other goods) simply thrown away is a testament to the opportunistic way western businesses have to please the customer to stay in the competition. Im not a big fan of this wasteful behaviour even tho im not better than most probably, but whatever. What would life be if you couldnt do some ranting.
So you find it unfair that employees can only be employed if the employer wants? Well, do you also find it unfair with the employer that he can only employ those who want to be employed? Aren't you ignoring the other side of the exchange?
In your system, if there's a positive obligation to work, and there's an enforcer for that obligation, then that enforcer is the employer - that employer is the owner of the means of production... Even if it's owned by a syndicate, it's still owned by them, and they will try to stop anyone else from taking over or 'misusing' the capital.
Try to formalize the theory of property, it will make more sense for both you and I.
I didnt say i find it unfair, i said that in the current system owning a company is about generating monetary wealth rather than "social" wealth. What i wanted to point out is that unemployment comes with the ability to choose your employees.
As for the enforcement part, its no different than in any other system really. If you want to live you have to work for it. Who enforces it is of no real interest (at least to me). Of course you could argue that with only one employer the power lies with this one employer rather than multiple employers in the ancap system. Both systems have their flaws, but ill just defend my resource based economy for now. With only one employer theres no pressure to outperform your competitors which means that there would be no reason to exploit anything (or anyone) in order to get ahead of your competition. Thats the main profit of having a central employer responsible of every employee. No exploitation of workers is for me better than potentially offering your employees a superior working area and salary at the expense of everyone elses.
edit: that being said ill go to bed now, thanks for answering to my post.
On September 16 2010 12:01 ChinaRestaurant wrote: I didnt say i find it unfair, i said that in the current system owning a company is about generating monetary wealth rather than "social" wealth. What i wanted to point out is that unemployment comes with the ability to choose your employees.
As for the enforcement part, its no different than in any other system really. If you want to live you have to work for it. Who enforces it is of no real interest (at least to me). Of course you could argue that with only one employer the power lies with this one employer rather than multiple employers in the ancap system. Both systems have their flaws, but ill just defend my resource based economy for now. With only one employer theres no pressure to outperform your competitors which means that there would be no reason to exploit anything (or anyone) in order to get ahead of your competition. Thats the main profit of having a central employer responsible of every employee. No exploitation of workers is for me better than potentially offering your employees a superior working area and salary at the expense of everyone elses.
edit: that being said ill go to bed now, thanks for answering to my post.
What incentive the central employer has to not do the exact same things you accuse the private employers of doing?
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
Oh hi L
Case in point.
I really don't think I need empirical proof, as much as an abolitionist didn't. And I already said, there is no double standard, one can desire a state for any number of ends, praxeologically so. Just as much people can jump off buildings thinking they can fly. The role of the libertarian is not to prove that it should always be the case that people will prefer peace, just to argue that peace is a much better means for almost any wants, long term.
There's a pretty huge double standard in saying that your empirically derived preferences for a certain social system is superior to the world's entire historical body of knowledge discounting the idea's feasibility.
The rest of your post equivocates so much that I don't feel like answering.
Probably because exposing the double standard that ancap proponents need to use in order to get out from under the crushing lack of empirical evidence for their theory is ultimately fatal to your position.
But feel free to carry on explicitly ignoring deathblows to your position and pretending to escape unscathed. It actually looks pretty good to people skimming the thread without actually reading properly.
Oh hi L
Case in point.
I really don't think I need empirical proof, as much as an abolitionist didn't. And I already said, there is no double standard, one can desire a state for any number of ends, praxeologically so. Just as much people can jump off buildings thinking they can fly. The role of the libertarian is not to prove that it should always be the case that people will prefer peace, just to argue that peace is a much better means for almost any wants, long term.
There's a pretty huge double standard in saying that your empirically derived preferences for a certain social system is superior to the world's entire historical body of knowledge discounting the idea's feasibility.
My preferences aren't empirically derived, mostly. Then even if they were, so what? Inventors and investors (oh wow it's almost the same word, never noticed that) throughout history have demonstrated that they can take their preferences, create and develop upon them, and then other people, who never acknowledge such, eventually adopted them too. There is a precedent to outdoing the entire human history, it's called every popular invention ever.
There are unpopular-hence-unsuccessful ones, sure, but if you were to discriminate them a-priori to be either, then no invention could ever become successful ever, because people would conform to the status quo, and nothing new would be done. So please, discuss the merits of ancap without appealing to tradition.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
*More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
Ok. Crusoe economics. Man's wants are W. Man's means are M. Means have inputs and outputs. I and O. Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M. Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E. Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X. A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is... W = M - Z W = M - (X-E) Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics. Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange. So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C. C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me. edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
And that's just ex-ante
Wait, W=M-X+E? So wants=means+expectations-experience? Why is this? Why is W=M-Z? If Z was 0, we would get all we want? Also, trade happens when E1*E2>0 Define E1 and E2 mathematically. How do you calculate E1 and/or E2? What're the use of I and O? Also, why all the words? Define your variables, and prove! The words aren't operations. I've never heard of a "man will trade" or "man will not trade" operation. Why is E1'=/=E2? Can you define E1' please? And then define E2? And then give a proof using variables to show they cannot possibly be equal? I mean, you're giving a LOT of assumptions here. Proofs usually start with like, 2 axioms or something, and continue on. I have no idea where you get all these things from. o.O
Edit: You shouldn't hate math if your results are logically strong. I mean, math is simply using numbers instead of words to represent logic. It allows for a much more clear, pristine argument. If you wanted to convince us with undeniable logic, use math, because what you prove with mathematics is almost always solid.
It is quite ridiculous to think that somehow Anarcho-Capitalism is better than the current system. I am not surprised, however, when academic communities in their theorycrafting bubble see how imperfect the best available system is (the one we have) and decide that going backwards is somehow going forwards.
World history is essentially a history of people not learning from history and cycles of repeating past mistakes over, and over, and over...ugh it is so foolish to think this is better.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
*More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
Ok. Crusoe economics. Man's wants are W. Man's means are M. Means have inputs and outputs. I and O. Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M. Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E. Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X. A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is... W = M - Z W = M - (X-E) Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics. Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange. So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C. C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me. edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
And that's just ex-ante
Wait, W=M-X+E? So wants=means+expectations-experience? Why is this? Why is W=M-Z? If Z was 0, we would get all we want? Also, trade happens when E1*E2>0 Define E1 and E2 mathematically. How do you calculate E1 and/or E2? What're the use of I and O? Also, why all the words? Define your variables, and prove! The words aren't operations. I've never heard of a "man will trade" or "man will not trade" operation. Why is E1'=/=E2? Can you define E1' please? And then define E2? And then give a proof using variables to show they cannot possibly be equal? I mean, you're giving a LOT of assumptions here. Proofs usually start with like, 2 axioms or something, and continue on. I have no idea where you get all these things from. o.O
Edit: You shouldn't hate math if your results are logically strong. I mean, math is simply using numbers instead of words to represent logic. It allows for a much more clear, pristine argument. If you wanted to convince us with undeniable logic, use math, because what you prove with mathematics is almost always solid.
Well I told you that trying to do math with praxeology sounds nutty.
W=M-Z means that 'wants are met through means minus error. Z is better called error Error is the difference between what is expected to happen and what happens., W=M-(X-E) W=M-X+E makes less sense... wants are met with means, minus the experience plus expectancy... hmm yeah something went wrong there. I will think some more on how to put this.
E1 is the expectancy of person 1, E2 that of person 2. And it's not that they can't be equal but... the complexity of human psyche makes it so that it's almost impossible to be so. Not even exact twins who live together all their lives have the exact same expectations. But I think this is the wrong frame to put catallactics on... something is off again.
Yeah well, I wish I could put into math, but it's not an easy thing to do and, to the economists that do, they overaggregate and equivocate a lot, especially when it comes to government spending.
On September 16 2010 12:48 0neder wrote: It is quite ridiculous to think that somehow Anarcho-Capitalism is better than the current system. I am not surprised, however, when academic communities in their theorycrafting bubble see how imperfect the best available system is (the one we have) and decide that going backwards is somehow going forwards.
World history is essentially a history of people not learning from history and cycles of repeating past mistakes over, and over, and over...ugh it is so foolish to think this is better.
Then even if they were, so what? Inventors and investors (oh wow it's almost the same word, never noticed that) throughout history have demonstrated that they can take their preferences, create and develop upon them, and then other people, who never acknowledge such, eventually adopted them too.
This is more like trying to develop a feces launching catapult made out of gold, rubies and diamonds and telling me that a-priori my experiences with feces don't qualify me to tell you that your development is terrible or that the entire history of catapult making is irrelevant as evidence towards the wastefulness of your artfully placed gemstones.
Until you can handle the issue of physical force without pretending people are going to be nice and not use it, your arguments always devolve and create a PDA as a sovereign force according to the classical Hobbesian definition of what a sovereign is. But then you're boned because your PDA's theoretical purpose is to maximize its own profit as per market forces, which then has it exploit its protectorate to a degree only found in fairly low-redistributive co-efficient kleptocracies.
You've been consistently avoiding this point because its a point you simply can't define away. Physical coercion exists and your fantasy can't wish it away.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
*More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
Ok. Crusoe economics. Man's wants are W. Man's means are M. Means have inputs and outputs. I and O. Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M. Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E. Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X. A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is... W = M - Z W = M - (X-E) Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics. Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange. So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C. C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me. edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
And that's just ex-ante
Wait, W=M-X+E? So wants=means+expectations-experience? Why is this? Why is W=M-Z? If Z was 0, we would get all we want? Also, trade happens when E1*E2>0 Define E1 and E2 mathematically. How do you calculate E1 and/or E2? What're the use of I and O? Also, why all the words? Define your variables, and prove! The words aren't operations. I've never heard of a "man will trade" or "man will not trade" operation. Why is E1'=/=E2? Can you define E1' please? And then define E2? And then give a proof using variables to show they cannot possibly be equal? I mean, you're giving a LOT of assumptions here. Proofs usually start with like, 2 axioms or something, and continue on. I have no idea where you get all these things from. o.O
Edit: You shouldn't hate math if your results are logically strong. I mean, math is simply using numbers instead of words to represent logic. It allows for a much more clear, pristine argument. If you wanted to convince us with undeniable logic, use math, because what you prove with mathematics is almost always solid.
Well I told you that trying to do math with praxeology sounds nutty.
W=M-Z means that 'wants are met through means minus error. Z is better called error Error is the difference between what is expected to happen and what happens., W=M-(X-E) W=M-X+E makes less sense... wants are met with means, minus the experience plus expectancy... hmm yeah something went wrong there. I will think some more on how to put this.
E1 is the expectancy of person 1, E2 that of person 2. And it's not that they can't be equal but... the complexity of human psyche makes it so that it's almost impossible to be so. Not even exact twins who live together all their lives have the exact same expectations. But I think this is the wrong frame to put catallactics on... something is off again.
Yeah well, I wish I could put into math, but it's not an easy thing to do and, to the economists that do, they overaggregate and equivocate a lot, especially when it comes to government spending.
But how do we calculate them mathematically? Specifically, E1 or E2? I guess you could say they're of different values, but then we can't really specify the values. It might be possible E1=E2, it might be possible E1=/=E2. I mean, y=x is true. y=x+1 means y=/=x, and that can be true too. So why is E1=/=E2 mathematically? How do you calculate them? Also, what do you mathematically mean by overaggregate? Do they add together too many numbers? Do they use too many numbers in their average? Do they use too many addition signs? Too many integrals? What? What is a mathematical example of overaggregation? Take this paper: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr393.pdf and tell me what you would do with it mathematically so they get rid of this "overaggregation" problem. How do you stop it from happening in the equations?
Then even if they were, so what? Inventors and investors (oh wow it's almost the same word, never noticed that) throughout history have demonstrated that they can take their preferences, create and develop upon them, and then other people, who never acknowledge such, eventually adopted them too.
This is more like trying to develop a feces launching catapult made out of gold, rubies and diamonds and telling me that a-priori my experiences with feces don't qualify me to tell you that your development is terrible or that the entire history of catapult making is irrelevant as evidence towards the wastefulness of your artfully placed gemstones.
Until you can handle the issue of physical force without pretending people are going to be nice and not use it, your arguments always devolve and create a PDA as a sovereign force according to the classical Hobbesian definition of what a sovereign is. But then you're boned because your PDA's theoretical purpose is to maximize its own profit as per market forces, which then has it exploit its protectorate to a degree only found in fairly low-redistributive co-efficient kleptocracies.
You've been consistently avoiding this point because its a point you simply can't define away. Physical coercion exists and your fantasy can't wish it away.
I do agree that your experiences justify your thought that it's a waste of time making such a catapult. But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances. Your experience draws theories of causation. It's those theories that have to be compared, not necessarily how they were drawn.
The state is only a deterrent for physical coercion insofar as it creates its own kind of coercion that has to be dealt with... it can't define it away either... it is just driven by political motive instead.
On September 16 2010 10:18 ghrur wrote: You know, after I learned about economics a little more, I really appreciate the mathematics involved. So Yurebis, do this for us: Give a hypothesis about an-cap being better using mathematics Prove it.
See, the way most economists put it is like this: You can hide behind semantics, verbose arguments, confusing words, but you can't hide your arguments in mathematics. If you can't put it into math, it's a shitty argument. If it's a shitty argument, it's going to be obvious. So, prove it in math.
*More word arguments instead of math*
Protip: Start small.
Ok. Crusoe economics. Man's wants are W. Man's means are M. Means have inputs and outputs. I and O. Man tries to satisfy W with the most cost-beneficial M. Ex-ante, the evaluation of M's (as maximizers of W's) is called expectation, E. Ex-post, the evaluation of M's is called experience, X. A malinvestment occurs ex-post, when X and E have a considerable mismatch, I'll call it Z.
So.. what can be done with this is... W = M - Z W = M - (X-E) Hm I'm not good with math tbh but you can plug in what I said above better
Catallactics. Trades only happen when expectations, E, are positive, or in other words, both parties have positive expectations to the satisfaction of their wants in that agreeable means of exchange. So trade only happens when E1*E2>0
Man will never trade when his expectations are negative, and when such an exchange happens, I call it coercion, C. C is E1*E2<=0
The <= is debatable but w/e
I'll do more later maybe. Math disgusts me. edit: to add a little something, government intervention necessarily is coercion, because it doesn't let E2 (if the bureaucrat is E1) to express itself, so there's no real E2 to input. The E2 is actually another E1`, or a hunch to what the government thinks people expect. E1` can never be equal to E2, so whatever transaction it is, it is going to be calculated wrong - either too much is being done for an expectation that isn't so positive, or the transaction shouldn't have occured because it's negative.
Also because it mixes the costs within those expectations; the state doesn't spend out of its own pocket, it steals from E2 too, lol so it's a huge mess, but to express it I'd have to expand the variables to do that and I just can't figure how atm.
And that's just ex-ante
Wait, W=M-X+E? So wants=means+expectations-experience? Why is this? Why is W=M-Z? If Z was 0, we would get all we want? Also, trade happens when E1*E2>0 Define E1 and E2 mathematically. How do you calculate E1 and/or E2? What're the use of I and O? Also, why all the words? Define your variables, and prove! The words aren't operations. I've never heard of a "man will trade" or "man will not trade" operation. Why is E1'=/=E2? Can you define E1' please? And then define E2? And then give a proof using variables to show they cannot possibly be equal? I mean, you're giving a LOT of assumptions here. Proofs usually start with like, 2 axioms or something, and continue on. I have no idea where you get all these things from. o.O
Edit: You shouldn't hate math if your results are logically strong. I mean, math is simply using numbers instead of words to represent logic. It allows for a much more clear, pristine argument. If you wanted to convince us with undeniable logic, use math, because what you prove with mathematics is almost always solid.
Well I told you that trying to do math with praxeology sounds nutty.
W=M-Z means that 'wants are met through means minus error. Z is better called error Error is the difference between what is expected to happen and what happens., W=M-(X-E) W=M-X+E makes less sense... wants are met with means, minus the experience plus expectancy... hmm yeah something went wrong there. I will think some more on how to put this.
E1 is the expectancy of person 1, E2 that of person 2. And it's not that they can't be equal but... the complexity of human psyche makes it so that it's almost impossible to be so. Not even exact twins who live together all their lives have the exact same expectations. But I think this is the wrong frame to put catallactics on... something is off again.
Yeah well, I wish I could put into math, but it's not an easy thing to do and, to the economists that do, they overaggregate and equivocate a lot, especially when it comes to government spending.
But how do we calculate them mathematically? Specifically, E1 or E2? I guess you could say they're of different values, but then we can't really specify the values. It might be possible E1=E2, it might be possible E1=/=E2. I mean, y=x is true. y=x+1 means y=/=x, and that can be true too. So why is E1=/=E2 mathematically? How do you calculate them? Also, what do you mathematically mean by overaggregate? Do they add together too many numbers? Do they use too many numbers in their average? Do they use too many addition signs? Too many integrals? What? What is a mathematical example of overaggregation? Take this paper: http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/sr/sr393.pdf and tell me what you would do with it mathematically so they get rid of this "overaggregation" problem. How do you stop it from happening in the equations?
You can't measure wants, obviously, so no further factorization is measurable either. Perhaps that is one of the key things that 'math economists' if i may call them that, fail to understand? You can measure activity, and established exchange values, but those are second-hand measurements to wants. Everything past that assumption is going to be distorted. That's one key difference between austrian economics and the rest - AE says the only way to maximize a person's wants, is to let him/her choose. The moment you try to estimate how much it wants something, it will be subpar already.
Edit: the only way I see it working is if brains were scannable. Constantly.
What you need to do is model everyone as a stochastic processes. E's varies depend on exchange rates and the M Similarly M's varies as a stochastic over time You need to transform the M's into W, let's call this function T(M) which also behave slightly errratically and varies from person to person.
The aggregation of M is a histogram. Let's call this "supply". The aggregation of E is always negative. The size of the negative value depends on the transaction costs of the economy. This is the "expect trade" valuation and it is assuming certain exchange rates - a pricing schedule that each individual faces. Now individuals don't have to face the same pricing schedule. If you aggregate M1+E1 over all kinds of pricing schedules, you get something called a "demand" distribution.
As defined, T1(M1+E1) and T2(M2+E2) are maximals based on pricing schedules, so anything different is "inefficient." Aggregation of T(M+X) - T(M+E1) is just total "deadweight loss." You'll need a model for how price schedules of individuals behave and the transactions costs of the economy to be able to solve for E1, E2, E3, E4.
In the real world M is a lot more than two inputs; not just X's and O's. Aggregation of course is fraught with assumption about pricing schedules and transaction costs, etc. Macro has too much hand waving for my tastes.
But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances.
You have decided to debate that a gold and diamond shit flinger could in some magic circumstance be profitable or work.
Similarly, you could make any preposterous statement then qualify it by saying "there might be some condition X under which it would work" while admitting it has zero present value and zero foreseeable value.
Its valid because it might not be strictly wrong under conditions we can't ascertain? Sounds like a good theory.
The state is only a deterrent for physical coercion insofar as it creates its own kind of coercion that has to be dealt with... it can't define it away either... it is just driven by political motive instead.
The state doesn't define it away either, nor does it attempt to. The state has a monopoly of power over an area and properly stated the person or institution who has a monopoly of power over an area is its sovereign.
But the state doesn't need to define it away because the state's claim to fame isn't that it has no coercion, but rather that unified coercion is peace, whereas struggling factions attempting to monopolize power is war. War sucks, ergo any state is awesome unless the net improvement of life by rebelling or revolting is superior to the cost of the instigation itself.
On September 16 2010 14:13 TanGeng wrote: What you need to do is model everyone as a stochastic processes. E's varies depend on exchange rates and the M Similarly M's varies as a stochastic over time You need to transform the M's into W, let's call this function T(M) which also behave slightly errratically and varies from person to person.
The aggregation of M is a histogram. Let's call this "supply". The aggregation of E is always negative. The size of the negative value depends on the transaction costs of the economy. This is the "expect trade" valuation and it is assuming certain exchange rates - a pricing schedule that each individual faces. Now individuals don't have to face the same pricing schedule. If you aggregate M1+E1 over all kinds of pricing schedules, you get something called a "demand" distribution.
As defined, T1(M1+E1) and T2(M2+E2) are maximals based on pricing schedules, so anything different is "inefficient." Aggregation of T(M+X) - T(M+E1) is just total "deadweight loss." You'll need a model for how price schedules of individuals behave and the transactions costs of the economy to be able to solve for E1, E2, E3, E4.
In the real world M is a lot more than two inputs; not just X's and O's. Aggregation of course is fraught with assumption about pricing schedules and transaction costs, etc. Macro has too much hand waving for my tastes.
Oh wow I have no idea what you just said but looks awesome lols
But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances.
You have decided to debate that a gold and diamond shit flinger could in some magic circumstance be profitable or work.
Similarly, you could make any preposterous statement then qualify it by saying "there might be some condition X under which it would work" while admitting it has zero present value and zero foreseeable value.
Its valid because it might not be strictly wrong under conditions we can't ascertain? Sounds like a good theory.
In your original function you should have written W = M + X <= this is actual Z = X - E
but since you defined M as resources and mean, you actual need to transform those means to meet your want so you need a function T. X is a delta (a change in how well your means go towards addressing your wants) from the unmodified (no trade scenario) and so is E. So perhaps W = T(M) + dT(x) Z = dT(x) - dT(e)
if we keep X as amount of trade to achieve what is actually experience and E the amount of trade that is optimal, you get dT(x) = T(M+X) - T(M) dT(e) = T(M+E) - T(M) Z = T(M+X) - T(M+E) since dT(e) is a maximal, we can see that it can never be less than 0 (no trading at all)
The possible trades that an individual can make depends on his personal and impersonal connections. A wholesaler might have exceptional ability to get better prices, a person with a drug dealer friend connection might get the friend discount, etc. Price discrimination is a part of society. The merchant is mere an arbitrager and consciously chooses to arbitrage based on his connections.
The other idea is transaction costs. Any trade transaction will be pairing one receiving one side of the exchange and one side receiving the other side. But there are transaction costs associated with trades between individuals. Food can perish, transportation costs fuel, etc. There is plenty of non-uniformity in transaction costs.
The problem with aggregation is abstracting away non-uniformity of price schedules through price discrimination and abstracting away non-uniformity of transaction costs. It only makes for cleaner mathematical functions and models.
As far as what stochastic means, it's used to describe observed random variation of a value over time inside a constrained system. It's not perfect description of drifting changes in human behavior and human preferences, but models will have to acknowledge the changes of human preference over time within the constraints of human society.
But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances.
You have decided to debate that a gold and diamond shit flinger could in some magic circumstance be profitable or work.
Similarly, you could make any preposterous statement then qualify it by saying "there might be some condition X under which it would work" while admitting it has zero present value and zero foreseeable value.
Its valid because it might not be strictly wrong under conditions we can't ascertain? Sounds like a good theory.
On September 16 2010 15:10 TanGeng wrote: [good shit]
Ty for your hard work. I would honestly consider what you have derived but I really suck at math sry. But as long as you don't assume uniform utility functions to everyone and stuff like that, your model is probably praxeologically valid and I'd love to understand it... though it would be so general as to not be able to calculate much, besides probably the known rules of time preference, marginal utility, and stuff that austrians already know w/o math.
But your experiences alone tell nothing as to whether a future catapult may work or have a profitable use in different circumstances.
You have decided to debate that a gold and diamond shit flinger could in some magic circumstance be profitable or work.
Similarly, you could make any preposterous statement then qualify it by saying "there might be some condition X under which it would work" while admitting it has zero present value and zero foreseeable value.
Its valid because it might not be strictly wrong under conditions we can't ascertain? Sounds like a good theory.
Yes.
GG. End of Thread.
Not rly, he just made a tautological assessment, he hasn't explained what are those conditions that prevent ancap. And he just appeals to ignorance when he says he can't either. Well if you can't, then don't, simple, lol, I'm not requiring him to come here and appeal to tradition...
I can levy a number of criticisms about human nature that apply equally to Anarcho-Capitalism and "The State," and just because they do, doesn't mean Anarcho-Capitalism is a better answer. In fact, I think it's a far worse solution than most of what we've got, and most of the "institutions" we've got now, will arise in an Anarchist society (albeit in a different guise) just like they've appeared in the past.
I say this as someone who was an "Anarchist" for years. Lived in a commune for some time, and saw first hand how tragically flawed that sort of "system" is. I'm convinced that most proponents of (whatever form of) Anarchism spent more time reading about it in books and less time actually trying to live it. When you attempt the latter, it doesn't take long to see that it doesn't matter what "system" you're following - people are the reason most things in society suck, and people are (obviously) part of every system.
From my experience, Anarchism is a pipe-dream (with great intentions); but god forbid anyone say that, because you're instantly labelled as a rigid thinking, right-wing, capitalist, conservative.
I can levy a number of criticisms about human nature that apply equally to Anarcho-Capitalism and "The State," and just because they do, doesn't mean Anarcho-Capitalism is a better answer. In fact, I think it's a far worse solution than most of what we've got, and most of the "institutions" we've got now, will arise in an Anarchist society (albeit in a different guise) just like they've appeared in the past.
I say this as someone who was an "Anarchist" for years. Lived in a commune for some time, and saw first hand how tragically flawed that sort of "system" is. I'm convinced that most proponents of (whatever form of) Anarchism spent more time reading about it in books and less time actually trying to live it. When you attempt the latter, it doesn't take long to see that it doesn't matter what "system" you're following - people are the reason most things in society suck, and people are (obviously) part of every system.
From my experience, Anarchism is a pipe-dream (with great intentions); but god forbid anyone say that, because you're instantly labelled as a rigid thinking, right-wing, capitalist, conservative.
Why have these institutions always appeared in the past, and why will they always appear again? Rape has also always happened in the past. Will rape always happen in the future?
I apologize if someone in this thread already has made an economical argument. went through about 15 pages and everyone seems focused on "human nature".
The Great Depression taught the world unrestricted Laissez-faire capitalism will eventually fail. In order for capitalism in general to work, the market needs to be competitive. The issue is, market is never perfectly competitive.
It is easy for bigger entities in the market to drive smaller ones out of business through sheer means of force. (i.e. A company with large market share can lower its price below its cost until its competitors are out of business, since it can last longer due to its size) Eventually creating bunch of monopolies which are not economically efficient entities in a market.This is what happened during the 20s in USA, and when these companies failed due to sudden decrease in demand, the market could not handle the shock and collapsed.
The argument against a state is that state creates inefficiency by control, and market would do fine if not better without this control. unrestricted capitalism was a failed experiment in that the Laissez-faire market itself ironically created inefficiency through monopolies.
While taxes indeed create inefficiency, the government creates efficiency by creating rules in the market, such as Anti-Trust laws.The states' job (a capitalistic one anyway) is to steer the market towards reaching the perfect competition.
Financial market is another big one. Who gets to control supply of money in an unrestricted market? Go back to bartering? Standardization (not just money for this) leads to efficiency and in turn leads to faster development. Same thing with investment markets like stocks and bonds. Even with a government entities like SEC in place, people STILL find way to cheat the stock market. Without any regulations in these markets, its too easy to exploit the system especially in an age of the internet.
Also, things that should be public, like healthcare (yes americans, it should be public) and education. Health care because of moral hazard and adverse selection, education because of unequal opportunity among people. Go look up Akerlof's lemon argument if you want to know more about why private health insurance doesn't work.
Education...in an unrestricted market, people who have rich parents have enormous advantage over people who have poor parents simply because schools would not be free in this kind of society.hell, calling the police wouldn't be free. House on fire? $$$ please. I'm sorry you can't drive this way because you didn't pay the fee to my company.
People argue that with enough demand, laws, infrastructure and other things will be created through private means. They are probably right. And people in this kind of society would pay dues to road companies, police companies, schools, hospitals and fire stations instead of the government, paying just as much "tax" if not more. In fact I think we would have to pay more since everything would be localized but that is beside the point.
So what's the difference? Firms are out to maximize profit. DEMOCRATIC government is out to look out for public interest.Result of Anarcho-captalism will be disgusting social inequality where the rich gets best of all and the poor are left in the dust with even smaller opportunities than now. Big companies driving everyone else out of business, essentially becoming a government entities. And when these enormous companies fail, the society will collapse.
TL;DR The Great Depression already taught us why unrestricted capitalism is bad.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: I apologize if someone in this thread already has made an economical argument. went through about 15 pages and everyone seems focused on "human nature".
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: The Great Depression taught the world unrestricted Laissez-faire capitalism will eventually fail. In order for capitalism in general to work, the market needs to be competitive. The issue is, market is never perfectly competitive.
It is easy for bigger entities in the market to drive smaller ones out of business through sheer means of force. (i.e. A company with large market share can lower its price below its cost until its competitors are out of business, since it can last longer due to its size) Eventually creating bunch of monopolies which are not economically efficient entities in a market.This is what happened during the 20s in USA, and when these companies failed due to sudden decrease in demand, the market could not handle the shock and collapsed.
The argument against a state is that state creates inefficiency by control, and market would do fine if not better without this control. unrestricted capitalism was a failed experiment in that the Laissez-faire market itself ironically created inefficiency through monopolies.
While taxes indeed create inefficiency, the government creates efficiency by creating rules in the market, such as Anti-Trust laws.The states' job (a capitalistic one anyway) is to steer the market towards reaching the perfect competition.
Perfect competition is the perfect nirvana fallacy... not only is it unrealistic, but it is questionable whether it is desirable at all. Perfect competition would have you thinking that the market reaches an ideal point where all suppliers sell the same crap, at the same price, side by side on the supermarket shelves. But this is ridiculous. Market competition is not about that at all. Market competition IS about product and price discrimination, about positional advantages, about cutting corners and trying to be the best.
Like you said, the market is never perfectly competitive, but that is a great thing. It would suck to live in a world where government mandates everyone to be equal. What you call perfect competition is actually "no competition", because the best are handicapped by regulation, and the worst are subsidized at the cost of everyone else. Hardly desirable.
I would recommend neoclassicals to stop looking at charts for economical guidance and instead ask themselves whether breaking legs can lead to greater economical performance. A much easier and accurate question; one that doesn't assume people are robots who follow a one-line utility function at that. Perfect competition would be great for robots, I'll agree with that.
Also
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: This is what happened during the 20s in USA
No it was not, I invite you to see the revisionist evidence on the case, and stop accepting the statist excuses at face value. See any related link on the OP.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: Financial market is another big one. Who gets to control supply of money in an unrestricted market? Go back to bartering? Standardization (not just money for this) leads to efficiency and in turn leads to faster development. Same thing with investment markets like stocks and bonds. Even with a government entities like SEC in place, people STILL find way to cheat the stock market. Without any regulations in these markets, its too easy to exploit the system especially in an age of the internet.
Are you saying the socialized inspector or watchdog is better than a private one? Because this is what comes down to. Never mind that you're criticizing a state watchdog for not being able to do what he's supposed to do (I agree with that), but you're implying that no one else could do any better. Why?
Technology goes both ways; as much as it helps fraudsters, it helps investigators as well, so unless you want to elaborate on why is the case that technology enables fraud more than defense, I don't feel like elaborating myself.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: Also, things that should be public, like healthcare (yes americans, it should be public) and education. Health care because of moral hazard and adverse selection, education because of unequal opportunity among people. Go look up Akerlof's lemon argument if you want to know more about why private health insurance doesn't work.
That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: Education...in an unrestricted market, people who have rich parents have enormous advantage over people who have poor parents simply because schools would not be free in this kind of society.hell, calling the police wouldn't be free. House on fire? $$$ please. I'm sorry you can't drive this way because you didn't pay the fee to my company.
Who pays the schools today, and why can't those same people afford education without the state? It's the people themselves; schools are paid through property taxes of the region... the idea that the poor couldn't wipe their own butts without the state is a joke. It's actually the opposite, the state education makes people more impoverished. $10k/year/student, when private schools do it for $2.5k? That's ideal for you?
State roads, with 300k deaths a year, gas tax with 50 cents per every gallon? All drivers already pay abusive prices to the monopolized street owner aka state...
I don't know about firefighters but I hear most of them are funded voluntarily. Please provide evidence that 1- they aren't and cannot be paid voluntarily, and 2- it would be more efficient to pay them through taxes, before you pull out the gunverment.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: People argue that with enough demand, laws, infrastructure and other things will be created through private means. They are probably right. And people in this kind of society would pay dues to road companies, police companies, schools, hospitals and fire stations instead of the government, paying just as much "tax" if not more. In fact I think we would have to pay more since everything would be localized but that is beside the point.
It wouldn't be more expensive, nor would it necessarily be more localized. Competing entrepreneurs would determine what model is most efficient to provide a service, and that can be either small or international depending on the demand and the service.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: So what's the difference? Firms are out to maximize profit. DEMOCRATIC government is out to look out for public interest.Result of Anarcho-captalism will be disgusting social inequality where the rich gets best of all and the poor are left in the dust with even smaller opportunities than now. Big companies driving everyone else out of business, essentially becoming a government entities. And when these enormous companies fail, the society will collapse.
Biased comparison. Both systems seek to fulfill demand. A fair examination would be to compare the incentives and mechanisms of a representative v. entrepreneur. Also, the greatest monopoly is the state, so if you're against an entity forcibly putting people out of business, how about looking at the Leviathan itself? Businesses can only put one another out of business by better supplying demand, hardly a perversion of the NAP or private property, and hardly something undesirable either. If it wasn't representative of consumer demand, then people can simply stop buying.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: TL;DR The Great Depression already taught us why unrestricted capitalism is bad.
The Great Depression already taught us that government intervention only makes it worse. Certainly wages are sticky upward when president Hoover calls for every businesses to keep them up (along with other things), when they should go down, and then, certainly unemployment is going to go 20% because of that.
Again, I invite you to look at the material in the OP.
On September 18 2010 13:04 scion wrote: While taxes indeed create inefficiency, the government creates efficiency by creating rules in the market, such as Anti-Trust laws.The states' job (a capitalistic one anyway) is to steer the market towards reaching the perfect competition.
Anti-trust laws as oligopoly protectionist laws are even more harmful to the consumer than the monopolies they proport to prevent.
..... money, education, health care, fire stations, policing are all no problems for a market to provide. Fire protection service used to be provided by entrepreneurs and it can easy be provided by them again. Plenty of houses in California are protected by private fire protection companies.
DEMOCRATIC government is out to look out for public interest.
So idealistic and naive.
Government will look out for its OWN INTERESTS. This is true of any organization. In a democracy, the feedback for bad behavior is in elections. This has certain flaws and short comings. In a marketplace, the feedback for bad behavior is going out of business or public stonewalling and other forms of ill-will. This has another set of flaws and short comings.
The Great Depression already taught us why unrestricted capitalism is bad.
The Great Depression was a great experiment with government manipulation of capitalism. The unrestricted capitalism argument was made in 1932 and bureaucrats were given their tools in 1933 and 1934. Yet, the depression droned on for years afterwards including an echo depression starting in 1937.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: No it was not, I invite you to see the revisionist evidence on the case, and stop accepting the statist excuses at face value. See any related link on the OP.
While there is still state involved, economy before the great depression was extremely liberal capitalism, with minimal government intervention, especially compared to today. As you probably know, monopolies arose in bunch of key industry like steel, oil and automobile because of it. Rampant insider trading within the stock market led to its collapse. While I agree that it wasn't a completely unrestricted capitalism (duh) I do not see how the market would prevent such behavior when there are even less rules.
Are you saying the socialized inspector or watchdog is better than a private one? Because this is what comes down to. Never mind that you're criticizing a state watchdog for not being able to do what he's supposed to do (I agree with that), but you're implying that no one else could do any better. Why?
Technology goes both ways; as much as it helps fraudsters, it helps investigators as well, so unless you want to elaborate on why is the case that technology enables fraud more than defense, I don't feel like elaborating myself.
You didnt answer the key question in my paragraph. Who controls the supply of money in a Anarcho capitalism? One of the biggest power a government have is the power to print money. If you leave this to a firm, surely they will use this enormous power to form a government of their own?
Firms exist to make profit. Who is going to pay these investigators for what reasons? Let's say there was a demand for fraud investigators. Under current system, it is the representative of the public interest, aka the state, that is paying the investigators.
Without such entity, who is supposed to pay these guys? NYSE? the Investors?
Fraud firms have no incentive to pay for obvious reasons.
Honest firms have no incentive because they wouldn't use/need the service.
Investors would pay for auditing a firm they would like to invest but for fraud investigation? why should they pay when it wasn't their fault?
[B]On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses.
I don't think you understood the lemon argument.
Let me lay the argument out, using Health insurance industry as an example.
Let's say there are 2 types of people, the healthy and the unhealthy.
The unhealthy people want health insurance because they know they will have to go see a doctor often. (bad family history, smoker, bad life style, ect...)
Where as healthy people sort of want health insurance if its cheap. They won't be needing it much after all.
Basic coverage plans will be good deal for the sickly people. The result is people who are confident about their needs will purchase health insurance. Meaning they WILL have to use the insurance at some point.
As you probably know, insurance cannot thrive with most of the customers making a claim. Insurers are forced to cut benefits and raise the premium to cover its cost, causing people in the middle (sort of healthy) to cancel because its too expensive. This forces insurance companies to raise the premiums even higher in order to stay in business. In the end, only the most sickly and the rich will be able to afford health insurance.
Sure, the health insurance company can attempt to make more thorough background check in order to make better estimate, but the nature of this business dictates that they will NEVER be able to accurately guess a person's medical cost. If insurance companies cannot estimate the cost better than its consumer, it will simply go out of business under the burden of claims. Sickly consumers also have plenty of incentive to lie about their history.
Insurance industry can only thrive under "mutual ignorance". That's why theft/fire/automobile insurance sort of work. where as for health, you KNOW your own health. You KNOW your family history. Insurance companies dont.
This is why people keep saying Healthcare in USA is failing. This is why the USA is spending 12% of its GDP on health care. (as of 2002) compared to Canada (9%) , UK (6%) and Japan (6%) This is why 47 million+ Americans are uninsured.
This topic fast becoming trivial and boring. There exists such thing as constitutional engineering and stuff, but it is usually based on already working models, or nearly working models. However, the topic's political debate is spiraling downwards and it is becoming as already mentioned theorycrafting and science fiction. Hell, science fiction is sooooo much more interesting than what this topic has become.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Who pays the schools today, and why can't those same people afford education without the state? It's the people themselves; schools are paid through property taxes of the region... the idea that the poor couldn't wipe their own butts without the state is a joke. It's actually the opposite, the state education makes people more impoverished. $10k/year/student, when private schools do it for $2.5k? That's ideal for you?
State roads, with 300k deaths a year, gas tax with 50 cents per every gallon? All drivers already pay abusive prices to the monopolized street owner aka state...
I don't know about firefighters but I hear most of them are funded voluntarily. Please provide evidence that 1- they aren't and cannot be paid voluntarily, and 2- it would be more efficient to pay them through taxes, before you pull out the gunverment.
The rich already has better education under current system. MUCH better in fact. Under current system, private schools are not necessarily meant to make profit, but rather for prestige and higher quality education. Even amongst public schools, there are significant gaps between richer area and poorer areas.
The great equalizer here is the state. The state collects tax from its populace, and redistributes to public schools in a way so that poorer area that can't afford a school gets as much funding as richer areas's public school. The differences between 2 area even amongst public school occur because as you mentioned, portion of the property tax goes to fund portion of the public school system. If this were to be replaced by a private system, firms have no incentive to provide decent education to poorer areas that can't afford it. (the base funding from State/province government is gone)
Road and the firefighter I said sarcastically. However about the road, Japan is a great example of this. Lot of roads are tolled and the prices are absurdly high because there is no regulation on it. Unless you are gona claim firms will build multiple freeway between LA and San Francisco to compete, which would be completely absurd waste of space and create economic inefficiency through opportunity cost of the land.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
It wouldn't be more expensive, nor would it necessarily be more localized. Competing entrepreneurs would determine what model is most efficient to provide a service, and that can be either small or international depending on the demand and the service.
It would definitely be more expensive for the less wealthy areas. I said before, State act as the equalizer. State collects money from the wealthy and redistributes it so that everyone gets equal funding. If the wealthy suddenly only pays for his own police, school, and other public service, it would in fact not become any more expensive than it is now for the wealthy. but for the less wealthy, they've suddenly lost Federal, state, provincial funding and likely to give up on certain services.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Biased comparison. Both systems seek to fulfill demand. A fair examination would be to compare the incentives and mechanisms of a representative v. entrepreneur. Also, the greatest monopoly is the state, so if you're against an entity forcibly putting people out of business, how about looking at the Leviathan itself? Businesses can only put one another out of business by better supplying demand, hardly a perversion of the NAP or private property, and hardly something undesirable either. If it wasn't representative of consumer demand, then people can simply stop buying.
Business can put one another by aggressively lowering its price below its cost, which is by no means having better knowledge of supply and demand. By lowering the revenue below its cost, firm will suffer, but so will the competitor. If your firm is bigger, it can outlast their firm. After your competition starves out, you can then set the price to whatever you want.
Also, Who do you think has better incentive to provide better public welfare structure to the less wealthy? The government, who treats these people as potential voters or Firms, who are out to make more profit? Firms have no reason to provide less wealthy areas with anything more than what they can pay, which is going to be FAR less than what they are getting now.
This brings us to the great "equal opportunity" argument. This is a fundamental policy for any developed nation's education policy. To provide everyone with equal opportunity. The reason why less wealthy areas receive funding from federal/provincial/state government. (However, I do not mean they have equal chance now)
When firms control education, kids unlucky enough to be born of a poor parents will have far less opportunity than they do now. In fact, it may become like 18th century where there were no middle class, but rich employers and the labourers.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote:
The Great Depression already taught us that government intervention only makes it worse. Certainly wages are sticky upward when president Hoover calls for every businesses to keep them up (along with other things), when they should go down, and then, certainly unemployment is going to go 20% because of that.
Again, I invite you to look at the material in the OP.
Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
The whole point of talk of government intervention is NOT, I repeat, NOT to get an economy out from a slum. The point is, the regulations set in place will prevent economy from going down that road in the first place. Subprime crisis is good example. It is no where near the level of the Great depression, nor will it get to that level. We got into a recession because of it, not a depression.
Again, what I meant was events leading upto the great depression was a lesson about unrestricted economy, NOT the depression itself.
Anti-trust laws as oligopoly protectionist laws are even more harmful to the consumer than the monopolies they proport to prevent.
..... money, education, health care, fire stations, policing are all no problems for a market to provide. Fire protection service used to be provided by entrepreneurs and it can easy be provided by them again. Plenty of houses in California are protected by private fire protection companies.
You didn't make any arguments why anti trust laws are harmful than monopolies.
It prevents price fixing and abusing firm's size to destroy the market.
Again, Lack of these laws lead us to the Great depression, because in a free economy, big firms eventually take over smaller firms using its size, and when it fails, there is nothing that can replace it immediately, causing chaos such as the Great depression.
For the wealthy, it does not matter what the system is. Monarchy, Communism, Fascism, it will end up all working for the rich, because they have the resources to make their life comfortable.
I'd like to ask you, Are there any people below upper middle class that uses private fire protection companies?
So idealistic and naive.
Government will look out for its OWN INTERESTS. This is true of any organization. In a democracy, the feedback for bad behavior is in elections. This has certain flaws and short comings. In a marketplace, the feedback for bad behavior is going out of business or public stonewalling and other forms of ill-will. This has another set of flaws and short comings.
Idealistic? I merely stated what it was meant to be.Time and again I say this. In an unrestricted market, the most dominant firm will eventually take over the majority of the market share. History has taught us this. Election replaces the government. There are no equivalent replacement for a monopoly.
What about necessary goods? like gasoline? Speaking of which, who should BP answer to if there were "no representation of the public interest"? Are you gona stop buying BP oil to protest for the spill? because people attempted that and BP is doing just fine.
The Great Depression was a great experiment with government manipulation of capitalism. The unrestricted capitalism argument was made in 1932 and bureaucrats were given their tools in 1933 and 1934. Yet, the depression droned on for years afterwards including an echo depression starting in 1937.
And Hoover was no free marketeer, himself.
I agree with your first sentence. Let me state what i said again.. The events leading upto the great depression taught us that unrestricted free market is bad. Both the government and freemarket is terrible for getting an economy out of such state. the point of the government is prevent economy from going into such state in the first place.
Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
On September 18 2010 20:09 teekesselchen wrote: Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
Capitalism has no end, or more correctly, economy has no end. If there is a need for more productivity, market will figure out a way to produce it. I'm sure people in the middle ages thought the amount of steel we produce now is downright impossible to obtain.
Greed is such an ugly word. "Maximize" is the term used in economics.
On September 18 2010 20:09 teekesselchen wrote: Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
Capitalism has no end, or more correctly, economy has no end. If there is a need for more productivity, market will figure out a way to produce it. I'm sure people in the middle ages thought the amount of steel we produce now is downright impossible to obtain.
Greed is such an ugly word. "Maximize" is the term used in economics.
More is not necessarily better though. Even if there is a demand, the best thing to do doesn't have to be to produce more. Capitalism would go on increasing production indefinitely as long as some one is buying it even if the externalities end up hurting third persons more than it is helping the seller and buyer and even if the production is slowly destroying the environment and depleting the resources of tomorrow.
A constant exponential increase in production being good in the past is not proof that there will not come a point when it is bad. (Or maybe that point has already come.)
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
Far from it. The Great Depression was sown after World War I when agricultural output outpaced demand. It stayed that way throughout the 1920's. What happened in the 1920's was easy money from banks to everyone including farmers and New York Fed support of the British pound. This led to farmers getting into horrible debt to tread water and a bubble economy in the rest of the economic sectors.
When the inflationary bubble broke in 1929, the British pound also fell apart as the New York Fed withdrew its support. Normally, this would a bank panic and lots of banks would have gone out of business, property would shuffle around, and the economy would recover. A few things made this one worse. It was an international phenomenon because of the activities of the New York Fed. A drought hit the midwest and many farms became non-performing. Retaliatory tariffs against Smoot-Hawtley further hit the vulnerable American agriculture and reduced global trade in general. When it rains, it pours?
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
Hoover started trying to "fix" the economy right away. Smoot-Hawtley was in June of 1930 - not 9 months into the bubble correction. Hoover conspired to keep prices high, purchased a lot of agricultural goods and left them out to rot, asked businessmen to keep wages high instead of lowering them and employing more people. A huge tax increases was passed in 1932 and local governments followed suit in an effort to try to maintain the size of government while the rest of the economy shrank.
Underlined statement is dead on. Compare and contrast Hoover policies and Roosevelt policies. They're nearly identical in rationale.
More is not necessarily better though. Even if there is a demand, the best thing to do doesn't have to be to produce more. Capitalism would go on increasing production indefinitely as long as some one is buying it even if the externalities end up hurting third persons more than it is helping the seller and buyer and even if the production is slowly destroying the environment and depleting the resources of tomorrow.
A constant exponential increase in production being good in the past is not proof that there will not come a point when it is bad. (Or maybe that point has already come.)
Heh I was merely stating the fundamental economic concept.
I would argue that when market realize the potential threat of certain production, the demand will seize to exist. CFC and ozone layer is great example of this.
But, you may be right when it comes to current argument about global warming. Some scientists even believe its already too late and even some economists believe that when the market realizes the danger, it could be already be late.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
Far from it. The Great Depression was sown after World War I when agricultural output outpaced demand. It stayed that way throughout the 1920's. What happened in the 1920's was easy money from banks to everyone including farmers and New York Fed support of the British pound. This led to farmers getting into horrible debt to tread water and a bubble economy in the rest of the economic sectors.
When the inflationary bubble broke in 1929, the British pound also fell apart as the New York Fed withdrew its support. Normally, this would a bank panic and lots of banks would have gone out of business, property would shuffle around, and the economy would recover. A few things made this one worse. It was an international phenomenon because of the activities of the New York Fed. A drought hit the midwest and many farms became non-performing. Retaliatory tariffs against Smoot-Hawtley further hit the vulnerable American agriculture and reduced global trade in general. When it rains, it pours?
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
Hoover started trying to "fix" the economy right away. Smoot-Hawtley was in June of 1930 - not 9 months into the bubble correction. Hoover conspired to keep prices high, purchased a lot of agricultural goods and left them out to rot, asked businessmen to keep wages high instead of lowering them and employing more people. A huge tax increases was passed in 1932 and local governments followed suit in an effort to try to maintain the size of government while the rest of the economy shrank.
Underlined statement is dead on. Compare and contrast Hoover policies and Roosevelt policies. They're nearly identical in rationale.
I'm not here to argue about history, stay on topic. I'm going to keep this short. RELATIVELY speaking, the 20s economy is unrestricted free market compared to what we have now. Take a look at what happened to the steel, automobile, oil, finance, and ect. In fact, Top 200 firms assets were bigger than rest of American economy.
Farms produced alot due to demand during the War. Europe was in no position to grow food, not because government told farmers to produce more food.
Stock market back then were ridiculously unrestricted. No real measurement in place to stop insider trading. One mass panic was GG for the market. Now we have a system in place where stockmarket will close if there is a mass panic.
Hoover's effort in the earlier year was minimal at best as he let the economy fail expecting it to pick it back up by itself. You are right in that he attempted FDR style aid to the economy during his term but it was NOTHING compare to the New Deal.
1920's was freer than the current market place. That's a separate issue from trying to blame the freedom for the depression. What freedom caused the depression?
One big panic and GG? Historically bank panics, even the largest of them lasted two to three years. That sounds like a pretty mild GG.
If FDR style aid started in 1930, why didn't the economy recover to its original size until 10 years later? Hoover's intervention wasn't as large as FDR's but what did FDR's do? A small recovery until early 1937 and then an echo depression through 1938? Again compare this to the two to three years for a bank panic.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: No it was not, I invite you to see the revisionist evidence on the case, and stop accepting the statist excuses at face value. See any related link on the OP.
While there is still state involved, economy before the great depression was extremely liberal capitalism, with minimal government intervention, especially compared to today. As you probably know, monopolies arose in bunch of key industry like steel, oil and automobile because of it. Rampant insider trading within the stock market led to its collapse. While I agree that it wasn't a completely unrestricted capitalism (duh) I do not see how the market would prevent such behavior when there are even less rules.
No. You're cherry picking evidence to correlate with the great depression. Simply asserting it to be casually related won't do. And not being able to see how people would manage risk, absent the socialized watchguards that always fail, is an argument from ignorance. If you want me to explain how, I could, but I'm not going to for someone who just proclaims that it's impossible and apparently has no interest to know. Ask me properly and I may oblige.
Are you saying the socialized inspector or watchdog is better than a private one? Because this is what comes down to. Never mind that you're criticizing a state watchdog for not being able to do what he's supposed to do (I agree with that), but you're implying that no one else could do any better. Why?
Technology goes both ways; as much as it helps fraudsters, it helps investigators as well, so unless you want to elaborate on why is the case that technology enables fraud more than defense, I don't feel like elaborating myself.
You didnt answer the key question in my paragraph. Who controls the supply of money in a Anarcho capitalism? One of the biggest power a government have is the power to print money. If you leave this to a firm, surely they will use this enormous power to form a government of their own?
Who controls the supply of shoes in ancap? Whoever makes shoes, obviously; why is it an issue to start with? Are you entitled to having things and services? I hope you don't think that. Free, noncoercive institutions, profit off realized demand. If a bank is found to be corrupt, it loses reputation and goes bankrupt, instead of you know, persisting no matter what in case the state supports it. Will a shoe seller become a hegemony and exploit everyone with their terrible, overpriced shoes? I don't know, but I would think not, and the market incentives to prevent that are more responsive than political ones. In fact, political interests would tell you that the tendency to centralize beyond return is something that the state does more often, and incentivizes with every regulation.
The banks are already a monopoly, and already use the state. You seem to have the causation chain inverted. Banks don't emerge out of proportion first, then raise their own private armies to coerce the population. That is economically unfeasible. Banks would have to overcharge their customers in order to not only provide the usual banking services, but to stockpile weapons and militias until the day they're able to gamble it all. A much easier way to massively coerce - and the way it has been done so far - is to use the legitimized statist apparatus that already exists, and pay some ten thousand dollars in lobby, leaving the police force and federal agents to be paid by the slaves themselves...
You don't get to make the population pay for it's own slavemasters UNLESS the population doesn't see it as coercion. You, the outlaw institution, would just go bankrupt in ancap. I hope this was enough of a briefing.
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: Firms exist to make profit. Who is going to pay these investigators for what reasons? Let's say there was a demand for fraud investigators. Under current system, it is the representative of the public interest, aka the state, that is paying the investigators.
Without such entity, who is supposed to pay these guys? NYSE? the Investors?
Fraud firms have no incentive to pay for obvious reasons.
Honest firms have no incentive because they wouldn't use/need the service.
Investors would pay for auditing a firm they would like to invest but for fraud investigation? why should they pay when it wasn't their fault?
It could be managed by the stock exchange organization, yeah. They can charge a minimal, <1% fee on every transaction that occurs. Maybe they already do that, I don't know, stock market is not my forte, but it's hardly difficult to charge a service for people voluntarily and publically joined in a certain market environment.
Honest firms and investors don't have an incentive to catch the cheating opposition? Are you really saying that? Certainly they do, and certainly everyone in the stock market would be willing to ingress to certain rules and fees that make the market possible. Dishonest firms that don't simply wouldn't be able to enter. And guess what, if it's something that no one can agree to, then too bad, everyone misses out on the opportunity of having a stock market period. No rules, no game, but at least no one will be cheated. Though of course, I believe that they will agree on some viable model. It's too much money to be missing.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses.
I don't think you understood the lemon argument.
Let me lay the argument out, using Health insurance industry as an example.
Let's say there are 2 types of people, the healthy and the unhealthy.
The unhealthy people want health insurance because they know they will have to go see a doctor often. (bad family history, smoker, bad life style, ect...)
Where as healthy people sort of want health insurance if its cheap. They won't be needing it much after all.
Basic coverage plans will be good deal for the sickly people. The result is people who are confident about their needs will purchase health insurance. Meaning they WILL have to use the insurance at some point.
As you probably know, insurance cannot thrive with most of the customers making a claim. Insurers are forced to cut benefits and raise the premium to cover its cost, causing people in the middle (sort of healthy) to cancel because its too expensive. This forces insurance companies to raise the premiums even higher in order to stay in business. In the end, only the most sickly and the rich will be able to afford health insurance.
Sure, the health insurance company can attempt to make more thorough background check in order to make better estimate, but the nature of this business dictates that they will NEVER be able to accurately guess a person's medical cost. If insurance companies cannot estimate the cost better than its consumer, it will simply go out of business under the burden of claims. Sickly consumers also have plenty of incentive to lie about their history.
Insurance industry can only thrive under "mutual ignorance". That's why theft/fire/automobile insurance sort of work. where as for health, you KNOW your own health. You KNOW your family history. Insurance companies dont.
Sigh. I *have* addressed the issue. Your insurance example just reverses the knowledge advantage. In that, customers can assess risks better than the business, and they can kind of rip off the insurance companies and other honest customers. So insurances become more expensive, and/or honest customers are driven out. Okay, what is wrong with that? You yourself have answered how to better deal with risks - you raise costs because the risks increased. Big whoop-dee-doo. That's what insurance companies do. Believe me, they know how to best allocate their resources, because if they did not, they would go broke either to their own faults, or to better competing actuaries.
What the STATE does however.. does NOT solve such an issue. What can they do, if not merely enforce their own limited knowledge, their arbitrary risk assessment onto everyone? How can they know that's ideal? How can you know it's ideal? I say you cannot, the only way you could, is if you let consumers and business adapt to the best of EVERYONE's knowledge. Any deviation from that, is necessarily subpar. Either too much insurance will be bought, and the market gets further inflated, further overpriced, or too little, which well, also increases costs overall because people are unprotected from risk. The STATE does not have the necessary market signals to know what to do, they only have their inefficient bureaucrats who could care less what happens to the economy, as long as they stay in power, and get elected for "saving" the poor elderly who can't afford health insurance (even though they're indirectly paying for it anyway, now even more inflated than before)
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: This is why people keep saying Healthcare in USA is failing. This is why the USA is spending 12% of its GDP on health care. (as of 2002) compared to Canada (9%) , UK (6%) and Japan (6%) This is why 47 million+ Americans are uninsured.
See the mises healthcare portal at http://mises.org/daily/3737. Healthcare was a non-issue until the AMA started to get government backing and propped up their salaries by raising barriers of entry for uncertified doctors. Surely the cost of healthcare is going to go up when in order to practice it, you have to be a member of their gang. Less doctors, less healthcare. Duh. After that scam, everything else just aggravated the issue. Further and further making healthcare an artificially scarce resource.
On September 18 2010 20:09 teekesselchen wrote: Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
Capitalism has no end, or more correctly, economy has no end. If there is a need for more productivity, market will figure out a way to produce it. I'm sure people in the middle ages thought the amount of steel we produce now is downright impossible to obtain.
Greed is such an ugly word. "Maximize" is the term used in economics.
No end? It only takes a few decades to make a growth expectation of 5% a year go explode into over a thousand percent. At that point you almost have no employees left, all working for you barely recieve any loan and you still have to build a few hundred percent more items at the same cost. There are limits to growth. Worst case would be that every company stopping to grow gets swallowed by a still growing company, resulting in one company sololey dominating the market. That's the point where growth can stop following current logics. But not before that.
How would you try to kill a 300kg guy? By starving him? Na, that would take an eternity. Just give him everything to eat he wants and he won't last long. That's the logic killing capitalism
On September 18 2010 20:09 teekesselchen wrote: Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
Capitalism has no end, or more correctly, economy has no end. If there is a need for more productivity, market will figure out a way to produce it. I'm sure people in the middle ages thought the amount of steel we produce now is downright impossible to obtain.
Greed is such an ugly word. "Maximize" is the term used in economics.
More is not necessarily better though. Even if there is a demand, the best thing to do doesn't have to be to produce more. Capitalism would go on increasing production indefinitely as long as some one is buying it even if the externalities end up hurting third persons more than it is helping the seller and buyer and even if the production is slowly destroying the environment and depleting the resources of tomorrow.
A constant exponential increase in production being good in the past is not proof that there will not come a point when it is bad. (Or maybe that point has already come.)
Yes, that's just a non-sequitur criticism. People will do whatever they want to do. The issue with constant growth is not one of capitalism, it is one of neoclassical interpretations that may come to the conclusion that their utility functions are the only thing people think about. Austrian economics make no such assumptions as to what people want, it is value-free™. lols
On September 18 2010 20:09 teekesselchen wrote: Just reading the old book "To have or to be?" by Erich Fromm. It's from 1976 but already adressing the same issues beeing discussed all the time today. Actually I didn't read past the first chapter yet (started yesterday), but as the title states it's about the difference in defining yourself via your possession or via yourself.
He critizes the idea of greed as the main idea of kapitalism and shows how it even changes our language towards using "to have" plus nouns instead of only verbs to describe the same thing. Also how the general mentality shifted, using poems as an example... the modern english poem, a man picking a flower to examine it more closely although it means killing the flower, compared to an old japanese poem which only describes the flower beeing seen. And, as a compromise, Goethe who digs out the whole flower and plants it in his garden so it can live although he took it. About the capitalism overall, he says that we move right towards our own doom with our eyes open, but without changing anything for real. Gotta continue reading now ^^
Volker Pispers, german cabarret artist, also shows some prime examples of how absurd capitalism is. Volkswagen stated that they need 7% additional productivity per year to stay in germany. This means either producing the same amount of cars with 7% less workers. Won't work for a long time because you soon have no workers left at all, and this way you can't produce cars. Other way is reducing their loans by 7% a year. Won't work either because soon they wouldn't get anything anymore and nobody would work without a loan. So the only way working on long range is producing 7% more cars for the same cost each year. But, already, there are 20% more cars beeing produced than bought. And the increase is exponential... To assisst this kind of growth as it's required in kapitalism, our children would have to by a new car every month at least.
So, capitalism slowly reaches the own limits. No way to avoid that. Productivity can't increase forever as markets are saturated at a certain levels and production costs/loans can't be decreased beyound a certain limit.
I think the whole idea of capitalism simply is a surrender. We surrender to bad traits of humans. It's like "Ok, our previous systems could not deal with bad humans as things like greed and egoism will damage our system. So we just make greed and egoism be the main path in our system and try to make the best of it". That's a declaration of surrender, nothing else. It's logic that a system based on greed, egoism and eternal growth can't work forever, it's just a question of time until the limits are reached and the system will change drastically.
I think the general idea of granting freedom to everyone is good, but groups and companies have to be restricted in some way. It would be hard to find an overall formula on how that should happen but it might be possible to find one. However, I think the best way is to start living with the least consumption of ressources. For example heading for 100% clean power. Yeah I know it's gonna take a long time but we should be able to do it until 2100 or something like that with relative ease. Then trying to use regrowing ressources like wood to the best possible amount, replacing things like plastic, while aiming for the most efficient way of recycling non-regrowing ressources like metals as efficiently as possible. Also democracy heavily depends on the education of the citizens so I hope it will become much much better as well... Should be the prime path to have more mutual understanding on earth leading to less conflicts.
Capitalism has no end, or more correctly, economy has no end. If there is a need for more productivity, market will figure out a way to produce it. I'm sure people in the middle ages thought the amount of steel we produce now is downright impossible to obtain.
Greed is such an ugly word. "Maximize" is the term used in economics.
No end? It only takes a few decades to make a growth expectation of 5% a year go explode into over a thousand percent. At that point you almost have no employees left, all working for you barely recieve any loan and you still have to build a few hundred percent more items at the same cost. There are limits to growth. Worst case would be that every company stopping to grow gets swallowed by a still growing company, resulting in one company sololey dominating the market. That's the point where growth can stop following current logics. But not before that.
No end, as in no goal, lol. Okay, never mind, he did mean no end as no limit, lol@me instead. (and lol@him perhaps)
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: So idealistic and naive.
Government will look out for its OWN INTERESTS. This is true of any organization. In a democracy, the feedback for bad behavior is in elections. This has certain flaws and short comings. In a marketplace, the feedback for bad behavior is going out of business or public stonewalling and other forms of ill-will. This has another set of flaws and short comings.
Idealistic? I merely stated what it was meant to be.Time and again I say this. In an unrestricted market, the most dominant firm will eventually take over the majority of the market share. History has taught us this. Election replaces the government. There are no equivalent replacement for a monopoly.
What about necessary goods? like gasoline? Speaking of which, who should BP answer to if there were "no representation of the public interest"? Are you gona stop buying BP oil to protest for the spill? because people attempted that and BP is doing just fine.
It's naive because you are taking the government's own rhetoric and justification for extraordinary powers at face value.
Again my role in this debate is not to support anarchist capitalism. When you are arguing against anarchist capital address that to Yurebis. I'm only here to demolish false statements and unsophisticated arguments:
"Anti-trust laws benefit the consumer." No they don't. Consumers benefit from pricing wars between oligopolies and unrestrained innovation by market leaders. The pricing dynamic between oligopolies under anti-trust laws look a lot like that of monopolistic competition. The Anti-Trust laws prevent market leaders from getting too far ahead of their peers for fear of being branded as a monopoly. Recent examples Google & Microsoft. Just claiming "monopolies bad!" is not enough.
"DEMOCRATIC government is out to look out for public interest." It's axiomatically true that all organizations look out for its own interests first and foremost. Government's purpose might be to uphold the public interest but that is secondary. A police department will subvert justice to cover for its members, etc.
Organizations will respond quickly to existential threats. Thus, bankruptcy is stronger threat than re-election. Organizations don't commit suicide. The corporate breakups where companies get picked apart and sold for its scraps never get suggested by the company's own management. It's always external "corporate raiders" that do the destruction.
BP is an issue of property rights and pollution. It's not exactly the same as delivering bad product to their customers, but I can think of an effective backlash. BP has some large refineries in the gulf coast area. Those could get shutdown by protests easily - convince the workers to strike and blockade the roads and ports. Do it until BP cleans up the oil and pays out liabilities for damage.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: So idealistic and naive.
Government will look out for its OWN INTERESTS. This is true of any organization. In a democracy, the feedback for bad behavior is in elections. This has certain flaws and short comings. In a marketplace, the feedback for bad behavior is going out of business or public stonewalling and other forms of ill-will. This has another set of flaws and short comings.
Idealistic? I merely stated what it was meant to be.Time and again I say this. In an unrestricted market, the most dominant firm will eventually take over the majority of the market share. History has taught us this. Election replaces the government. There are no equivalent replacement for a monopoly.
What about necessary goods? like gasoline? Speaking of which, who should BP answer to if there were "no representation of the public interest"? Are you gona stop buying BP oil to protest for the spill? because people attempted that and BP is doing just fine.
Again my role in this debate is not to support anarchist capitalism. When you are arguing against anarchist capital address that to Yurebis. I'm only here to demolish false statements and unsophisticated arguments:
No. You're cherry picking evidence to correlate with the great depression. Simply asserting it to be casually related won't do. And not being able to see how people would manage risk, absent the socialized watchguards that always fail, is an argument from ignorance. If you want me to explain how, I could, but I'm not going to for someone who just proclaims that it's impossible and apparently has no interest to know. Ask me properly and I may oblige.
Compare to today, economy during 1880-1920 was unrestrictive. In fact, the government feared that all mid and small sized companies will eventually fall because Trust firms were dominating the market by using its sheer size. Anti-trust law was introduced, but state didnt really enforce this and eventually by the great depression, the top 200 firms became bigger than rest of America.
Without a government, n a completely unrestricted market, these monopolies will grow so large (no anti-trust laws to keep them in check) that they will essentially act like a government organization. One difference being these monopolies are out for more profit, not consumer interest.
Consumers would not have any choice. Microsoft is famous for being unethically aggressive. Nowadays even if you hate them, there is no way to avoid windows if you are going into the business world. Essential goods dominated by monopoly will create extreme inefficiency and there will be nothing consumer can do against it.
Who controls the supply of shoes in ancap? Whoever makes shoes, obviously; why is it an issue to start with? Are you entitled to having things and services? I hope you don't think that. Free, noncoercive institutions, profit off realized demand. If a bank is found to be corrupt, it loses reputation and goes bankrupt, instead of you know, persisting no matter what in case the state supports it. Will a shoe seller become a hegemony and exploit everyone with their terrible, overpriced shoes? I don't know, but I would think not, and the market incentives to prevent that are more responsive than political ones. In fact, political interests would tell you that the tendency to centralize beyond return is something that the state does more often, and incentivizes with every regulation.
The banks are already a monopoly, and already use the state. You seem to have the causation chain inverted. Banks don't emerge out of proportion first, then raise their own private armies to coerce the population. That is economically unfeasible. Banks would have to overcharge their customers in order to not only provide the usual banking services, but to stockpile weapons and militias until the day they're able to gamble it all. A much easier way to massively coerce - and the way it has been done so far - is to use the legitimized statist apparatus that already exists, and pay some ten thousand dollars in lobby, leaving the police force and federal agents to be paid by the slaves themselves...
You don't get to make the population pay for it's own slavemasters UNLESS the population doesn't see it as coercion. You, the outlaw institution, would just go bankrupt in ancap. I hope this was enough of a briefing.
There is a fundamental difference between shoes and money. Money is mode of exchange, as in, it can be ANY kind of goods, where as shoes are....shoes. A firm with power to print money essentially controls the entire economy of that region. You can't protest this by stop using money. Again I ask, who gets to have this kind of power? surely someone will decide to rule that region with money printing?
Again, take a look at what happened in the beginning of the 20th century. People like J.P. Morgan and August Belmont essentially took over Wallstreet using sheer size of their capital, rather than having superb service to the customer. People choose large banks because they are more safe, not because they have better service. Also, banks have no reason to overcharge depositors because thats not how they make money.
Are you a conspiracy theorist? Government does not control major banks in America, at least until very recently. Large banks will not go bankrupt in ancap. In fact, they will thrive under no regulation of the financial market, and moeny they have will speak for themselves. In an ancap, it is likely that few large banks will form an organization to print money, which is what happened in the USA. The government was actually the one stopping this from happening, but with onset of financial panic in the 1910s, they had to approve the Federal reserve.
Also it is poor argument to say that private entities will somehow not coerce its populace like a government. You heard of Wal-Mart?
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: Firms exist to make profit. Who is going to pay these investigators for what reasons? Let's say there was a demand for fraud investigators. Under current system, it is the representative of the public interest, aka the state, that is paying the investigators.
Without such entity, who is supposed to pay these guys? NYSE? the Investors?
Fraud firms have no incentive to pay for obvious reasons.
Honest firms have no incentive because they wouldn't use/need the service.
Investors would pay for auditing a firm they would like to invest but for fraud investigation? why should they pay when it wasn't their fault?
It could be managed by the stock exchange organization, yeah. They can charge a minimal, <1% fee on every transaction that occurs. Maybe they already do that, I don't know, stock market is not my forte, but it's hardly difficult to charge a service for people voluntarily and publically joined in a certain market environment.
Honest firms and investors don't have an incentive to catch the cheating opposition? Are you really saying that? Certainly they do, and certainly everyone in the stock market would be willing to ingress to certain rules and fees that make the market possible. Dishonest firms that don't simply wouldn't be able to enter. And guess what, if it's something that no one can agree to, then too bad, everyone misses out on the opportunity of having a stock market period. No rules, no game, but at least no one will be cheated. Though of course, I believe that they will agree on some viable model. It's too much money to be missing.
Honest firms maybe, but investors don't have incentive to pay for fraud investigation. Afterall, its not investor's fault that the firm committed fraud after all. If the stock market organizations are to control this, there will be conflict of interest when the organization itself face fraud charges.
Government has seperate entities keeping in check of one another. FBI and SEC are two seperate entity that cannot really influence one another. In a such decentralized system like Ancap, no one organization has the incentive to pay for something like FBI. And if they do, it will be out of their own interest.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses.
I don't think you understood the lemon argument.
Let me lay the argument out, using Health insurance industry as an example.
Let's say there are 2 types of people, the healthy and the unhealthy.
The unhealthy people want health insurance because they know they will have to go see a doctor often. (bad family history, smoker, bad life style, ect...)
Where as healthy people sort of want health insurance if its cheap. They won't be needing it much after all.
Basic coverage plans will be good deal for the sickly people. The result is people who are confident about their needs will purchase health insurance. Meaning they WILL have to use the insurance at some point.
As you probably know, insurance cannot thrive with most of the customers making a claim. Insurers are forced to cut benefits and raise the premium to cover its cost, causing people in the middle (sort of healthy) to cancel because its too expensive. This forces insurance companies to raise the premiums even higher in order to stay in business. In the end, only the most sickly and the rich will be able to afford health insurance.
Sure, the health insurance company can attempt to make more thorough background check in order to make better estimate, but the nature of this business dictates that they will NEVER be able to accurately guess a person's medical cost. If insurance companies cannot estimate the cost better than its consumer, it will simply go out of business under the burden of claims. Sickly consumers also have plenty of incentive to lie about their history.
Insurance industry can only thrive under "mutual ignorance". That's why theft/fire/automobile insurance sort of work. where as for health, you KNOW your own health. You KNOW your family history. Insurance companies dont.
Sigh. I *have* addressed the issue. Your insurance example just reverses the knowledge advantage. In that, customers can assess risks better than the business, and they can kind of rip off the insurance companies and other honest customers. So insurances become more expensive, and/or honest customers are driven out. Okay, what is wrong with that? You yourself have answered how to better deal with risks - you raise costs because the risks increased. Big whoop-dee-doo. That's what insurance companies do. Believe me, they know how to best allocate their resources, because if they did not, they would go broke either to their own faults, or to better competing actuaries.
What the STATE does however.. does NOT solve such an issue. What can they do, if not merely enforce their own limited knowledge, their arbitrary risk assessment onto everyone? How can they know that's ideal? How can you know it's ideal? I say you cannot, the only way you could, is if you let consumers and business adapt to the best of EVERYONE's knowledge. Any deviation from that, is necessarily subpar. Either too much insurance will be bought, and the market gets further inflated, further overpriced, or too little, which well, also increases costs overall because people are unprotected from risk. The STATE does not have the necessary market signals to know what to do, they only have their inefficient bureaucrats who could care less what happens to the economy, as long as they stay in power, and get elected for "saving" the poor elderly who can't afford health insurance (even though they're indirectly paying for it anyway, now even more inflated than before)
I don't think you understand how medical cares work in other countries. Medical care is something everyone will need some point in our life. What's wrong with some people not getting it? Because large medical bills are forcing people into bankruptcy and becoming a big worry in their life.
See in Canada, we pay our health insurance premium by our income. The government has no need to check on its populace's medical history. The government addresses medical cost as it comes. There is no reason for predictions in an universal health care system. Hell remember H1N1? The government paid for everyone's (yes every citizens) Vaccine, while US suffer from the panic.
Insurance companies know how to allocate resources using the information they have. You can't blindly tell me and other economist they know how to do it! trust me! We're not doubting that. I'm saying information they have is limited at best and no matter what they do, they will not be able to predict what is going to happen (important factor in insurance industry) due to the lemon argument.
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: This is why people keep saying Healthcare in USA is failing. This is why the USA is spending 12% of its GDP on health care. (as of 2002) compared to Canada (9%) , UK (6%) and Japan (6%) This is why 47 million+ Americans are uninsured.
See the mises healthcare portal at http://mises.org/daily/3737. Healthcare was a non-issue until the AMA started to get government backing and propped up their salaries by raising barriers of entry for uncertified doctors. Surely the cost of healthcare is going to go up when in order to practice it, you have to be a member of their gang. Less doctors, less healthcare. Duh. After that scam, everything else just aggravated the issue. Further and further making healthcare an artificially scarce resource.
Government had to intervene because AMA could not sustain itself insuring everyone. They also have to answer to the rich who want better medical care. They must retain best doctor and get the best equipment to support this demand. This pushes the poor out because it raises the premium. again, 12% of the GDP spent on medical care, and 47 million people aren't even insured.
If your claim of insurance companies making things efficient and cheap for the people were true, insurance cost in USA should be cheaper than that of UK, Canada, Japan, and ect. This is clearly not the case.
In fact, bureaucratic cost in USA under private system costs MORE than public system under Canada. Researches done at Harvard medical school found that on average, US spends $1000 per person on bureaucratic cost, compared to $307 in Canada.
You still have not addressed my equality post (2nd) maybe you are working on it.
I'm arguing from economics perspective, you cannot just tell me the free market knows how to do it. You need to explain HOW they would do it, because modern economics would not agree with statement like "health insurance companies know the best"
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: So idealistic and naive.
Government will look out for its OWN INTERESTS. This is true of any organization. In a democracy, the feedback for bad behavior is in elections. This has certain flaws and short comings. In a marketplace, the feedback for bad behavior is going out of business or public stonewalling and other forms of ill-will. This has another set of flaws and short comings.
Idealistic? I merely stated what it was meant to be.Time and again I say this. In an unrestricted market, the most dominant firm will eventually take over the majority of the market share. History has taught us this. Election replaces the government. There are no equivalent replacement for a monopoly.
What about necessary goods? like gasoline? Speaking of which, who should BP answer to if there were "no representation of the public interest"? Are you gona stop buying BP oil to protest for the spill? because people attempted that and BP is doing just fine.
It's naive because you are taking the government's own rhetoric and justification for extraordinary powers at face value.
Again my role in this debate is not to support anarchist capitalism. When you are arguing against anarchist capital address that to Yurebis. I'm only here to demolish false statements and unsophisticated arguments:
"Anti-trust laws benefit the consumer." No they don't. Consumers benefit from pricing wars between oligopolies and unrestrained innovation by market leaders. The pricing dynamic between oligopolies under anti-trust laws look a lot like that of monopolistic competition. The Anti-Trust laws prevent market leaders from getting too far ahead of their peers for fear of being branded as a monopoly. Recent examples Google & Microsoft. Just claiming "monopolies bad!" is not enough.
"DEMOCRATIC government is out to look out for public interest." It's axiomatically true that all organizations look out for its own interests first and foremost. Government's purpose might be to uphold the public interest but that is secondary. A police department will subvert justice to cover for its members, etc.
Organizations will respond quickly to existential threats. Thus, bankruptcy is stronger threat than re-election. Organizations don't commit suicide. The corporate breakups where companies get picked apart and sold for its scraps never get suggested by the company's own management. It's always external "corporate raiders" that do the destruction.
BP is an issue of property rights and pollution. It's not exactly the same as delivering bad product to their customers, but I can think of an effective backlash. BP has some large refineries in the gulf coast area. Those could get shutdown by protests easily - convince the workers to strike and blockade the roads and ports. Do it until BP cleans up the oil and pays out liabilities for damage.
Again there is nothing naive about stating what its there for. If you aren't here to argue about the main topic, there is no reason to grill me on this subject.
You are not here to demolish false statement. You are here to demolish any argument that seem to go against your beliefs.
Anti-trust laws are there to promote price wars. In fact, its there to promote FAIR price wars. Using a firm's size to put others out of business is unfair competition, and this leads to economical inefficiency, for both firms and consumers. What Anti-trust laws are for is to stop the alliances between oligopolies and fixing prices, which was rampant in the 1880-early 1900s. Microsoft is already far ahead of their peers unless you think 90% market share is not enough; fortunately Apple is growing larger to become an actual threat, and this is good thing.
I meant democratic government in general. I don't see your point here because it works both ways, as in society with state and ancap. this contributes nothing to the post.
Organizations respond quickly? Then why did all those banks fail in 2007-8? They would have been gone if it weren't for government intervention. You think other organizations have the resources to buy AIG, JP mogan chase and Goldman sachs? And what kind of insane investors would buy off 700 billion dollar debt? If these companies simply failed, there would have been no other such entity that can replace it for a LONG time. Also, if threat of bankruptcy was so great over individual interest, the great depression would have not occurred.
Convince the workers to blockade the port? I would say this entire statement is naive. What if BP pays off the media to simply understate the damage? remember when it first happened? 1000 barrels per day is what BP said. Unless you think People effected by this has more resource, organization and the means necessary than BP, (I seriously doubt this) with no government, BP would have gotten away with FAR more than they did.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Who pays the schools today, and why can't those same people afford education without the state? It's the people themselves; schools are paid through property taxes of the region... the idea that the poor couldn't wipe their own butts without the state is a joke. It's actually the opposite, the state education makes people more impoverished. $10k/year/student, when private schools do it for $2.5k? That's ideal for you?
State roads, with 300k deaths a year, gas tax with 50 cents per every gallon? All drivers already pay abusive prices to the monopolized street owner aka state...
I don't know about firefighters but I hear most of them are funded voluntarily. Please provide evidence that 1- they aren't and cannot be paid voluntarily, and 2- it would be more efficient to pay them through taxes, before you pull out the gunverment.
The rich already has better education under current system. MUCH better in fact. Under current system, private schools are not necessarily meant to make profit, but rather for prestige and higher quality education. Even amongst public schools, there are significant gaps between richer area and poorer areas.
The great equalizer here is the state. The state collects tax from its populace, and redistributes to public schools in a way so that poorer area that can't afford a school gets as much funding as richer areas's public school. The differences between 2 area even amongst public school occur because as you mentioned, portion of the property tax goes to fund portion of the public school system. If this were to be replaced by a private system, firms have no incentive to provide decent education to poorer areas that can't afford it. (the base funding from State/province government is gone)
Road and the firefighter I said sarcastically. However about the road, Japan is a great example of this. Lot of roads are tolled and the prices are absurdly high because there is no regulation on it. Unless you are gona claim firms will build multiple freeway between LA and San Francisco to compete, which would be completely absurd waste of space and create economic inefficiency through opportunity cost of the land.
It wouldn't be more expensive, nor would it necessarily be more localized. Competing entrepreneurs would determine what model is most efficient to provide a service, and that can be either small or international depending on the demand and the service.
It would definitely be more expensive for the less wealthy areas. I said before, State act as the equalizer. State collects money from the wealthy and redistributes it so that everyone gets equal funding. If the wealthy suddenly only pays for his own police, school, and other public service, it would in fact not become any more expensive than it is now for the wealthy. but for the less wealthy, they've suddenly lost Federal, state, provincial funding and likely to give up on certain services.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Biased comparison. Both systems seek to fulfill demand. A fair examination would be to compare the incentives and mechanisms of a representative v. entrepreneur. Also, the greatest monopoly is the state, so if you're against an entity forcibly putting people out of business, how about looking at the Leviathan itself? Businesses can only put one another out of business by better supplying demand, hardly a perversion of the NAP or private property, and hardly something undesirable either. If it wasn't representative of consumer demand, then people can simply stop buying.
Business can put one another by aggressively lowering its price below its cost, which is by no means having better knowledge of supply and demand. By lowering the revenue below its cost, firm will suffer, but so will the competitor. If your firm is bigger, it can outlast their firm. After your competition starves out, you can then set the price to whatever you want.
Also, Who do you think has better incentive to provide better public welfare structure to the less wealthy? The government, who treats these people as potential voters or Firms, who are out to make more profit? Firms have no reason to provide less wealthy areas with anything more than what they can pay, which is going to be FAR less than what they are getting now.
This brings us to the great "equal opportunity" argument. This is a fundamental policy for any developed nation's education policy. To provide everyone with equal opportunity. The reason why less wealthy areas receive funding from federal/provincial/state government. (However, I do not mean they have equal chance now)
When firms control education, kids unlucky enough to be born of a poor parents will have far less opportunity than they do now. In fact, it may become like 19th century where there were no middle class, but rich employers and the labourers.
The Great Depression already taught us that government intervention only makes it worse. Certainly wages are sticky upward when president Hoover calls for every businesses to keep them up (along with other things), when they should go down, and then, certainly unemployment is going to go 20% because of that.
Again, I invite you to look at the material in the OP.
Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
The whole point of talk of government intervention is NOT, I repeat, NOT to get an economy out from a slum. The point is, the regulations set in place will prevent economy from going down that road in the first place. Subprime crisis is good example. It is no where near the level of the Great depression, nor will it get to that level. We got into a recession because of it, not a depression.
Again, what I meant was events leading upto the great depression was a lesson about unrestricted economy, NOT the depression itself.
Interesting. Although I cant quite understand what would be the benefits of this "anarcho-capitalism". As far as economics are concerned, the state is not needed in world of perfect markets. If all individuals have all information about all alternatives and behave rationally, then suppliers wont strive to benefit from boosting the prices, since consumers will just refocus on another supplier which satisfies their preferences for the best possible price. Supply will = demand etc. etc. You need the state if markets are not functioning perfectly.
In the current state of economics or the entire world in general this anarcho-capitalism wont bring any benefits - just imagine BP causing 5 more oil spills but it will be ok because who gives a fuck
Edit: Anyway, to think about it for more that 5 seconds, the state is needed for a capitalism to be functional. Thats the whole point of trade and contracts. Trade wont be possible w/o the state because there wont be anyone to set "the ruls" of the trade and to guarantee that both sides wont get screwed up.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Anti-trust laws are there to promote price wars. In fact, its there to promote FAIR price wars. Using a firm's size to put others out of business is unfair competition, and this leads to economical inefficiency, for both firms and consumers. What Anti-trust laws are for is to stop the alliances between oligopolies and fixing prices, which was rampant in the 1880-early 1900s.
Please show me the rampant oligopolies in the 1880's. I'd love to see them price fix with such stability and reliability as those huge oligopolies did in the 1950's and 1960's.
The firms in the oligopoly signal price changes to each other and move together in step - a softer, gentler, collusive kind of competition. After all, real cut-throat price competition would be "unfair competition" and actually winning the price war would result in a big bad monopoly. boo!
Every sector of the economy reorganized into stable oligopolies after the passages of the Anti-Trust acts. It happened because market leaders finds being too successful, too good, too compelling for the consumer will only buy them an DoJ investigation.
LOL @ FAIR and "promote price wars". Would love to see a definition. Haha.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Microsoft is already far ahead of their peers unless you think 90% market share is not enough; fortunately Apple is growing larger to become an actual threat, and this is good thing.
90% or 100% whatever, it doesn't matter. Microsoft's continued innovation was hampered by legal issues with Anti-Trust investigators. The same thing is happening to Google. Or how about Intel slowing down innovation to let competitors catch up or pulling them along in order to preempt DoJ investigations.
Apple? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Apple is where it is because of great innovation and a select market niche. It's not a threat to Microsoft.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Organizations respond quickly? Then why did all those banks fail in 2007-8? They would have been gone if it weren't for government intervention.
They should be gone! The government bailouts (an a history of bailouts - LTCM in 1997) promotes a moral hazard and teaches these organizations the wrong lesson.
Learning the right lesson, that the existential threat of bankruptcy is real and serious, is far more important than individual firms and even entire market sectors. There were always financially-sound firms waiting in wings to fill in the void.
... BP suggestion is what it is. Your objections look very trivial. What if newspapers got paid to lie? Well, they wouldn't have a reader base pretty soon. Besides, plenty of alternative media sources include fishermen who would discover it quickly.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Also, if threat of bankruptcy was so great over individual interest, the great depression would have not occurred.
Banking solvency is a real issue, and in the case of the Great Depression, the activities of the New York Fed is a real issue. In the modern booms and busts, the credit cycles of the Federal Reserve is a real issue. The common denominators looks like money and credit. It's not an issue of individual interest.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Anti-trust laws are there to promote price wars. In fact, its there to promote FAIR price wars. Using a firm's size to put others out of business is unfair competition, and this leads to economical inefficiency, for both firms and consumers. What Anti-trust laws are for is to stop the alliances between oligopolies and fixing prices, which was rampant in the 1880-early 1900s.
Please show me the rampant oligopolies in the 1880's. I'd love to see them price fix with such stability as those huge oligopolies did in the 1950's and 1960's.
The firms in the oligopoly signal price changes to each other and move together in step - a softe,r gentler, collusive kind of competition. After all, real cut-throat price competition would be "unfair competition" and actually winning the price war would result in a big bad monopoly. boo!
Every sector of the economy reorganized into stable oligopolies after the passages of the Anti-Trust acts. It happened because market leaders finds being too successful, too good, too compelling for the consumer will only buy them an DoJ investigation.
LOL @ FAIR and "promote price wars". Would love to see a definition. Haha.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Microsoft is already far ahead of their peers unless you think 90% market share is not enough; fortunately Apple is growing larger to become an actual threat, and this is good thing.
90% or 100% whatever, it doesn't matter. Microsoft's continued innovation was hampered by legal issues with Anti-Trust investigators. The same thing is happening to Google. Or how about Intel slowing down innovation to let competitors catch up or pulling them along in order to preempt DoJ investigations.
Apple? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Apple is where it is because of great innovation and a select market niche. It's not a threat to Microsoft.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Organizations respond quickly? Then why did all those banks fail in 2007-8? They would have been gone if it weren't for government intervention.
They should be gone! The government bailouts (an a history of bailouts - LTCM in 1997) promotes a moral hazard and teaches these organizations the wrong lesson.
Learning the right lesson, that the existential threat of bankruptcy is real and serious, is far more important than individual firms and even entire market sectors. There were always financially-sound firms waiting in wings to fill in the void.
... BP suggestion is what it is. Your objections look very trivial. What if newspapers got paid to lie? Well, they wouldn't have a customer base pretty soon. Besides, plenty of alternative media sources.
Standard Oil.
Look it up.
As a productive sidenote, you'll find out why they're called anti-trust laws and not anti-monopoly laws.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Anti-trust laws are there to promote price wars. In fact, its there to promote FAIR price wars. Using a firm's size to put others out of business is unfair competition, and this leads to economical inefficiency, for both firms and consumers. What Anti-trust laws are for is to stop the alliances between oligopolies and fixing prices, which was rampant in the 1880-early 1900s.
Please show me the rampant oligopolies in the 1880's. I'd love to see them price fix with such stability as those huge oligopolies did in the 1950's and 1960's.
The firms in the oligopoly signal price changes to each other and move together in step - a softe,r gentler, collusive kind of competition. After all, real cut-throat price competition would be "unfair competition" and actually winning the price war would result in a big bad monopoly. boo!
Every sector of the economy reorganized into stable oligopolies after the passages of the Anti-Trust acts. It happened because market leaders finds being too successful, too good, too compelling for the consumer will only buy them an DoJ investigation.
LOL @ FAIR and "promote price wars". Would love to see a definition. Haha.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Microsoft is already far ahead of their peers unless you think 90% market share is not enough; fortunately Apple is growing larger to become an actual threat, and this is good thing.
90% or 100% whatever, it doesn't matter. Microsoft's continued innovation was hampered by legal issues with Anti-Trust investigators. The same thing is happening to Google. Or how about Intel slowing down innovation to let competitors catch up or pulling them along in order to preempt DoJ investigations.
Apple? Is this supposed to be some kind of joke? Apple is where it is because of great innovation and a select market niche. It's not a threat to Microsoft.
On September 19 2010 08:22 scion wrote: Organizations respond quickly? Then why did all those banks fail in 2007-8? They would have been gone if it weren't for government intervention.
They should be gone! The government bailouts (an a history of bailouts - LTCM in 1997) promotes a moral hazard and teaches these organizations the wrong lesson.
Learning the right lesson, that the existential threat of bankruptcy is real and serious, is far more important than individual firms and even entire market sectors. There were always financially-sound firms waiting in wings to fill in the void.
... BP suggestion is what it is. Your objections look very trivial. What if newspapers got paid to lie? Well, they wouldn't have a customer base pretty soon. Besides, plenty of alternative media sources.
Standard Oil.
Look it up.
As a productive sidenote, you'll find out why they're called anti-trust laws and not anti-monopoly laws.
THANK YOU!
Also look up General Electric, Bell, Andrew Carnegie, J,P Morgan...
I've said this like 4 times, Top 200 firms had more asset than rest of America combined.
You don't seem to understand what Anti-trust law is. It does not prevent innovation, and if you heard it otherwise, it is most likely be false.
Lot of people were outraged that those bank got bailouts. But guess what? We already tried letting these big companies fail in 1929!!! Small banks went with them because they could not get any support anywhere. And where that lead to was not pretty, especailly (I say again) considering top 200 companies had more economic value than Rest of America.
Standard Oil's tactics were legal and they produced kerosene at the best price in the Appalachian and Midwest region. The price of kerosene also dropped by a factor of 10 during the "reign" of Standard Oil. Their biggest "unfair competitive practices" happened during this period of its history where it topped 90% of market share.
By the time of its breakup in 1911, Standard Oil was losing market share since consumer demand outstripped its capabilities. As such, Standard Oil no longer tried to muscle its competitors out of the marketplace - because it couldn't. Public outrage in the 1911 seemed to be very artificial.
Organization-wise, Standard Oil also benefited from the breakup because the various divisions needed more operational flexibility to keep up with the growing market. I'm of the opinion the break-up was beneficial, but Standard Oil management could have simply done it themselves.
============
As for the other great entrepreneurs of America, Carnegie was had immense competitive drive and never colluded with anyone. He was the definition of Anti-Trust. J.P. Morgan embodied solid finances. He didn't over extend his balance sheets when the other banks did, and thus was in a position to buy them out when times went bad. A financial rock.
GE and Bell appeared to be involved in government-sponsored monopolies and thus they're the kind that really reeks. They just like the Post Office, AT&T, and AMTRAK: no innovation, not cost-effective, and unpleasant. Anti-Trust laws cannot be applied to GE or Bell.
=============
TOP 200 companies of America held huge wealth. I guess this is your definition of unfair? How was it unfair?
=============
Anti-Trust laws are pro-competition in letter only. If you look at effects on the marketplace, it's anti-competition and anti-innovation. Trusting Anti-Trust laws to be pro-competition is naive and shallow.
On September 19 2010 11:33 TanGeng wrote: Standard Oil's tactics were legal and they produced kerosene at the best price in the Appalachian and Midwest region. The price of kerosene also dropped by a factor of 10 during the "reign" of Standard Oil. Their biggest "unfair competitive practices" happened during this period of its history where it reached topped 90% of market share.
By the time of its breakup in 1911, Standard Oil was losing market share since consumer demand outstripped its capabilities. As such, Standard Oil no longer tried to muscle its competitors out of the marketplace - because it couldn't. Public outrage in the 1911 seemed to be very artificial.
Organization-wise, Standard Oil also benefited from the breakup because the various divisions needed more operational flexibility to keep up with the growing market. I'm of the opinion the break-up was beneficial, but Standard Oil management could have simply done it themselves.
You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote: You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied.
Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities.
Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices.
======
Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement.
On September 18 2010 22:35 Yurebis wrote: No. You're cherry picking evidence to correlate with the great depression. Simply asserting it to be casually related won't do. And not being able to see how people would manage risk, absent the socialized watchguards that always fail, is an argument from ignorance. If you want me to explain how, I could, but I'm not going to for someone who just proclaims that it's impossible and apparently has no interest to know. Ask me properly and I may oblige.
Compare to today, economy during 1880-1920 was unrestrictive. In fact, the government feared that all mid and small sized companies will eventually fall because Trust firms were dominating the market by using its sheer size. Anti-trust law was introduced, but state didnt really enforce this and eventually by the great depression, the top 200 firms became bigger than rest of America.
Without a government, n a completely unrestricted market, these monopolies will grow so large (no anti-trust laws to keep them in check) that they will essentially act like a government organization. One difference being these monopolies are out for more profit, not consumer interest.
Are you saying the cause of the great depressions was corporations turning into governments? Please elaborate what happens exactly - what does it mean to "act like a government organization". As far as I know, only the state can act like the state, because it has a monopoly on state functions. Anyone who tries to compete with the state either has to be on par with its goals, or will be effectively crushed. Isn't that the whole point of having a state?
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: Consumers would not have any choice. Microsoft is famous for being unethically aggressive. Nowadays even if you hate them, there is no way to avoid windows if you are going into the business world. Essential goods dominated by monopoly will create extreme inefficiency and there will be nothing consumer can do against it.
What is "unethically aggressive"? Does Microsoft coerce people into buying windows? Does Microsoft steal money from people?
I don't think so. I will go ahead and claim everything evil that Microsoft does is through the state.
Who controls the supply of shoes in ancap? Whoever makes shoes, obviously; why is it an issue to start with? Are you entitled to having things and services? I hope you don't think that. Free, noncoercive institutions, profit off realized demand. If a bank is found to be corrupt, it loses reputation and goes bankrupt, instead of you know, persisting no matter what in case the state supports it. Will a shoe seller become a hegemony and exploit everyone with their terrible, overpriced shoes? I don't know, but I would think not, and the market incentives to prevent that are more responsive than political ones. In fact, political interests would tell you that the tendency to centralize beyond return is something that the state does more often, and incentivizes with every regulation.
The banks are already a monopoly, and already use the state. You seem to have the causation chain inverted. Banks don't emerge out of proportion first, then raise their own private armies to coerce the population. That is economically unfeasible. Banks would have to overcharge their customers in order to not only provide the usual banking services, but to stockpile weapons and militias until the day they're able to gamble it all. A much easier way to massively coerce - and the way it has been done so far - is to use the legitimized statist apparatus that already exists, and pay some ten thousand dollars in lobby, leaving the police force and federal agents to be paid by the slaves themselves...
You don't get to make the population pay for it's own slavemasters UNLESS the population doesn't see it as coercion. You, the outlaw institution, would just go bankrupt in ancap. I hope this was enough of a briefing.
There is a fundamental difference between shoes and money. Money is mode of exchange, as in, it can be ANY kind of goods, where as shoes are....shoes. A firm with power to print money essentially controls the entire economy of that region. You can't protest this by stop using money. Again I ask, who gets to have this kind of power? surely someone will decide to rule that region with money printing?
Uh. Money is only a mode of exchange if people intersubjectively agree to it. That is no different today, just because the state imposes its use through legal tender and shutting down competing currencies from being formed. If the government were to inflate the dollar so much as to depreciate in value by 1000000x, then people would abandon it immediately, as it no longer serves a function anymore. Then, just as easily it was for a bank to issue dollars, it will try to issue a new currency to serve the increased demand for such (unless the state again, forces them not to).
You seem to be under the twisted impression that capitalism is business-ruled. It's not, that's just a popular myth with no basis in economics (of any school tbh). Since every transaction is voluntary, it is just as much consumer-ruled as it is business-ruled.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: Again, take a look at what happened in the beginning of the 20th century. People like J.P. Morgan and August Belmont essentially took over Wallstreet using sheer size of their capital, rather than having superb service to the customer. People choose large banks because they are more safe, not because they have better service. Also, banks have no reason to overcharge depositors because thats not how they make money.
Are you a conspiracy theorist? Government does not control major banks in America, at least until very recently. Large banks will not go bankrupt in ancap. In fact, they will thrive under no regulation of the financial market, and moeny they have will speak for themselves. In an ancap, it is likely that few large banks will form an organization to print money, which is what happened in the USA. The government was actually the one stopping this from happening, but with onset of financial panic in the 1910s, they had to approve the Federal reserve.
Uh... I have news for you. The federal reserve was founded and acts on congress' approval. You think any institution would have the power to overrule the congress, and coin money itself without paying their lobbyist dues? No sir. It required a lot of work by the part of national and international bankers to set this baby up. See "The Creature From Jekyll Island".
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: Also it is poor argument to say that private entities will somehow not coerce its populace like a government. You heard of Wal-Mart?
How does Walmart coerce the population?... And how is that not a weak argument? You just say "Walmart", like it has violent private militias and is bombing third world nations... lol, what the heck.
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: Firms exist to make profit. Who is going to pay these investigators for what reasons? Let's say there was a demand for fraud investigators. Under current system, it is the representative of the public interest, aka the state, that is paying the investigators.
Without such entity, who is supposed to pay these guys? NYSE? the Investors?
Fraud firms have no incentive to pay for obvious reasons.
Honest firms have no incentive because they wouldn't use/need the service.
Investors would pay for auditing a firm they would like to invest but for fraud investigation? why should they pay when it wasn't their fault?
It could be managed by the stock exchange organization, yeah. They can charge a minimal, <1% fee on every transaction that occurs. Maybe they already do that, I don't know, stock market is not my forte, but it's hardly difficult to charge a service for people voluntarily and publically joined in a certain market environment.
Honest firms and investors don't have an incentive to catch the cheating opposition? Are you really saying that? Certainly they do, and certainly everyone in the stock market would be willing to ingress to certain rules and fees that make the market possible. Dishonest firms that don't simply wouldn't be able to enter. And guess what, if it's something that no one can agree to, then too bad, everyone misses out on the opportunity of having a stock market period. No rules, no game, but at least no one will be cheated. Though of course, I believe that they will agree on some viable model. It's too much money to be missing.
Honest firms maybe, but investors don't have incentive to pay for fraud investigation. Afterall, its not investor's fault that the firm committed fraud after all. If the stock market organizations are to control this, there will be conflict of interest when the organization itself face fraud charges.
If the stock market organization becomes corrupt, then honest firms will leave it and create a new one, just as easy as the old one was made. How's that for a brilliant plan? The organization has little to gain from doing that, and everything to lose. Plus if it really is an issue, then the firms can contractually require the organization to have third parties audit them once in a while. Yes, imagine that, the buyer side of a transaction requiring a contract clause for the exchange to be made.
Like, you're telling me a restaurant owner will have a shitty chef and lousy waiters, and people will be doomed to go into that restaurant no matter what. That doesn't make any sense. Consumer demand goes beyond the money that is spent. It can include anything, things like transparency, honesty, reputation, are incredibly precious, and the best businesses will HAVE to answer for those demands as well, not just the price of its products.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: Government has seperate entities keeping in check of one another. FBI and SEC are two seperate entity that cannot really influence one another. In a such decentralized system like Ancap, no one organization has the incentive to pay for something like FBI. And if they do, it will be out of their own interest.
Separate government agencies... good luck with that one. As separate as republicans and democrats I bet? Please elaborate why honest firms won't have enough joint interest in funding an investigative firm to crush the unfair competition. Makes as much sense as saying firms won't have the interest to sue outlaw firms... really now. Especially in a more efficient law system, where it would cost so much less to sue.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: That is a ridiculous argument, I'm sorry but it makes 0 sense. It can be applied to anything. Even government itself. It's an argument of risk, right? Because the seller can assess risks better, it means he has an "unfair" advantage. Of course he does, he also has the "advantage" of being able to set prices, of producing or servicing only what he wants, and many other "advantages". But the market doesn't rely on honesty or angels. It relies on free market entry, aka what I call competition (you have a twisted version thereof most likely), meaning that if someone's getting away with selling horrible garbage, it not only sends a bad message about that seller's inefficient servicing for customers all around eventually, but it sends a positive message to potential entrepreneurs to enter that market, outperform that ass, and profit themselves with delivering a more efficient and honest product.
If I'm not mistaken, it also seems Akerlof's arguments are most used in regulated environments, where most people are FORCED to buy the same shit, well then, obviously there's going to be a problem there, but it's not because of limited information or some other lame excuse, it's because the market aka consumers and businesses aren't allowed to adapt. Whenever the government intervenes with it's own idea of what "competition" is, it stifles it with the government's own limited knowledge, not fixing the problem at all and possibly creating new external ones.
And speaking of government, it should be regarded as the institution filled with the most lemons in history anyways. The socialized choice of representatives will always give the advantage to those politically connected to sell the public out on empty promises and excuses.
I don't think you understood the lemon argument.
Let me lay the argument out, using Health insurance industry as an example.
Let's say there are 2 types of people, the healthy and the unhealthy.
The unhealthy people want health insurance because they know they will have to go see a doctor often. (bad family history, smoker, bad life style, ect...)
Where as healthy people sort of want health insurance if its cheap. They won't be needing it much after all.
Basic coverage plans will be good deal for the sickly people. The result is people who are confident about their needs will purchase health insurance. Meaning they WILL have to use the insurance at some point.
As you probably know, insurance cannot thrive with most of the customers making a claim. Insurers are forced to cut benefits and raise the premium to cover its cost, causing people in the middle (sort of healthy) to cancel because its too expensive. This forces insurance companies to raise the premiums even higher in order to stay in business. In the end, only the most sickly and the rich will be able to afford health insurance.
Sure, the health insurance company can attempt to make more thorough background check in order to make better estimate, but the nature of this business dictates that they will NEVER be able to accurately guess a person's medical cost. If insurance companies cannot estimate the cost better than its consumer, it will simply go out of business under the burden of claims. Sickly consumers also have plenty of incentive to lie about their history.
Insurance industry can only thrive under "mutual ignorance". That's why theft/fire/automobile insurance sort of work. where as for health, you KNOW your own health. You KNOW your family history. Insurance companies dont.
Sigh. I *have* addressed the issue. Your insurance example just reverses the knowledge advantage. In that, customers can assess risks better than the business, and they can kind of rip off the insurance companies and other honest customers. So insurances become more expensive, and/or honest customers are driven out. Okay, what is wrong with that? You yourself have answered how to better deal with risks - you raise costs because the risks increased. Big whoop-dee-doo. That's what insurance companies do. Believe me, they know how to best allocate their resources, because if they did not, they would go broke either to their own faults, or to better competing actuaries.
What the STATE does however.. does NOT solve such an issue. What can they do, if not merely enforce their own limited knowledge, their arbitrary risk assessment onto everyone? How can they know that's ideal? How can you know it's ideal? I say you cannot, the only way you could, is if you let consumers and business adapt to the best of EVERYONE's knowledge. Any deviation from that, is necessarily subpar. Either too much insurance will be bought, and the market gets further inflated, further overpriced, or too little, which well, also increases costs overall because people are unprotected from risk. The STATE does not have the necessary market signals to know what to do, they only have their inefficient bureaucrats who could care less what happens to the economy, as long as they stay in power, and get elected for "saving" the poor elderly who can't afford health insurance (even though they're indirectly paying for it anyway, now even more inflated than before)
I don't think you understand how medical cares work in other countries. Medical care is something everyone will need some point in our life. What's wrong with some people not getting it? Because large medical bills are forcing people into bankruptcy and becoming a big worry in their life.
I don't think you understand how food work in other countries. Food is something everyone will need some point in our life. What's wrong with some people not getting it? Because food bills are forcing people into bankruptcy and becoming a big worry in their life.
And how do you solve that issue? By stealing from everyone to inefficiently pay for it, making everyone even poorer?
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: See in Canada, we pay our health insurance premium by our income. The government has no need to check on its populace's medical history. The government addresses medical cost as it comes. There is no reason for predictions in an universal health care system. Hell remember H1N1? The government paid for everyone's (yes every citizens) Vaccine, while US suffer from the panic.
You mean, the government is a pretty bad actuary, and will either eventually bankrupt or inflate the system by funding it too litte/too much?
How many US citizens died from H1N1? How much was it spent on vaccines? How much would have been the ideal investment into it? How much should it have stolen? The government can't answer those questions. It's not an economical action, It's a politically biased one, similar to your "it's ok to steal from everyone to pay for healthcare", even if you don't know how much should be stolen, paid, and on what.
The government can't solve your problems better than yourself...
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: Insurance companies know how to allocate resources using the information they have. You can't blindly tell me and other economist they know how to do it! trust me! We're not doubting that. I'm saying information they have is limited at best and no matter what they do, they will not be able to predict what is going to happen (important factor in insurance industry) due to the lemon argument.
Even more limited is the state's information... Nirvana fallacy again? Nothing will ever be perfect, so we need to use these more inefficient means, because I say so? Makes no sense... I've already answered the lemon argument. Please demonstrate how can a central planner assess risk better than a market employed actuary. Compare the incentives and mechanisms, or drop your empty assertions.
On September 18 2010 19:12 scion wrote: This is why people keep saying Healthcare in USA is failing. This is why the USA is spending 12% of its GDP on health care. (as of 2002) compared to Canada (9%) , UK (6%) and Japan (6%) This is why 47 million+ Americans are uninsured.
See the mises healthcare portal at http://mises.org/daily/3737. Healthcare was a non-issue until the AMA started to get government backing and propped up their salaries by raising barriers of entry for uncertified doctors. Surely the cost of healthcare is going to go up when in order to practice it, you have to be a member of their gang. Less doctors, less healthcare. Duh. After that scam, everything else just aggravated the issue. Further and further making healthcare an artificially scarce resource.
Government had to intervene because AMA could not sustain itself insuring everyone. They also have to answer to the rich who want better medical care. They must retain best doctor and get the best equipment to support this demand. This pushes the poor out because it raises the premium. again, 12% of the GDP spent on medical care, and 47 million people aren't even insured.
No, it doesn't even help the rich, they too are suffering from inflated costs due to artificially lower supply. It only helps the certified doctors, and only them, at the cost of everyone else, and predominantly, the uncertified doctors now out of a job. At any rate, you don't seem to notice that you're agreeing with me that it was government action that "pushes the poor out because it raises the premium".
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: If your claim of insurance companies making things efficient and cheap for the people were true, insurance cost in USA should be cheaper than that of UK, Canada, Japan, and ect. This is clearly not the case.
Uh, despite you agreeing with me above that the government propped it up? WTH.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: In fact, bureaucratic cost in USA under private system costs MORE than public system under Canada. Researches done at Harvard medical school found that on average, US spends $1000 per person on bureaucratic cost, compared to $307 in Canada.
So? I'm not defending the US. You're saying the US wastes more money and has worse healthcare? Whoop-dee-doo lol.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: You still have not addressed my equality post (2nd) maybe you are working on it.
Quote it again please. Ctrl+f finds nothing on this page or the previous. Perhaps you're talking about the misquoted post that responded to tan geng and not me, that you still have to edit correctly?
At any rate, what government does cannot be said to be neither moral nor efficient at equalizing anything. It steals from Mike to give it to John and keeps some for itself. How's that equalizing anything? It's just stealing. If you were to pickpocket $100 from your richest acquaintance, and give $50 to your poorest one, you'd be rightfully put in jail. The state does it, and it's put on a pedestal. What the hell.
On September 19 2010 07:59 scion wrote: I'm arguing from economics perspective, you cannot just tell me the free market knows how to do it. You need to explain HOW they would do it, because modern economics would not agree with statement like "health insurance companies know the best"
If they don't know the best, then who does? They have the most incentives to - they're getting paid. They have the fullest interest in managing prices and innovating - they profit from it.
What does a bureaucrat do or know that is so much better than everyone else? He's just a man. A man with less incentives and market signals at that.
On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote: You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied.
Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities.
Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices.
======
Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement.
Standard Oil actually increased their kerosene prices by 46% between 1895 and 1906. Prior to that, Standard did indeed lower prices. Why? Because they were selling the stuff under the cost of producing and shipping it, even with preferential rail deals made in secret. Once they choked out their opponents, they got all the railways onboard to prevent opponents from coming back into the market. They did this either by buying them out, or by way of secret agreements with kickbacks. They then figured that wasn't enough because someone could build pipelines or new railroads, so they bought up the majority of the steel production market too, and a nice chunk of land for their railyards to prevent pipelines from being built. Railways or steel companies that weren't bought out had a choice; Play it Standard Oil's way, or have all their workers go on strike (and potentially vandalize their facilities) using the teamsters, had their train carts jacked during the night, or simply have Standard Oil affiliated companies charge them exorbitant fees. Didn't like it? Try building a railway without steel or running trains without oil.
Outrage over Standard oil wasn't 'artificial'. Rage against the robber barons became a cultural movement which influenced the vast majority of legal developments from 1880 to 1920. Intellectual property itself is described in terms of property and not monopolistic rights (which would be far more accurate) because it needed Mill's philosophical backing to overcome the force of the cultural backlash. The numbers you've quoted are also without merit, given that you've forgotten all context behind them. In 1911, Standard was losing ground? Well, no shit. A decade after the passing of the Sherman laws, Standard stopped actively trying to starve their opposition by undercutting them. Their goal? To avoid litigation. It might have worked too if a massive insider history of the organization hadn't been published midway through the decade. Attempting to claim that the free market self-regulated in the case of Standard Oil without government intervention is without historical merit. Period.
Moreover, your earlier statement to the effect that 'the breakup was good for them, and the managers would have done it' flies in the face of what actually happened. The company was mandated to be broken up after the passing of anti-monopoly laws. In response, the company was cut into pieces that had the autonomy you asked for, and then put into a trust scheme so that the company effectively was a single entity owned by the previous owners. Legally, however, it was a bunch of divided entities all held by separate trustees. What's more, much like in the fallout after the breakup of Ma Bell, certain divisions of Standard oil re-joined post breakup. The most famous likely being Exxon and Mobil forming ExxonMobil.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Who pays the schools today, and why can't those same people afford education without the state? It's the people themselves; schools are paid through property taxes of the region... the idea that the poor couldn't wipe their own butts without the state is a joke. It's actually the opposite, the state education makes people more impoverished. $10k/year/student, when private schools do it for $2.5k? That's ideal for you?
State roads, with 300k deaths a year, gas tax with 50 cents per every gallon? All drivers already pay abusive prices to the monopolized street owner aka state...
I don't know about firefighters but I hear most of them are funded voluntarily. Please provide evidence that 1- they aren't and cannot be paid voluntarily, and 2- it would be more efficient to pay them through taxes, before you pull out the gunverment.
The rich already has better education under current system. MUCH better in fact. Under current system, private schools are not necessarily meant to make profit, but rather for prestige and higher quality education. Even amongst public schools, there are significant gaps between richer area and poorer areas.
The great equalizer here is the state. The state collects tax from its populace, and redistributes to public schools in a way so that poorer area that can't afford a school gets as much funding as richer areas's public school.
This is not true at all. You're saying the state robs from rich areas to pay for the school in poor areas? This is a complete lie, it does not happen. The localities only pay for the schools they can ingress into. Never will you see a rich town miles away funding some ghetto. As bad as the government is, it doesn't do that. Give me a concrete example of where this happens.
EVEN if it did however, again, it would hardly be called charity, and equalization. The word equalization presupposes that resources ought to be reorganized in a different way, for the way it currently is has been organized unfairly. This is not the case in capitalism. As long as people act legally and don't use the government, their capital has been fairly obtained. Reallocating that which is not fairly due isn't "equalizing", it is stealing, plain and simple.
Please elaborate why do you think such instance of theft is fair. Lay down your property theory axioms and exchange laws. Be elaborate in every step of the way in proving that the rich owe anything to the poor, in a way that is not contradictory nor too arbitrary ("because I say so", or "because I'm jealous").
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: The differences between 2 area even amongst public school occur because as you mentioned, portion of the property tax goes to fund portion of the public school system. If this were to be replaced by a private system, firms have no incentive to provide decent education to poorer areas that can't afford it. (the base funding from State/province government is gone)
1- You don't know exactly what people would do with the extra, say, 10k/year they have. 2- I've already said that they could easily spend 1/4 of that money into private education and not only have a better education but be 7.5k/year richer. Do you or do you not agree on these figures? 3- Even if they did not want education, it would be their (the parents) choice. They know what to do better to give their children a better future than any bureaucrat can. To say otherwise, is perhaps contradictory, as A- people quo parents are inefficient at raising their own children, yet B- people quo voters are efficient at raising everyone's children. The second and first instances are very unlikely to be true. B is also less likely in that it requires more information and incentives than the first. So I would rather say that A- people quo parents are the most efficient at raising their own children, and B- people quo voters are inefficient at... doing anything for that matter. This generality easier to demonstrate and to believe, and it is praxeologically valid as well of course.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Road and the firefighter I said sarcastically. However about the road, Japan is a great example of this. Lot of roads are tolled and the prices are absurdly high because there is no regulation on it.
Please source this. I don't believe for a second that japan's roads are 1-private, 2- overpriced because they're private.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Unless you are gona claim firms will build multiple freeway between LA and San Francisco to compete, which would be completely absurd waste of space and create economic inefficiency through opportunity cost of the land.
This is like what people say to be "midstream theorizing". You have completely neglected how the capital structure came about, what were people's incentives and actions that constructed them, and simply asserts that what exists now can't be maintained by the market.
First of all, that the state has been able to at least provide a mediocre service to enable cities to thrive, is agreeable. However, that is done through coercion - it forced people to pay for a service that they may or may not have completely agreed with. The state assures the people that it won't exploit them with overtaxation or overtolling on an empty promise, yet it does so anyway. I fear you should, with intellectual honesty, first admit that the state provides a crappy service, and that it can't, to the best of anyone else's ability, administer roads properly. It does mediocre, at best. Terrible and untransportable at worst. If you fear a monopoly on roads, cheers, you have one already.
Second of all, no city would rise in the free market without contractual assurances by the part of the infrastructure owners, enforcable by law (not to the will of a coercive legislator), just as much as no one would move to a house with a serial killer next door. The road owners of any densely populated area would be under a contractual obligation of at least 1- the road owner can only change toll prices with an advance notice of at least 1 year to all regular drivers 2- allow people to move out once, without charge, if they so wished to leave the vicinity permanently. 3- not hold non-outlaws captive in their own houses or apartments. No contract would set a price, of course, but certain things are obviously borderline criminal. There needs to be breathing room for people to at least be able to move out.
Thirdly, a road owner who overprices or breaks such basic contract agreements, is not only going to be sued, but he's going to lose business before he's ever able to profit off it. With the contractual obligation of noticing price changes for example, anyone who would be stupid enough to say he's going to be charging drivers 1 million dollars will see their roads to be avoided, and his revenue to sink. It doesn't pay to be a stupid jackass, the market rewards cooperation and efficiency. A road owner will be much better off providing a fair price and decent service, for the prospect of future revenue increases when he's not a douche. If he's a douche, then people will avoid him, he'll go bankrupt, and maybe even contractually obligated to sell his roads, who knows.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: It wouldn't be more expensive, nor would it necessarily be more localized. Competing entrepreneurs would determine what model is most efficient to provide a service, and that can be either small or international depending on the demand and the service.
It would definitely be more expensive for the less wealthy areas. I said before, State act as the equalizer. State collects money from the wealthy and redistributes it so that everyone gets equal funding. If the wealthy suddenly only pays for his own police, school, and other public service, it would in fact not become any more expensive than it is now for the wealthy. but for the less wealthy, they've suddenly lost Federal, state, provincial funding and likely to give up on certain services.
Please demonstrate with real figures how this is the case. Also demonstrate how the rich, when taxed higher, are not offsetting those taxes into lower wages/higher prices. Because they do. Show me how any single town undoubtedly is being subsidized by the rich, without any externalities making them poorer otherwise.
This is just not what happens. The rich are in fact the best able to avoid or offset taxation, and avoid paying their part to the system, either by corruption, or by simply raising prices accordingly. Taxing the rich is the most retarded way to pay for anything. You're taxing the poor by proxy.
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: Biased comparison. Both systems seek to fulfill demand. A fair examination would be to compare the incentives and mechanisms of a representative v. entrepreneur. Also, the greatest monopoly is the state, so if you're against an entity forcibly putting people out of business, how about looking at the Leviathan itself? Businesses can only put one another out of business by better supplying demand, hardly a perversion of the NAP or private property, and hardly something undesirable either. If it wasn't representative of consumer demand, then people can simply stop buying.
Business can put one another by aggressively lowering its price below its cost, which is by no means having better knowledge of supply and demand. By lowering the revenue below its cost, firm will suffer, but so will the competitor. If your firm is bigger, it can outlast their firm. After your competition starves out, you can then set the price to whatever you want.
Competition never fully starves out, because competition is free market entry. Your mainstream notion of competition is flawed, there needs not to be constant competition for efficiency to stay high, there only needs to be the means of competition. For no artificial barriers of entry to be raised, for no taxation and bureaucracy impending newcomers. The threat of competition alone keeps companies honest.
In your example, if the leading company is to operate at a loss, then 1- how is that a bad thing if it's delivering cheaper products 2- why can't companies emerge once again, once the leader raises prices? What matters is the profit opportunity after all. Elaborate on why no one can seize such margin at any time.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Also, Who do you think has better incentive to provide better public welfare structure to the less wealthy? The government, who treats these people as potential voters or Firms, who are out to make more profit? Firms have no reason to provide less wealthy areas with anything more than what they can pay, which is going to be FAR less than what they are getting now.
You mean firms will forfeit providing to the poor because the profit opportunity is too small? This is wrong, why do international corporations are crowding to third world countries then? It's not small. Wherever there's demand, there's a profit opportunity, and while every poor person may only have $10 to pay for, like, telephones, it's still a million dollars to be made in a population area with a hundred thousand people. I mean, even Somalia has telecommunication and internet now, heh.
And I'm glad you're getting there, comparing voters with consumers. Surely soon you will realize that democracy is a subpar emulation of the market system. Voters don't all count. Voters are fewer than the whole population. Politicians only have to appease a majority of them election time, every 4 years, and just enough to suppress revolution otherwise. Congress approval ratings at 11% with small fries please? That's what you call delivering satisfaction huh.
Government as a coercive monopoly has way, way more space to fuck up, to be lousy, to be inefficient, and still keep it's "revenue" growing. I hope you can be honest with yourself and see this. Please see the Calculation problem.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: This brings us to the great "equal opportunity" argument. This is a fundamental policy for any developed nation's education policy. To provide everyone with equal opportunity. The reason why less wealthy areas receive funding from federal/provincial/state government. (However, I do not mean they have equal chance now)
How does one measure "equal opportunity", and how does one know how to arbitrarily reallocate capital as to provide eveyone with "equal opportunity"? Is it any easier than selling shoes? Because selling shoes is a tough job, I'll tell you. You have to serve every customer with the right sizes, brands, colors and models. You have to manage your employees, balance the stock, look for market trends... does the state do any of that in its search for "equal opportunity"? Can it even do those things?
How far are you willing to go to emptily assert that the government can even begin to know what "equal opportunity" even means?
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: When firms control education, kids unlucky enough to be born of a poor parents will have far less opportunity than they do now. In fact, it may become like 19th century where there were no middle class, but rich employers and the labourers.
Again, completely empty assertion, I'm sorry but I can't be answering them all. I'll be spending all night and you'll just be throwing more of them at me.
You ignore the fact that the poor already do pay for their own education, and claim that it's the rich that do. You ignore the fact that they pay an overpriced education that is 4x the cost that it should be otherwise, and say that they wouldn't be able to afford it. And still insist that they are somehow better off, when you have nothing to compare it against (it is a coercively monopolized service after all)
On September 18 2010 16:30 Yurebis wrote: The Great Depression already taught us that government intervention only makes it worse. Certainly wages are sticky upward when president Hoover calls for every businesses to keep them up (along with other things), when they should go down, and then, certainly unemployment is going to go 20% because of that.
Again, I invite you to look at the material in the OP.
Now that i've read this, I think you are mixing up what I said. What I meant was, era BEFORE the great depression was unrestrictive free market. We had firms doing whatever they want up until that point. It is when the Great Depression hit, people realized government needs to control certain aspects in the market in order to maintain stability and fairness.
You're just getting yourself into an even greater causation chain of events, placing yourself in an even greater burden of proof. Please demonstrate why, which, and how "firms doing whatever they want until that point" caused the great depression.
Also provide evidence of people calling for government intervention. Was it any similar to people calling for bailouts in 2008? With 99% of the letters sent to representatives being against it? I like how the government rewrites history.
Also, why do I now have to trust you on this assertion, if you seem to have backed off from the last? Will you not be merely dodging and dodging forever, perpetually asserting that the government did something good in light of X event? "Well, if not X, then it's Y!".. then Z, then W...
(In history, you will always have something to blame. Historical interpretation is not an exact science, you need a theory first to analyze it. That is a reason why I'd rather not argue empirically at all.)
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: Hoover is a terrible example. Hoover did not think The great depression was a big problem and believed free market would fix itself. It did not, so he made some terrible efforts to restore the economy (that didn't work) in order to win the election.
I'm sorry but you and the mainstream are wrong. Here's a hoover quote. + Show Spoiler +
We might have done nothing. That would have been utter ruin. Instead we met the situation with proposals to private business and to Congress of the most gigantic program of economic defense and counterattack ever evolved in the history of the Republic. We put it into action.... No government in Washington has hitherto considered that it held so broad a responsibility for leadership in such times.... For the first time in the history of depression, dividends, profits, and the cost of living, have been reduced before wages have suffered.... They were maintained until the cost of living had decreased and the profits had practically vanished. They are now the highest real wages in the world.
Creating new jobs and giving to the whole system a new breath of life; nothing has ever been devised in our history which has done more for ... "the common run of men and women." Some of the reactionary economists urged that we should allow the liquidation to take its course until we had found bottom.... We determined that we would not follow the advice of the bitter-end liquidationists and see the whole body of debtors of the United States brought to bankruptcy and the savings of our people brought to destruction.
Hoover did all he could. The laissez-faire characterization of Hoover is a complete fraud. If he was laissez-faire, so is Obama. And Bush for that matter. They're all interventionists. At the very least all presidents from the 20th century on, if not all presidents, were.
On September 18 2010 19:42 scion wrote: The whole point of talk of government intervention is NOT, I repeat, NOT to get an economy out from a slum. The point is, the regulations set in place will prevent economy from going down that road in the first place. Subprime crisis is good example. It is no where near the level of the Great depression, nor will it get to that level. We got into a recession because of it, not a depression.
Again, what I meant was events leading upto the great depression was a lesson about unrestricted economy, NOT the depression itself.
And again, what you seem to appeal to is always some informational fallacy, where you, with the historical advantage of retrospection, assumes that central planning could have prevented any mistakes ever. But it could not, and it only makes things worse, yet it won't stop central planning advocates from claiming to know what to do better than everyone else, forcibly so.
The housing bubble can hardly be blamed on the free market, when the Fed has been blowing up and bursting bubbles for so long now, they're practically experts at it. The federal reserve started this bubble in 2004 after the www bubble, it just blew kind of fast. Obviously, when you pump easy money into a market, people are going to "irrationally" invest in it, buy houses without living in them, because of the ever increasing easy mortgages propping up prices everywhere. See the "Austrian business cycle theory", and http://mises.org/daily/2936. Search for other articles on the mises site on the housing bubble...
On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote: You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied.
Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities.
Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices.
======
Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement.
Standard Oil[...]
Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up. Is that it?
On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote: Standard Oil actually increased their kerosene prices by 46% between 1895 and 1906. Prior to that, Standard did indeed lower prices. Why? Because they were selling the stuff under the cost of producing and shipping it, even with preferential rail deals made in secret.
Yep, Rockerfeller squeezed everyone to sell for really low. Consumers benefited. So in this case, he doesn't get credit for severely lowering the price of heating oil? Going to just take the severe price cuts for granted and moan about the negatives?
His real offenses were in the bribery of government officials (those thugs) and their use of violence, but they never prosecute for those things. Signing exclusivity contracts with railway companies and steel companies and negotiating kickback is natural in vertical integration, squeezing a vendor, and taking advantage of economies of scale.
On September 19 2010 17:05 L wrote: In 1911, Standard was losing ground? Well, no shit. A decade after the passing of the Sherman laws, Standard stopped actively trying to starve their opposition by undercutting them. Their goal? To avoid litigation. It might have worked too if a massive insider history of the organization hadn't been published midway through the decade.
So Standard Oil stopped being so cut-throat competitive in response to the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, and consumers saw steadily higher prices? That's why Standard Oil's prices rose? Oh, consumers must have loved to benefit from Anti-Trust legislation like that.
Besides, Rockerfeller retired from management in 1897 removing his influence from the day-to-day operations. The conglomerate wasn't as vigorous as it was under a youthful Rockerfeller, and everyone else copied Standard Oil's vertical integration. It's like Blizzard's perceived decline under Activision.
==========
How does this prove that consumers benefit from Anti-Trust legislation? If anything it shows that the anti-trust legislations reigns in they competitive spirits of large corporations. If they're too cut-throat, if they're too successful, if they are too dominate, they get rewarded with an investigation from the DoJ.
==========
As for the muck-raking era, journalists sold sensationalism and made their careers on criticizing how filthy rich these industrialists were, shortchanging their management skills, and whipping up envy among the masses. They promoted breaking up large conglomerates mostly because of their gigantic size. The stench of Schaudenfreude is nasty.
As for the break-up of the Standard Oil, it was a federal government power grab and it was to make an example out of Standard Oil. The Supreme Court decision was an horrifying example of judicial activism that actually weakened the Sherman Anti-Trust act.
On September 19 2010 17:49 Yurebis wrote: Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up. Is that it?
This may be of use to mr. L if he wants some empirical objection to his perspective http://mises.org/daily/2317 I don't know how good is it however because I didn't not am going to read it. To me it's pretty clear that the only victims of "predatory pricing" (if it existed at all) is the more inefficient competition; and post intervention, the consumers bearing higher prices. If anything, intervening and regulating only raises barriers and solidifies a 'colluding' higher price.
Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
On September 19 2010 19:01 McFoo wrote: Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
On September 19 2010 19:01 McFoo wrote: Shut up arguing about abstract economic theory and work more so you can have enough money to fulfill your obligation to your economic overlords, by buying their glorious shit.
On September 19 2010 11:46 scion wrote: You don't think they fixed prices when they had 90% market share? The law declared them an unreasonable monopoly. Dropping prices by factor of 10 is fair competition?
I don't know if you are just getting these from Wikipedia, but Standard oil was symbol of corporate "evil" and Greedy monopoly during its time.
Companies like these hired guys like Pinkerton Detective Agency to coerce labour unions to break up.
Standard Oil presided over a steady downward decline of kerosene prices. That was its competitive advantage. This was before the anti-trust laws were applied.
Standard Oil had a bad name because they were making "too much money." I'd call it envy. The best industrialists of the age got reviled one way or another, and it wasn't for "trust" like activities.
Labor practices are largely unrelated to anti-trust. You can go after these industrialists for labor practices.
======
Some of the less well know trusts were actually anti-competitive. But it's not like anti-trust did anything. It got broken up and the parties went into stable oligopolistic competitive arrangement. It wasn't as anti-competitive, but the arrangement under anti-trust laws made it far more stable arrangement.
Standard Oil[...]
Long story short, the government intervened and forced prices to go up. Is that it?
Actually its like this:
Standard choked out competition, prices were driven down. Standard achieved a monopoly in most areas, prices skyrocketed upwards, re-investment in standard stopped while the owners just pulled as much cash out of the company as possible. Government broke up the anti-competitive behavior, prices dropped by nearly half. The value of the broken up companies nearly doubled.
As for the mises article linked, it isn't empirical at all. Its a mostly emotional and rather intentionally charged description of what Standard Oil's history was. Not a single example of Standard's anti-competitive practices were mentioned until after Rockefeller was set up as a saint who could do no harm. Then the conclusion comes that the government 'crippled' standard oil by splitting it up, when all economic criteria show that Standard's spinoffs became more successful than they would have in the monopoly because they had to continue innovating due to the presence of others in the market.
I mean, its got such quality lines as this:
As happens in so many federal antitrust lawsuits, a number of novel theories were invented to rationalize the lawsuit. One of them was so-called predatory pricing. According to this theory, a "predatory firm" that possesses a "war chest" of profits will cut its prices so low as to drive all competitors from the market. Then, when it faces no competition, it will charge monopolistic prices.
It is assumed that at that point no other competition will emerge, despite the large profits being made in the industry. Journalist Ida Tarbell did as much as anyone to popularize this theory in her book on Standard Oil, in a chapter entitled "Cutting to Kill." To economists, however, predatory pricing is theoretical nonsense and has no empirical validity, either. It has never been demonstrated that a monopoly has ever been created in this way. Certainly predatory pricing was not a tactic used by Standard Oil, which was never a monopoly anyway.
See, paragraphs like this are cute: 1) Standard Oil WAS a monopoly in a number of regions 2) Standard Oil empirically DID cut to kill, and the evidence adduced in the anti-trust trial proves it. 3) Areas where Standard Oil had a monopoly had obscene price increases, which is the main aspect of predatory pricing that economists believe couldn't possibly happen. 4) It was perfectly able to occur because Standard's prices weren't the sole barriers to entry; transport costs, teamsters strikes and a number of other factors maintained huge barriers to entry above and beyond Standard's pricing.
We also get cute things like this:
Because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency (and lower prices), the company's share of the refined petroleum market rose from 4 percent in 1870 to 25 percent in 1874 and to about 85 percent in 1880.
No, it wasn't because of Standard Oil's superior efficiency. No one, even if your margins are fantastic because of your efficiency, puts every other Oil company in your state out of business less than 2 months after creation because you're making extra cash on the side refining your waste product. Go look at what Standard was doing. As 'horrendous' as muckraking, going out and doing actual investigative journalism was part of the job at the time. Go read the articles and look at the evidence adduced at trial.
TanGeng, I'd reply but I've got a feeling Tellytubby's going to ban me if I continue in the thread. Suffice it to say, you should look over a number of your statements, because some of them contain glaring contradictions, inferred or explicit, sometimes in the same sentence.
I think we can be civil. But we tend to argue past each other like ships passing in the night. And the same is probably true for scion.
Your critique of Standard Oil is about its unfair business practices and how it manipulates producers, competitors, and consumers. My critique of anti-trust legislation at the federal level is that it's anti-competitive. It institutionalizes oligopolistic price collusion because market leaders stop trying to be more competitive, more dominant in the market to avoid that anti-trust visit from the DoJ. This is the effect of anti-trust legislation, intended or not.
The central case for the anti-trust suit was that railroads gave discriminatory rates in favor of Standard against its competitors. Clearly you see that as "unfair," but I see that as legitimate vertical integration, volume discounts, and preferential treatment for a reliable customer. These kinds of deals are very common for the modern businesses. IMO, the violence and bribery are better examples of "unfair" business practices, yet those activities were not the basis of the anti-trust case. (Prosecution of such activities would not have fallen under federal jurisdiction, which is why I consider anti-trust cases to be more of a power grab by the federal government than for consumer benefit.)
The stability of oligopolies under anti-trust legislation replaces the messier unstable dynamic of price wars and monopolies, and there's plenty of messiness in free market competition and in some cases government-assisted competition. It's not going to be clean, sterile, or nice, and I will accept that in stride. The value judgment being made is that messy price wars followed by temporary monopoly is better than a perpetual anti-competitive arrangement between oligopolies.
I wonder if the breakup of Standard Oil helped consumers at all. They broke up into 34 independent regional operators sometimes maintaining their geographical monopolies. A few years later, the openly collusive American Petroleum Institute graced the US to replace Standard Oil's anti-competitive antics without any of its competitive antics. Moral of the story is that the DoJ, Supreme Court, and federal government is at best a really unreliable representative for consumer interests.
Well there's a few other things in the article... I have read some of it but I agree that 1/2 of it is morally biased.
1- How do you answer the claim that John D. Rockefeller started with 0 capital of his own? Because if he had capital to 'kill' the competition over with on a deficit run, then it necessarily had to be due to efficient, plain price cutting before he had money to burn...
2- The article author says the antitrust case had 0 references to predatory pricing. It didnt even "attempt" to make that case. The antitrust was plainly appealing against standard oil's vertical integration's practice, that if it wasnt for that, the market would have greater competition. Either you or him is lying. Before going to look for more sources myself.. I want to ask you. Who is the liar?
3-
The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.
is also a lie?
4- Even if it's all true, regardless, you still haven't answered why delivering lower prices is bad. Why are lower prices evil? Edit: sry I didn't see you claiming that standard oil skyrocketed prices. The article makes no mention of it indeed. Then I have to ask again before I try to verify. Do you think Thomas DiLorenzo is lying when he says there is no evidence of such a thing happening?
And I say lying on these instances because, for someone claiming to be educated on the issue, you/him must have seen the evidence on both sides, and since the claims are so opposite (0 claims of predatory pricing v. many claims of predatory pricing on the court case; 0 evidence of price hikes v. lots of evidence of price hikes), either you or him necessarily has to be intellectually dishonest to say such a thing.
I hold little attachment to DiLorenzo, enough so I prefer to trust him rather than you, yes, but also not so much that I won't listen to you and look for more sources if you say he's lying.
1- How do you answer the claim that John D. Rockefeller started with 0 capital of his own? Because if he had capital to 'kill' the competition over with on a deficit run, then it necessarily had to be due to efficient, plain price cutting before he had money to burn...
Here's a reverse question: Starting with 0 capital, how do you run an entire state out of business in two months?
Are you telling me every company in the region had less than 2 months operating funds and went to 0% marketshare immediately?
Go look up the history of what Standard Oil did to create its initial monopoly.
2- The article author says the antitrust case had 0 references to predatory pricing. It didnt even "attempt" to make that case. The antitrust was plainly appealing against standard oil's vertical integration's practice, that if it wasnt for that, the market would have greater competition. Either you or him is lying. Before going to look for more sources myself.. I want to ask you. Who is the liar?
No, the author says far more than that. He says there's never been and never will be an instance of predatory pricing and that the idea itself is absurd. Standard Oil is the first 'big' example of the phenomenon occuring, which is why it wasn't argued in the case. Common law can't argue when there haven't been similar cases in the past, and most of the monopolies up until that point had been crown issued in common law jurisdictions for certain developmental purposes. Think Hudson's Bay Company, The EIC, and things of that sort. One couldn't bring an organization like that to court because they were, by law, supposed to be the way they were.
So who's the liar? I'm not lying, but you've misconstrued his position and tried to state something his article and the facts don't support.
3- The antitrust case against Standard Oil also seems absurd because its share of the petroleum products market had actually dropped significantly over the years. From a high of 88 percent in 1890, Standard Oil's market share had fallen to 64 percent by 1911, the year in which the US Supreme Court reaffirmed the lower court finding that Standard Oil was guilty of monopolizing the petroleum products industry.
is also a lie?
Yes.
That the case would seem absurd is an incredible bit of revisionist history. Standard Oil developed near or at 100% marketshare in the majority of the US leading up to 1900. In 1890, Sherman was put into law. Faced with increased fear of litigation because they knew they were in flagrant contravention of the law, the 9 mains stakeholders in Standard almost ceased expansion and decided to cash out before they could get hammered. They paid themselves 65% dividend yields. Go look at the dividend chart for the company.
In 1900, Standard backed off its anti competitive practices because of sherman. It took a decade for the legislation to have an effect on the company as public outrage grew, then another decade for any competitors to make inroads against a company that was funneling all of its money to its owners instead of attempting to keep its position as the market leader.
Do you see how the article's position is in direct and flagrant contradiction with what actually happened?
4- Even if it's all true, regardless, you still haven't answered why delivering lower prices is bad. Why are lower prices evil?
Lower prices are awesome, but are they as low as they would have been in a system with proper competition? There's the question.
Rockefeller had many innovations which were fantastic. His efficiency and waste usage was brilliant. Does that mean he also gets a free ride when he has teamsters strike at his opposition's plants? Or that starving out his competition to raise prices later under monopoly conditions is good? No. Do you advocate charging people a 50% monopoly premium and colluding with rail lines to push others out of the market? Do you think that's a good thing? Do you think those things lower prices?
Here's some follow up questions to yours: Why did no economists advocate the re-amalgamation of Standard after it had been diced up? Why did the value of the baby standards nearly double? Why has the majority of analysis on the post break-up Standard indicate that consumers benefited from lower prices afterwards?
Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions: 1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention? 2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices. 3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention.
After Rockerfeller's retirement in 1897, the US saw large technological and geographic shifts that were to Standard Oil's detriment. Kerosene was the main proficiency of Rockerfeller's Standard Oil, but America shift away from its use into fuel oil number 2. This was the technological shift. New oil fields were being developed in the Southwest in Oklahoma and Texas, away from Standard Oil's power base on the east coast and Ohio River Valley. This was the geographical shift. Both of these developments eroded at Standard Oil's market share. Rockerfeller's organization was being left behind.
My guess is that purpose of Standard Oil above and beyond making money and self-preservation was largely defined by Rockerfeller's competitive spirit, business acumen, and attention to detail. Business organizations need a purpose above and beyond the profit motive to maintain operational excellence and to provide a source of motivation. This purpose can be impressed upon the organization by a single leader of strong personality or by a corporate culture that permeates throughout the organization, top to bottom. Organizations centered around a strong leader, generally start falling apart and living off of its past successes once the leader departs.
Perhaps, Sherman Anti-Trust Act also played a role in the decline of ambitiousness by Standard management and in Rockerfeller's retirement. Whatever the case, the advent of the additional regulatory scrutiny under Sherman and the loss of Rockerfeller severely blunted Standard Oil's competitive spirit to the detriment of consumers. Standard favored profitability. By 1911, the organization needed a shock to get its competitive edge back. That shock was the breakup of the company. It was to be for its own good. Consumers would benefit from the breakup - until the founding of API in 1919.
On September 20 2010 05:38 Yurebis wrote: Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions: 1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention? 2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices. 3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention.
1- That doesn't even make sense. Even economists that were against the breakup itself prior and during the proceedings didn't advocate for a re-amalgamation afterwards.
2- No.
3- Economists are witches with magical formulas when they don't agree with you, but economists when mises likes their positions.
Its interesting to note how your deficit in historical and economic knowledge has influenced your debating style throughout this thread, but this Standard Oil tangent made it strikingly obvious how much you rely on a very narrow set of facts and theorists to make your point.
On September 20 2010 05:38 Yurebis wrote: Well regarding my opinion on what should be legal or not, you probably know what I think already. If those teamsters coerced people, then whoever's responsible should be tried of course, not due to monopoly or fierce competition, but for organized crime... any other reason is bs.
Any ex-post reason is also bs to me, but I don't think it's relevant for me to elaborate atm. I will however look deeper on the issue, because you seem to be educated and I respect that. (even if I don't give a fuck to its conclusions)
Answering the questions: 1- No economists advocate against something they were for in the past, because they don't want to be seen as inconsistent...? They are paid off? They like government intervention? 2- The value doubled because after the break up, they're enjoying higher prices. 3- You mean the economical witches cooked up some formulas that showed the alternate universe where Standard Oil dominated the whole world? Well I don't believe it to be true for a second. They can't even know what the market price is even supposed to be, let alone predict how the market would behave without any intervention. Every damn prediction is biased, especially the ex-post rationalizations for state intervention.
1- That doesn't even make sense. Even economists that were against the breakup itself prior and during the proceedings didn't advocate for a re-amalgamation afterwards.
2- No.
3- Economists are witches with magical formulas when they don't agree with you, but economists when mises likes their positions.
Its interesting to note how your deficit in historical and economic knowledge has influenced your debating style throughout this thread, but this Standard Oil tangent made it strikingly obvious how much you rely on a very narrow set of facts and theorists to make your point.
Oh well. Later.
Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism. And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u...
I'm reading this and shit, and it sounds to me that the whole court case was not based on any empirical or economical evaluation on the damages done. It was an ad-nauseum elaboration on why they think SO practiced "undue restraints" of sorts. Disappointing to say the least.
I think that it is "undue" of you L, to use a court ruling which took no economical considerations, to claim that it was economically desirable for SO to be broken up. It wasn't something the courts wanted to know. That it was a 90% monopoly (lol) was only a legal condition for it to be Sherman Act'd. Anti-Trusted up their ass'.
Can you give me econometrics links analyzing how life would have been terrible with SO still alive, so I can have a good laugh?
Also now I understand your claim that the sherman act was the silent inhibitor of SO, but if u look at the penalties, it's only like $5k (which would have been like $500k though ofc, and 1 year of imprisonment max. I think mr. Rockefeller and friends didn't give much of a fuck for that but okay. I mean, the man did come out of the breakage as the richest man in the world... did he even serve jailtime? I doubt lol.
On September 20 2010 08:46 Yurebis wrote: Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism. And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u...
You're better off giving up. Clearly state your difference of opinion and move on. Sometimes, I wonder if he comprehends my arguments at all. Maybe it's all too foreign a PoV.
On September 20 2010 08:46 Yurebis wrote: Not rly, it's just been your word against DiLorenzo. I already said I don't give a shit about empiricism. And you obviously don't know the difference between econometrics and economics. but its k L, I will try to study more and rescue u! Because I <3 u...
You're better off giving up. Clearly state your difference of opinion and move on. Sometimes, I wonder if he comprehends my arguments at all. Maybe it's all too foreign a PoV.
He does comprehend, how could he not. He obviously spent more time on this subject than you or me so he should be acknowledged for that much; however that doesn't give him supreme authority over what happened - over what caused what, and over what would happen otherwise. Which is why I'm asking for sources and trying to point flaws in his argument (while he does the same to mine).
On September 20 2010 03:17 L wrote: 1) Standard Oil WAS a monopoly in a number of regions 2) Standard Oil empirically DID cut to kill, and the evidence adduced in the anti-trust trial proves it. 3) Areas where Standard Oil had a monopoly had obscene price increases, which is the main aspect of predatory pricing that economists believe couldn't possibly happen. 4) It was perfectly able to occur because Standard's prices weren't the sole barriers to entry; transport costs, teamsters strikes and a number of other factors maintained huge barriers to entry above and beyond Standard's pricing.
I think #2 is particularly alarming because I searched all the court papers I could find for price figures and found none.
On September 20 2010 21:54 Yurebis wrote: He does comprehend, how could he not. He obviously spent more time on this subject than you or me so he should be acknowledged for that much; however that doesn't give him supreme authority over what happened - over what caused what, and over what would happen otherwise. Which is why I'm asking for sources and trying to point flaws in his argument (while he does the same to mine).
I don't see it. I started with a post about how anti-trust legislation weakens competition in the markets.
Now, I'm getting a history lesson on how competition was messy, cut-throat, and occasionally involved some corruption. I know that already. Or I'm getting some posts about anti-trust laws promoting FAIRNESS - meaning poor performing firms could stay in the businesses - the definition of weak competitive behavior. Or it's about firms raising their prices to be less competitive and avoid litigation under anti-trust laws, and then extolling the virtues of those laws when breaking up the firms under anti-trust legislation lowered the very high prices that it induced.
On predatory pricing (hyper-competitive behavior now being branded as anti-competitive behavior), L is poo-pooing the entire body of work by economists. Strangely he followed that up with great disapproval of your dismissal of work by most economists. LOL
I've only read a dozen pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if these questions have already been answered.
In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it?
Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
Hate to bump this thread, but thank you for posting that, accaris. Most an-cap proponents ignore history in favor of pure theory, and ignore reality in general, for that matter, as demonstrated in the last 50 pages of posts.
On September 20 2010 21:54 Yurebis wrote: He does comprehend, how could he not. He obviously spent more time on this subject than you or me so he should be acknowledged for that much; however that doesn't give him supreme authority over what happened - over what caused what, and over what would happen otherwise. Which is why I'm asking for sources and trying to point flaws in his argument (while he does the same to mine).
I don't see it. I started with a post about how anti-trust legislation weakens competition in the markets.
Now, I'm getting a history lesson on how competition was messy, cut-throat, and occasionally involved some corruption. I know that already. Or I'm getting some posts about anti-trust laws promoting FAIRNESS - meaning poor performing firms could stay in the businesses - the definition of weak competitive behavior. Or it's about firms raising their prices to be less competitive and avoid litigation under anti-trust laws, and then extolling the virtues of those laws when breaking up the firms under anti-trust legislation lowered the very high prices that it induced.
On predatory pricing (hyper-competitive behavior now being branded as anti-competitive behavior), L is poo-pooing the entire body of work by economists. Strangely he followed that up with great disapproval of your dismissal of work by most economists. LOL
I agree with you on theory but L doesn't want to debate theory, he wants to expose what he thinks is a concrete instance where not only did the market utterly fail, but the government improved the situation thereof. We know a-priori that it can't be the case, but L is sure of it, so, nothing will change his mind until this is refuted.
Also it is very common for mainstream economists today to contradict their micro with macro and vice versa, so I don't think you should blame him for that either. Mainstream micro does tend to agree that antitrust is BS, but modern macro says that the state can lend a hand and make up for market error with some central planning...
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote: In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it?
It's not the most economical model of production... it is far more efficient to have willing slaves, the type which does not revolt, does not suffer in efficiency, takes care of himself, and comes back for more.
It would not be feasible for a company to try and coerce a whole population that sees it for the thugs they are. The population would resist, retaliate, not allowing the thugs to get everything for free. Retaliation accrues huge costs for the aggressor, and the more he does it, the more likely he is to get fully retaliated upon. Even if he's able to subjulgate the population, and bear the huge costs from keeping the guns pointed day after day, year after year, the slaves will be underperforming and limited in their market actions, as compared to a statist system; they'll earn and accumulate much less capital. So the thugs would have even less to earn as compared to a legitimized state...
And talking about states, the state is already such a company. It is able to split a whole countries' GDP in half for itself, with less than one cop or tax collector per 100 heads. So yeah. They're the pros at doing what you proposed.
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote: Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
People can't move out? People moved IN knowing that could happen? What were the alternatives? What could the state have done to help them that they couldn't do it themselves? The state could rob them money to pay for cops, okay, but then, can't they just pay cops themselves too? (edit: maybe they're not allowed to hire other cops there...)
I will read more about that. But I don't take anything at face value.
Edit: Dude your own website says
What can be said about the company town is that it does not appear to have risen to the level of exploitation many commentators have assumed. As Fishback concludes coal miners were able to protect themselves from exploitation through the use of both "voice and exit." They could engage in collective action through strikes, and joining a union, or through individual actions such as quitting and moving to a better location. Thus the functioning of a competitive labor market could blunt the worst aspects of the company town.
So gee, exactly that which I said, if they can leave, how can they be that exploitative? They can't, it's just a matter of market choice. People who moved in to those cities probably had no where else better to go, in which case, it is still a good thing, yes, it is a good thing that there was such a better place to which they could choose to go in the first place.
That they vanished in popularity doesn't mean the market doesn't work. It just means it wasn't made into a successful business model. It can still be a good idea in other circumstances, or it needs a little bit of improvement, who knows. I certainly don't because I haven't studied enough of the subject yet.
I think managing a whole town is too big of a business for one company alone. Maybe thats one of the reasons.
On September 21 2010 04:49 Tuneful wrote: Hate to bump this thread, but thank you for posting that, accaris. Most an-cap proponents ignore history in favor of pure theory, and ignore reality in general, for that matter, as demonstrated in the last 50 pages of posts.
The study of history too, depends on a theory to analyze it. A historian without a theory is a boat without a compass.
On September 21 2010 04:36 accaris wrote: I've only read a dozen pages of this thread, so I'm sorry if these questions have already been answered.
In unrestrained capitalism, what prevents slavery? If one company becomes large enough, and wealthy enough, couldn't they simply waltz into a town with a private army and force every man, woman, and child to work for them at gunpoint? Slavery is by far the most economical model of production; without intervention, wouldn't corporations naturally trend towards it?
Also, didn't we see this (anarcho-capitalist) model in action during the 1800s to early 1900s? I don't recall reading that the concept of the "company town" was a particularly positive one, especially the idea of company mercenaries shooting workers who went on strike (not to mention dangerous and unsanitary living and working conditions for the sake of maximizing profit.) Without intervention, what prevents the "company town" scenario from occurring on a more massive, and more socially devastating, scale? http://eh.net/encyclopedia/article/boyd.company.town Clearly, the risk of worker uprising did not deter the companies in these cases from flagrantly mistreating people.
Slavery is the best source of manual labor. If any amount of skill or creativity is involved slavery fails hard. The more skill or creativity is involved, the harder it will fail.
Otherwise, you are right. Anarchy places people at the mercy of the prevailing moral code. If enough people believe might make right, that is what will happen.
Hello guys, I haven't been part of this discussion yet, and it feels like I'm intruding.
However, I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor. Admittedly I haven't read all 50 pages (only the first few and the last few), and some people have said somewhat similar things, but I don't know if anyone shares my viewpoint exactly.
Anyway, short and sweet, here's why anarcho-capitalism doesn't occur in the world (I know that's not the question posed by the title, but it's the de facto question that is a prerequisite for the more amorphous one posed): Capitalists have "invested" in democracy. That is, in societies where capitalism comes along with other freedoms, including the freedom to govern themselves, people will prefer a centralized government that has the power to legislate and enforce laws for the protection of society.
It's not that anarchy doesn't work, it's that people do not prefer it to democracy for the protection of their fundamental rights.
On September 21 2010 05:39 MannerMan wrote: Hello guys, I haven't been part of this discussion yet, and it feels like I'm intruding.
However, I'm a firm believer in Occam's razor. Admittedly I haven't read all 50 pages (only the first few and the last few), and some people have said somewhat similar things, but I don't know if anyone shares my viewpoint exactly.
Anyway, short and sweet, here's why anarcho-capitalism doesn't occur in the world (I know that's not the question posed by the title, but it's the de facto question that is a prerequisite for the more amorphous one posed): Capitalists have "invested" in democracy. That is, in societies where capitalism comes along with other freedoms, including the freedom to govern themselves, people will prefer a centralized government that has the power to legislate and enforce laws for the protection of society.
It's not that anarchy doesn't work, it's that people do not prefer it to democracy for the protection of their fundamental rights.
Ok, and slave apologists "invested" in slavery in the past, monarchists "invested" in monarchy, despots in despotism etc. etc.
That's not occam's razor, that's just a tautology, what is, is. I don't think you can answer a question of human organization that easily.
On September 21 2010 05:36 TanGeng wrote: Otherwise, you are right. Anarchy places people at the mercy of the prevailing moral code. If enough people believe might make right, that is what will happen.
Yes, but at that, so is any other system, fancy constitutional democracies included.
The company town seems like the vertical integration of the labor force, providing everything from rooming and boarding and recreation. I believe the Lowell Mills used to run under such a model. Japanese corporations used to run under such a model.
It can work to a certain degree and definitely has its own cultural ramifications.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yLeRoCw8gwA/SwG9TEmwzxI/AAAAAAAAC1o/PyYbQzy3hmw/s1600/yoda.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc1/art/fig07.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_unSNw4I7jYY/Sx_lZrJntQI/AAAAAAAACWQ/Fe1dRmlj0xg/s400/1CBF5D_1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i40.photobucket.com/albums/e228/Takunsan/1255742848249.png)
that always leads to misunderstandings because it takes time to explain stuffs ![[image loading]](http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4075/4858534409_ed4aae5f18_b.jpg)
