F=MA one of Newton's Laws.
a derivative of this physical law applies in the geopolitical arena, namely the application of force is most effective when it is delivered quickly in large numbers on a focused area of the battlefield or some other center of gravity (command center, communications hub, logistic hub, transportation hub, energy supply, food supply, choke point, high ground, political center, et al).
Military history and logic confirms that when all other conditions are equal, the independent variable that determines success in armed conflict is the coordinated application of force at an adversary's center(s) of gravity before he can react to defend it.
for example, large numbers of combatants (mass) * speed (acceleration) * mechanical advantage (concentration/focus) = victory (force)
The very nature of anarcho-capitalism is anathema to all of these tenets.
1) ancap society is averse to the concentration of power in one location or within one PDA since it increases the likelihood of the emergence of absolutism. Unless the ancap rejects Acton's notion that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely''
2) all these being equal, an alliance of disparate ancap PDA's would be at a disadvantage trying coordinate strikes on an adversary that possessed a unified command,
3) moreover, an ancap alliance of PDA's would be at a disadvantage trying to move these disparate entities in a timely manner relative to a unified adversary due to obvious shortcomings in communications which is critical on the battlefield or other contested centers of gravity.
while it may be advantageous and productive for most industries to have a decentralized organization and structure covering a large population within a diverse geographic area -- in the defense arena, large concentrated forces under a unified command represent the most effective organizational structure to gain and hold power.
in sum, the PDA cartels that centralized the largest force under a unified command the fastest would emerge as the most powerful actor among a geopolitik of ancap enclaves. It is easy to see the survival level threat to anarchism that exists in surrendering military power to a few large entities. an ancap geopolitik would quickly morph into a geopolitik resembling what we have today -- monopolistic militarized nation-states.
this is one of the obvious reasons why no anarchic society exists today.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.
The fallacies of intellectual communism, a compilation - On the nature of power
In a completely decentralized society, where exactly would the center of gravity be? If there is no State, what can an invading army take control of? It would entail systematically conquering every individual, rather than conquering the one institution that has already conquered each individual, i.e. the State.
I think this is part of the reason the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism have been so unsuccessful. There's no capitol building to overpower with either of these entities ("drugs" and "terrorism"?), and there are no standing armies to direct according to one's own wishes.
Also, I think the case has been made many times that the large, unified force of the British army in the Revolution was no match for the various poorly trained, rag-tag groups of militia men in the colonies, not despite, but because of the decentralized, guerrilla style employed by the colonies. So while it may be true that, all things being equal, the statist army with the greater force defeats the statist army with the lesser force, it seems to be the case that the behemoth, hulking, statist army model may not be the best one.
So in other words, we need a violent coercive monopoly to protect us from violent coercive monopolies.
Got'cha.
You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.--Stranger
"all these being equal" -- Rettoper
Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general.
If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner.
Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity.
In a completely decentralized society, where exactly would the center of gravity be? If there is no State, what can an invading army take control of?--Stephen Adkins
food/water supply, high ground, transportation/communication/logistic hub, choke point, industrial center, et al.
I think this is part of the reason the Wars on Drugs and Terrorism have been so unsuccessful. There's no capitol building to overpower with either of these entities ("drugs" and "terrorism"?), and there are no standing armies to direct according to one's own wishes.--Stephen Adkins
True, but these 'threats' are under seige and certainly do not have the wherewithal to significantly further their own interests, much less gain power. In sum, terrorists and drug dealers are constantly in hiding and confronted with 'transaction costs' that severely restrict their productivity and freedom.
but yes, decentralization has its advantages.
Also, I think the case has been made many times that the large, unified force of the British army in the Revolution was no match for the various poorly trained, rag-tag groups of militia men in the colonies, not despite, but because of the decentralized, guerrilla style employed by the colonies.--Stephen Adkins
accurate observation, but again the colonists did not have the wherewithal to gain and hold power and would likely have failed and been executed had 'statist' france not intervened.
it seems to be the case that the behemoth, hulking, statist army model may not be the best one.--Stephen Adkins
my original assertion did not mention statist armies. I was refering to PDAs. In review, a larger unified PDA command is far more likely to gain and hold power than a smaller disparate PDA command, all these being equal.
Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general. If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner.
You're obviously an idiot. The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn't achieve numerical superiority on him.
What exactly makes one a superior general if not for such decisions?
So in other words, we need a violent coercive monopoly to protect us from violent coercive monopolies.-- eric080
a defense monopoly need not be coercive.
free market oriented liberal democracies are generally immune from the emergence of absolutism from military organizations since these organizations are funded and controlled by civilian institutions. Hence, liberal democracies are economically prosperous societies that possess large mass armies that still have centralized commands, albeit civilian control, command, and oversight.
Granted this system is not perfect, although I am not aware of any military coups within higher order liberal democracies. Nonetheless, I acknowledge that if it hasnt happened yet, undoubtedly it will happen eventually.
IN contrast, a dominate ancap PDA cartel would likely control all the means of waging war (vertical monopoly) since no law or control, save coercion, could prevent them from realizing this advantageous and productive structure.
You're obviously an idiot. -- stranger
no need to resort to insults
Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity. -- Rettoper The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn't achieve numerical superiority on him. -- stranger
Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity. -- Rettoper
The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn't achieve numerical superiority on him. -- stranger
isnt that what I posted ?
moreover, you have offered nothing to rebuke my original assertion that a larger army (defense monopoly) with a unified command will be able to direct force faster and with more coordination and focus than a smaller, decentralized force.
in sum, you have manufactured a strawman that has nothing to do with my original assertions
Since society precedes the state, it is obvious that AnCap eventually morphs into the State. The question is not whether this happens but whether it is desirable.
This is an example of a strawman argument deviod of fact and logic:
You stopped reading military history at Napoleon Bonaparte, who deliberately split up his army to fight in more places at once.-- stranger
My response:
Napoleon didnt achieve success by dividing his forces, he was successful because he was a superior general. If his enemies divided their forces, they would have capitulated sooner. Lastly, Napoleon divided his forces precisely so he could engaged his enemy in greater numbers on a concentrated point of weakness or center of gravity.--Rettoper
stranger's offensive strawman rebut:
You're obviously an idiot. The whole point of splitting up his army was to fight his enemies while they were still divided and regrouping, in order that they wouldn't achieve numerical superiority on him.--stranger
In sum, my original post was that a large mass force with a unified command can deliver a concentrated force more quickly and with more combatants than a smaller disparate command.
stranger than challenged the preceding assertion with the strawman argument that napoleon divided his force to a successful outcome., hence, my assertion that a unified command is more effective than a divided command is 'debunked' ?!
even a 3rd grader can discover the obvious -- however, i will clarify for stranger's benefit.
napoleon divided his force to fight an opponent who had also had divided his force, so my assertion stands -- namely that a larger unified command will be able to concentrate more force more quickly than a disparate non-unified command, all things being equal.
of course, stranger does not understand that an expertly led command that is at a disadvantage can still be victorious. I never asserted otherwise, indeed I stated in my original post that all things being equal was a condition for my proposition. stranger interjected an independent variable that supported his strawman logic.
with respect to ancap PDAs, this military tenet would tend to lead to the formation of large mass centralized ancap PDAs. hence, increasing the likelihood of absolutism -- if you believe Acton, et al that 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely'
So, Rettoper, you prefer having a cancer now, even though it is dangerous almost deadly disease than having a healthy body with a mere possibility to catch a cancer in future?....I haven't heard of any minarchist or statist that refuted this argument. Care to try at least to adress it?
Because, analogy is clear. You admitted it here:
"an ancap geopolitik would quickly morph into a geopolitik resembling what we have today -- monopolistic militarized nation-states."
(english is not my native language, sorry for grammar.)
Since society precedes the state, it is obvious that AnCap eventually morphs into the State. -- Lyle
I agree, however many ancaps on this site are of the notion that ancap society is viable and it will not turn to absolutism.
The question is not whether this happens but whether it is desirable. --Lyle
I agree with you it is inevitable, and it is NOT desirable.
MaikU,
free market oriented liberal democracies are generally immune from the emergence of absolutism from military organizations since these organizations are funded and controlled by civilian institutions. Hence, liberal democracies are economically prosperous societies that possess lethal armies that still have centralized commands, albeit civilian control, command, and oversight.
Moreover, these societies are utterly peaceful to like-minded democracies, albeit highly lethal to certain types of expansionist statist regimes.
Source: http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM
I wouldn't say that the "morph" is inevitable. That it happened before doesn't mean it will happen every time. By "eventually", I simply meant that greed can have the effect of breaking down social cooperation and result in competition, not that it will, only that it has.
To compete is to vainly claim equality, to lay equal claim to the belongings of another. To cooperate, quid pro quo, is to claim a diversity. The state managed economy represents competition and laissez faire represents cooperation. The former is zero-sum and the latter positive-sum. The former holds all things in common and the latter holds all things privately.
Do you even know what the Battle of Austerlitz is?
The state managed economy represents competition and laissez faire represents cooperation.-- Lyle
capitalism does NOT represent the means only the outcome -- profit.
if a capitalist enterprise does not act to gain a profit, it will fail relative to other capitalist enterprises.
moreover, since profit is the only rational outcome in capitalist society coercion to obtain profit will be utilized if peaceful exchange is not possible:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19720.aspx?PageIndex=1
The former is zero-sum and the latter positive-sum. The former holds all things in common and the latter holds all things privately.--Lyle
I believe that the former is zero-sum, in fact it is negative-sum since valued resources are redirect to politically connected individuals and enterprises at the expense of profitable individuals and enterprises.
Moreover, I believe the later is positive-sum to society and both parties when the transaction is voluntary -- in the case of coercion within ancap society, the outcome is a positive gain to society and the coercive individual and enterprise that successfully annexes the value resource- but the inefficient individual or enterprise that failed to efficiently manage the lost resource obviously suffers a loss, nonetheless society gains since a heretofore mismanaged resource has been transfer to a more efficient individual or enterprise.
in sum, within ancap society the means used to obtain an outcome is secondary to the end, namely attainment of profit.
Do you even know what the Battle of Austerlitz is?-- stranger.
another strawman stranger ?
what does my prior knowledge, or lack thereof, regarding the battle of austerlitz have anything to do with rebuking my assertion of the advantages of a large unified command at projecting power at a center of gravity when compared with a smaller decentralized command ?
if you can site emprical or logical evidence of a smaller decentralized command securing victory against a larger centralized command, all other things being equal, then provide your evidence.
Rettoper: MaikU, a defense monopoly need not be coercive. free market oriented liberal democracies are generally immune from the emergence of absolutism from military organizations since these organizations are funded and controlled by civilian institutions. Hence, liberal democracies are economically prosperous societies that possess lethal armies that still have centralized commands, albeit civilian control, command, and oversight. Moreover, these societies are utterly peaceful to like-minded democracies, albeit highly lethal to certain types of expansionist statist regimes.
And the example of such liberal democracy (and which is purely "defensive") would be.. which country?
Also, bolded claim seems to be ambiguous.
You are a complete idiot. The point is that it is not the case that a centralized command is a given. Assembling an army is a long process. Napoleon took advantage of this by using mobility to defeat his enemies before they could form a centralized command. He did this through decentralizing his command to Field Marshalls.
As another example, WWI was called "inevitable" because once the order to mobilize was given all railroads had to be used at 100% capacity for many days to bring troops across Germany and France to the front. Before they were there, the armies could be beaten.
The entire premise of your argument is idiotic.
It is easy to say that while one man's loss is another's gain and, therefore, profit/capitalism, it is another to say that both gain as a result of capitalism/cooperation.
While all social science has some degree of bias and subjectivity, this list from freedomhouse.com is one source of higher order democracies. However, I would remove South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, and some of the balkan nations from the list for various reasons:
In sum, it is highly unlikely, though not impossible, that any of these nations would engage in armed conflict with each other.
my assertion that these nations are utterly peaceful is based on substantial empirical and logical arguments ourline in the democratic peace link posted in an earlier post.
"Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital."
In your other thread, you make it sound as if property is a liability to capitalism rather than an asset. Therefore, imminent domain is necessary to help capitalism along. Without property, there would be no desire for profit. Your argument breaks down.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT: I meant eminent domain. oops!
You are a complete idiot. --stranger
no need to issue offensive posts if you dont understand the substance of my assertions.
Napoleon took advantage of this by using mobility to defeat his enemies before they could form a centralized command.-- stanger
here you unwittingly confirm my assertion that centralized command is advantageous to a decentralized command -- you even emphasized the importance of centralizing forces.
He did this through decentralizing his command to Field Marshalls. --stranger
here you again expose your utter lack of understanding of the substance of my proposition.
You don't understand that while napoleon divided his army into disparate corps -- all of these elements were working together to accomplish a common tactical and strategic objective under napoleon's sole command, namely to engage the divided enemy force before it could consolidate
you have repeatedly mistaken the means for the ends. for example, temporarily dividing a large army to engage the enemy is not a repudiation of my assertion if the action insured that napoleon's force still had a numerical advantage.
IN contrast, napoleon would be less likely to divide his forces if the enemy had not divided his force. If he still divided his force in the face of a unified enemy command, all things are not equal. perhaps the enemy force was inferior in training and leadership -- history is replete with numerous examples of smaller forces destroying larger poorly armed, trained, and/or led larger forces. hence, not all things being equal
Do you understand these points ? In sum, the reason Napoleon divided his force was because it gave him the opportunity to engage an enemy that was vulnerable -- in the case of your example, the enemy force was divided.
your example supports my assertion, even if you cant recognize this.
false-angurse
in a capitalist society, the means by which an individual or enterprise obtains a profit is secondary to the end of profit
Private ownership of capital is, of course, a means. -- angurse
when a valued resource is annexed by force from an inefficient owner to a productive owner -- the property is still in private hands.
It's not property if it can be annexed, for any reason whatsoever. Also, producers don't decide whether the use of resources is efficient or not, consumers do. Should consumers, then, be allowed to annex commodities by coercion? Again, property would be violated and capitalism would break down. Cooperation, quid pro quo, not competition, coercion, is what drives capitalism.
In your other thread, you make it sound as if property is a liability to capitalism rather than an asset.--Kyle
absolute not, property is a valued resource that is precious and coveted, therefore it must be efficiently utilized and defended or it will be annexed to the overall benefit of society.
Therefore, imminent domain is necessary to help capitalism along. Without property, there would be no desire for profit. Your argument breaks down.--Kyle
imminent domain is a scheme that is designed to allow negligent and wasteful owners to hold property indefinitely to the detriment of society. in ancap society, a valued resource, like property, that is being mismanged will not generate a profit commensurate to its real value, hence the owner will not have the means to provide defense commensurate to the value of the resource. this will increase the likelihood that a more efficient and productive owner will use force to annex the property or other valued resource in the absence of a fair peaceful exchange.
in sum, capitalism is profit, the means by which profit is attain is secondary. Of course, peaceful exchange benefits society to a greater extent than a coercion exchange. Nonetheless, coercion is a possibilty in extreme cases where peaceful exchange cannot be negotiated and the opportunity costs of coercion are less than the profit obtained from annexing the valued resource by force.
read the thread, I covered this in detail.
Repeating refuted assertions proves nothing I'm afraid. Try showing why the definition is faulty instead of ignoring it.
Read your own threads then come up with new arguments.
"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent. ...
Rettoper, for one who loves to cry "strawman", you sure love to make them. Capitalism is based on nonaggression, not profit. As for the supposed superiority of centralized commands, recall that in nearly every case a guerrilla warended in favor of the guerrillas.
Isn't the only way to defeat an anarchist society is to kill everyone and to defeating a statist society, to defeat its military? The latter seems much easier to do than the former.
It's not property if it can be annexed, for any reason whatsoever.-- Lyle
food stuffs, intellectual property, water supplies, labor, airspace, earth orbit, electromagnetic spectrum, et al are all valued resources that can be annexed or taken and held by force.
Also, producers don't decide whether the use of resources is efficient or not, consumers do.--Lyle
okay, if producers of valued resources are not utilizing their resources to generate consumers then they will not have the capital to provide an adequate defense commensurate with the value of the mismanaged resource.
Should consumers, then, be allowed to annex commodities by coercion?--Lyle
sure, why not?
if they have the means to annex a coveted resource that they feel they can obtain at less cost than a peaceful exchange.
Again, property would be violated and capitalism would break down.--Lyle
that is a fallacy adopted by the majority of pacifists on this site. they are not really capitalists, they are pacifists first and capitalists second. In reality, they are really pacifists who are of the mistaken belief that capitalism or the drive for profit is somehow going to be non-coercive in all cases.
they fail to understand that the in a conflict between peace and profit -- profit trumps in capitalist society. It has to or it is unsustainable. YOu cant have an economically sustainable society based on profit being subordinate to pacifism,
Cooperation, quid pro quo, not competition, coercion, is what drives capitalism.-- Lyle
Wrong, It is the preferable and most efficient means of exchange -- but not the only means. Coercion will be used in a free society when peaceful exchange is not possible and the opportunity costs of coercion are less than the profit from acquiring the valued resource by force.
angurse,
amusingly you are again evading and fumbling since you dont have the wherewithal to refute any of my assertions.
I will issue the challenge again.
do you agree or disagree with the following assertion, it is simple and straightforward, like 2+2=4:
Repeating refuted assertions proves nothing I'm afraid. Try showing why the definition is faulty instead of ignoring it.--Rettoper
"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner's consent. ...-- angurse
thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.
how do you enforce your 'right of exclusive and absolute legal rights' if the neighborhood PDA breaks down your door and sticks the barrel of a sawed-off Mossberg in your mouth?
What is to say that a producer will continue to efficiently manage resources once an adequate defense commensurate is achieved? Can't they then maximize profits through inefficient use of resources without a degeneration in consumerism? Monopolies tend toward inefficiency and their ability to generate consumers is protected by force, rather than by the efficient management of resources.
Agree, mathematics have proofs. Something sorely lacking in your own assertions.
"no need to resort to insults"
Non-sequitur. Difficulties with capitalism don't change the definition.
Capitalism is based on nonaggression, not profit. -- biotube
Wrong, pacifism is based on nonaggression.
Capitalism is based on privately-owned profit driven enterprises. It makes no distinction or judgment on the means by which private property changes hands from one private entity to another.
by your definition, capitalism is a means, rather than an end. If this is the case than profit, and by defintion economic sustainability is not possible when profit is subordinate to pacifism.
As for the supposed superiority of centralized commands, recall that in nearly every case a guerrilla warended in favor of the guerrillas.-- biotube
tell that to the native americans, malayans, iraqi insurgents, boers, et al.
In sum, some fail, some succeed.
More importantly, when they succeed they morph from guerrilla warfare to large scale conventional warfare. No insurgency morphs overnight from guerrilla warfare to immediate power -- there is a process in most of these successful campaigns.
Stealing can result in annexation at a lower cost than peaceful exchange. How is this good for capitalism and society?
capitalism is a means, rather than an end. If this is the case than profit, and by defintion economic sustainability is not possible when profit is subordinate to pacifism.
Profits exist as a result of scarcity. Once enough entrepeneurs enter into a market, the price drops tending to redistribute those profits. Coercion, then, is used to establish a monopoly in order to maintain profits. The side effect is that monopoly results in an inefficient use of resources by creating an artificial scarcity or producing an inferior product than would otherwise be created if other producers were allowed to operate in the market. The commensurate defense that secures this monopoly is often, but need not necessarily be limited to, government. What is described by Rettoper as capitalism is really corporatism. Why is this so? Because of the means by which profits are secured.