angurse,
It is apparent that you don't have the wherewithal to understand or respond to any assertions or challenges I offer.
when you can find the intellectual wherewithal to answer the following challenges then I will respond, otherwise I am not going to waste my time with your sophmoric evasions:
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? Yes, it is a difficulty. Nonetheless, I still challenged you to respond on how you enforce your 'rights' under these circumstances -- and that challenge remains unanswered. --Rettoper
And:
in a capitalist society, the means by which an individual or enterprise obtains a profit is secondary to the end of profit. Do you agree with this assertion or not ?
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
Is corporatism possible in an anarchic society? Can big business eliminate other producers by employing private security forces, rather than government, to maximize its profits? If so, is such a system sustainable for the Big Business in question?
Lyle,
This is a short answer to your questions. However, I answered all of these types of challenges in the following thread -- http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19720.aspx
the foundation of ancap society will be capitalism --- not pacifism hence if an investor, firm, or society believes that they can obtain a profit by using coercion to obtain valued resources -- then coercion it is. moreover, I have demonstrated why this is advantageous to society: coercion is used to redirected mismanaged resources from inefficient enterprises to economically efficient enterprises. for example, the owner of a valued resource (people, land, capital, et al) chooses to forego economic/monetary gain for some aesthetic goal. the owner foregoes drilling for oil because he values quiet walks in a pristine forest to the economic gain offered by oil drilling. Eventually, his land will be annexed by force since a economicallly motivated investor, firm, and society will judge the use of coercion profitable considering the previous owner had under utilized his resource and therefore under defended it. if you consider it theft when a negligent owner is relieved of his property or resources and society has become more productive as a result -- then theft it is. for example, I would not consider the coercive overthrow of marxist cuba by anarcho-capitalists as theft. however, if you want to call it theft, that is your prerogative. nonetheless, ancap society is not based on pacifism. It is based on profit.
the foundation of ancap society will be capitalism --- not pacifism
hence if an investor, firm, or society believes that they can obtain a profit by using coercion to obtain valued resources -- then coercion it is.
moreover, I have demonstrated why this is advantageous to society:
coercion is used to redirected mismanaged resources from inefficient enterprises to economically efficient enterprises.
for example, the owner of a valued resource (people, land, capital, et al) chooses to forego economic/monetary gain for some aesthetic goal. the owner foregoes drilling for oil because he values quiet walks in a pristine forest to the economic gain offered by oil drilling. Eventually, his land will be annexed by force since a economicallly motivated investor, firm, and society will judge the use of coercion profitable considering the previous owner had under utilized his resource and therefore under defended it.
if you consider it theft when a negligent owner is relieved of his property or resources and society has become more productive as a result -- then theft it is.
for example, I would not consider the coercive overthrow of marxist cuba by anarcho-capitalists as theft. however, if you want to call it theft, that is your prerogative.
nonetheless, ancap society is not based on pacifism. It is based on profit.
Stealing can result in annexation at a lower cost than peaceful exchange. How is this good for capitalism and society?--Lyle
you are absolutely correct. (i presume you meant that coercion is more costly than peaceful exchange)
However, in the absence of a peaceful exchange -- there must be a mechanism to transfer unproductive or underutilized valued resources from negligent and inefficient owners to productive and efficient owners
coercion is one of the means for this exchange. and it results in a net benefit to society, albeit less than would be realized from a voluntary exchange.
Rettoper,
This sounds all to like the myth of Natural Monopoly that lobbyists of corporations use to persuade government to sanction a monopoly. Once a monopoly is established, either by government or private security forces, what guarantees that an inefficient use of resources will not subsequently become policy of the corporation? How will a corporation even know if it is efficiently using resources efficiently in the absence of competitors? Again, a producer cannot adequately determine whether his use of resources is efficient or whether society is better off in the absence of competition and the ability of consumers to discriminate between them.
I will read your post for an answer.
Coercion is a means of exchange that is producer dependent, rather than consumer dependent, when deciding who will or will not produce. Are you a supply-sider?
Is corporatism possible in an anarchic society? -- Lyle
if it is profitable and if the capital gained from this enterprise is sufficient to fund a level of security to deter possible predation.
Can big business eliminate other producers by employing private security forces, rather than government, to maximize its profits? If so, is such a system sustainable for the Big Business in question? --Lyle
of course, if these enterprises can accumulate enough capital to deter predation of its valued resources, fund a security force, utilize this force to obtain a competitor's valued resources that are not subject to peaceful exchange, and realize a profit from this kind of exchange despite the high transaction costs associated with coercion -- then coercion it is.
however, note that coercion is relatively rare in our current geopolitik due to exorbidant 'transaction costs', likewise it will be rare in ancap society.
however, nations frequently miscalulate and this is occurs wars will result. The free market also will see frequent miscalculations (99% of enterprises ultimately fail) and war will result in a minority of these miscalulations and failures.
Defending rights has nothing to do with capitalism qua capitalism. However, to respond to your non-sequitur challenge.
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?
I'm SOL in such circumstance, as would be pretty much anyone in such situation.
Rettoper, you can't arbitrarily redefine something and accuse those who point this out of avoiding you - terms must be vigorously defended, lest people pull the very intellectual conceit you are. Capitalism, by definition is the nonagressive exchange of goods; what you're calling capitalism is properly known as the war of all against all.
i presume you meant that coercion is more costly than peaceful exchange
This is exactly what I am saying. While coercion is a possibility that many erringly resort to, even in an anarchic society, it is not as cost effective as peaceful exchange. I believe those who see the market economy as a zero-sum game are tempted to use force to maximize their profits. Some think only of the short term benefits to themselves rather the the long term costs to society (inefficient use and misallocation of resources). The desire for coercion by government to maximize profits, I hold, may continue for several reasons: 1) Other forms of force are less effective to accomplish the task at hand 2) More effective forms of force than government may not be forthcoming 3) The desire to "maximize profits" in the short term by whatever means necessary may always exist amongst some people 4) The conscious trade off against society in the long term for self in the short may be too tempting for some inducing them to go against better judgment 5) Ignorance may persist amongst some as to the trade off between short term versus long term.
.
Once a monopoly is established, either by government or private security forces, what guarantees that an inefficient use of resources will not subsequently become policy of the corporation? -- Lyle
i dont see how an oppressive global monopoly can be achieved in ancap society, even in the PDA industry. However, dominate PDA cartels will eventually gain power in a specific geographic regions similar to the current geopolitik. all things being equal, enclaves that have the most free and unrestricted markets will accumulate the most capital and wealth which in turn can be used to defend, project, gain, and hold valued resources formerly owned by competitor enclaves and nation-states.
How will a corporation even know if it is efficiently using resources efficiently in the absence of competitors? Again, a producer cannot adequately determine whether his use of resources is efficient or whether society is better off in the absence of competition and the ability of consumers to discriminate between them.-- Lyle
Eventually, the market will determine if a producer is using resources efficiently. If the producer is not able to fund a security force commensurate with the perceived and/or real value the resources it owns, then the likelihood that the producer will fail or lose its assets to a competitor by coercion is increased.
Again, if consumers are forced to buy monopoly goods, thus securing the funds necessary to employ a security force, how does a monopoly know whether it is using resources efficiently? Therefore, unsustainability will have to decide. The problem with communism is the inability to determine whether resources are being mismanaged or not. Such a system is not sustainable without such indicators that only peaceful exchange can provide.
Capitalism, by definition is the nonagressive exchange of goods; what you're calling capitalism is properly known as the war of all against all.-- biotube
pacifists posing as maximal-capitalists make this incorrect assertion.
in reality, capitalism can only succeed when profit is the goal irrespective of the means.
moreover, coercion will not be pervasive within capitalist society since the transaction costs are so high.
however, when a negligent and inefficient owner of a valued resource refuses to a peaceful and fair exchange of his property or capital, then a more productive and efficient individual or enterprise will take his resource by force to the benefit of society since a once underutilized resource(s) are put to more productive uses.
I'm SOL in such circumstance, as would be pretty much anyone in such situation. -- angurse
of course, you now acknowledge that 'rights' must be enforced or they are a fantasy. which provides the answer to your second response:
Perhaps, in greater society profit is all that matters. However, by using the qualifier capitalism you have put stricter measures of conduct on society. Capitalism is a process, a system - a means - to deviate from this understanding is to deviate from capitalism.-- angurse
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource (unless you plan on defending your property by empty slogans and bare fists). Hence, the individual and enterprises that will gain and hold the most valued resources and wealth will be profit driven actors as opposed to actors driven by some other consideration (apparently in your case, pacifism).
Capitalism is the employment of capital (ie. the means of production). How capital is employed determines whether the capitalism in question is communist, socialist, fascist, corporatist, or market capitalism. Production is the means by which all capitalists try to achieve some end. Those ends can be profits (which is really just another means to other ends) or some other type of capital accumulating gain. A capitalist produces to increase his capital stock. Why he wants to increase his capital stock is known only to him. How he does this simply defines what type of capitalist he is.
Rettoper has defined capital stock as profit. Therefore, a capitalist seeks profit, seeks to increase his capital stock. That a capitalist uses coercion can only distinguish his type, not whether he is a capitalist or not.
Once again, this has nothing to do with capitalism.
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource
Not so. Funding can and does come from many alternate sources, as I already said:
One's source of wealth need not (and typically doesn't) be derived from the land they occupy. For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it. Likewise, one actively exploiting one's land doesn't ensure adequate capital for defense.
Hence, the individual and enterprises that will gain and hold the most valued resources and wealth will be profit driven actors as opposed to actors driven by some other consideration
Not so. All actors are ultimately profit driven actors there isn't any distinction. As Mises said:
The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred) and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting man's happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed. (apparently in your case, pacifism)
The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred) and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting man's happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed.
(apparently in your case, pacifism)
Not so. "Pacifism - the doctrine that all violence is unjustifiable" Never once has said doctrine been pushed by myself. In fact, you've been educated on the misuse of the word pacifism before. English isn't my native language either, but I don't arbitrarily use the words as I please.
Again, if consumers are forced to buy monopoly goods, thus securing the funds necessary to employ a security force, how does a monopoly know whether it is using resources efficiently? Therefore, unsustainability will have to decide. -- Lyle
I agree with you that monopolies are unsustainable.
Empirical evidence confirms this.
Indeed, the US monopoly in armed force will be short-lived due to economic miscalculation.
Like contemporary nation-states that obtain regional hegemon status, ancap PDAs that attain regional hegemon status will see there power decline over time from competition, inefficiency, and corruption. although, military monopolies have the advantage over other monopolies in that they can force their will across the entire economy with relative impunity.
Creative destruction.
however, this fact doesnt negate my assertion that competition within ancap society will reward the PDA that can concentrate the largest force in the fastest time to society's centers of gravity. And this tenet guarantees that large centralized PDAs will be the power players in ancap society -- unfortunately this advantage leads to absolutism -- 'power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely' -- it doesnt matter whether that force was borne within a capitalist or statist society.
Stranger: 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. You're obviously an idiot.
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.
And you're obviously unfit for civil conversation. Being highly intelligent doesn't put you above the community forum rules, Stranger. You're out.
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource (unless you plan on defending your property by empty slogans and bare fists). Hence, the individual and enterprises that will gain and hold the most valued resources and wealth will be profit driven actors as opposed to actors driven by some other consideration (apparently in your case, pacifism). -- Rettoper Once again, this has nothing to do with capitalism.--angurse
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource (unless you plan on defending your property by empty slogans and bare fists). Hence, the individual and enterprises that will gain and hold the most valued resources and wealth will be profit driven actors as opposed to actors driven by some other consideration (apparently in your case, pacifism). -- Rettoper
Once again, this has nothing to do with capitalism.--angurse
if my example above is not capitalist , what system is it ?
however, this fact doesnt negate my assertion that competition within ancap society will reward the PDA that can concentrate the largest force in the fastest time to society's centers of gravity.
I agree. It is more likely the US will lose in war because of the costs associated with coercion than by the hands of the guerrilla forces it opposes. In the long term, the guerrilla forces win as a consequence of the unsustainability of a concentration of force.
War. Or Irrational egoism.
Angurse: Rettoper: thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy. "no need to resort to insults"
Rettoper: thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.
Indeed. Watch it, Rettoper. I just banned Stranger (who is an ancap by the way) for insulting you, but I won't hesitate from banning you too if you continue in this manner. Clean up your act now, or you're out.
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource -- REttoper
your response:
Not so. Funding can and does come from many alternate sources, as I already said: One's source of wealth need not (and typically doesn't) be derived from the land they occupy. For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it. Likewise, one actively exploiting one's land doesn't ensure adequate capital for defense.
my response to the easily identified shortcomings in your argument:
funding can only come from profitable enterprises. it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner's resources are idle -- or he wouldn't have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited.
however, in the absence of profitable operations somewhere else within the turner corporation, turner would be unable to defend this idle land (provided a more more powerful actor coveted it) since he could not fund a security regime to defend it.
Lastly, owners like turner cannot long afford to allow valued resources to remain idle since they will begin to see their economic strength relative to more profit driven actors wane thereby increasing the likelihood that he will eventually lose his valued resources due to predation in the absence of a voluntary exchange.
War. Or Irrational egoism.-- angurse
are you asserting that using coercion to obtain a profit when peaceful exchange is not possible is irrational ?
i stand corrected.
although no offense was taken from stranger's insults.
I hope he will be reinstated.
I agree. It is more likely the US will lose in war because of the costs associated with coercion than by the hands of the guerrilla forces it opposes. In the long term, the guerrilla forces win as a consequence of the unsustainability of a concentration of force.--Lyle
the method that the US currently utilizes to fight guerrilla forces is not economical. However, the political goal of US actions abroad are not based on economic gain --- it is primarily based on promotion of representative governance and the peace, stability, and freedom that results from this outcome.
as a result, the concentration of force is not directed at defeating guerrilla forces -- it is directed at protecting lives and property of indigoneous populations until they can form institutions that are amenable to representative governance.
the USA could utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight if we had the political will to do so. INdeed, if the US was a private ancap enterprise it could have used any number of lethal means and weapons to destroy the taliban, baathists, al qaeda, et al in short order with little cost and risk. however, it is fortunate from a humanitarian perspective that the US is a liberal democracy, hence we place human life (both ours and theirs) above economic costs when waging war.
Currently, yes. There are almost always cheaper means than aggression. But there are always outliers. For instance, if your goal (profit) was simply to rape a woman, then peaceful exchange simply isn't a possibility, so rape would be rational. -- angurse
in the last 500 posts, when I use the term profit -- I was refering to ECONOMIC PROFIT.
obviously a harmless misunderstanding.
moreover, rape is irrational if the rapist seeks economic gain from the 'exchange'
no that we have cleared up the semantic impasse.
I ask you again:
you still think that it is irrational for a ECONOMIC PROFIT driven actor to use coercion to obtain ECONOMIC PROFIT when peaceful exchange is not possible?
the method that the US currently utilizes to fight guerrilla forces is not economical. [...] the USA could utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight if...the US was a private ancap enterprise.
So in fact, the very nature of anarcho-capitalism is either NOT anathema to all of your tenets or that your tenets are wrong.
funding can only come from profitable enterprises.
A-ha! You've changed your stance from: in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource to: funding can only come from profitable enterprises. Two very different ideas. Very good.
it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner's resources are idle -- or he wouldn't have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited.
A quick glance at my example will show just the opposite in fact:
For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it.
Capital is a resource.
This rests on the assumption that wealthier an actor becomes the more likely they are to steal, the opposite is more common. Such people would be well advised not to steal, as idle resources are extremely important and necessary for a health economy.
i dont follow your argument.
successful and efficient ancap PDAs are profit driven hence they will use the most economical means to destroy an insurgency irrespective of the innocent civilian life lost.
the hypothetical ancap "USA" that I was referring to had nothing in common with the current USA except that the ancap "USA" was the global hegemon.
in contrast, the real USA is a liberal democracy, hence we fight economically wasteful wars against insurgents in order to achieve objectives (primarily political, as opposed to economic) while reducing friendly, civilian, and often enemy casualties.
in sum, your criticism of past guerrilla campaigns are based on the execution of these campaigns by liberal democracies that are not profit driven. IN contrast, guerrilla movements would be destroy in short order by an ancap hegemon similar in strength to the USA.
Enjoyed the convo. It explores the possibilities that can exist within an ancap society. I, however, disagree that AnCap can properly be labeled as pacifist. AnCaps do believe in self-defense. They limit force to defense simply because they don't find aggression (the initiation of force) to be productive in the long term. This is hardly pacifist, but stands to good reason.
it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner's resources are idle -- or he wouldn't have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited. -- Rettoper
A quick glance at my example will show just the opposite in fact: For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it. Capital is a resource.
if the resource is idle, how is turner going to fund a security for the idle resource ?
note that IDLE means that the value of the property is not leverage at all -- it is sitting idle in every respect.
so i ask you -- how does turner provide defense for an idle resource ?
If the nature of AnCap is anathema to all your tenets for success, how can AnCap produce a private enterprise for the US to "utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight"?
Either AnCap is not anathema or your tenets are wrong.
thanks for the exchange. I enjoyed the discussion with someone who understood the substance of my assertions. To often, my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented on this site.
yes, I agree with you that ancaps might be vigorous in defense, however that still does not explain the inefficiency associated with rejecting coercion to gain a profit or valued resource in the absence of voluntary exchange.
that is why these pacifist ancaps will never gain and hold power.
In contrast, realist ancaps that understand force will be more likely to gain and hold power. Although your arguments regarding monopolies and economic calculation seem to support the assertion that a hegemon PDA will not be able to hold power indefinitely.
You need to seriously bone up on your Austrian Economics buddy.
then he ignores the Austrian School insight that people, even in business, act to maximize their “psychic” rather than monetary profit, and that such psychic profit may include all sorts of values, none of which is more or less arbitrary than another.
Assuming you mean entrepreneurial profit:
Quite. Peaceful exchange is always possible.
The profitable operations within the Turner corporation aren't a necessity either, as funding (and any form of assistance) can come from outside sources. Loans, fraternal organizations, mutual aid associations, special interest groups, and even rival defense organization whom don't want their competitors to gain more power. Plenty of options.--angurse
how are these generous enterprises going to continue to fund ted turner if they are giving their capital away?
is handing money over to an individual so he can defend idle resources a profitable business model?
your sounding like a keynesian or socialist angurse giving away resources to unprofitable enterprises.
how is turner going to fund a security for the idle resource ?
Who said they had to continue? To answer your question though, by their subscribers and customers of course.
Depends. If their rival is quelled, and therefore become less of a threat, definitely.
Pro-bono work happens daily. Its good publicity. Look at the long-term.
then he ignores the Austrian School insight that people, even in business, act to maximize their “psychic” rather than monetary profit, and that such psychic profit may include all sorts of values, none of which is more or less arbitrary than another. --angurse
psychic profit is fine, but how is it going to pay for defense ?
Quite. Peaceful exchange is always possible.--angurse
manifestly false.
would a profitable actor or enterprise pay for an underdefended and underutilized valued resource of a negligent inefficient actor asking an exorbidant price for the resource when the profitable actor or enterprise could take the valued resource using coercion at lesser cost?
By liquidating, trading, or converting the capital. -- angurse
seriously angurse, I dont have time for this.
obviously if the resource is utilized in this manner it is not IDLE.
see my earlier post on this -- it was obvious where you were going with your argument and I specifically stated that the resource couldnt be used for ANY economic profit or gain.
in sum, read my responses and I will entertain your questions, comments at the end of the thread.