Such people would be well advised not to steal, as idle resources are extremely important and necessary for a health economy. -- angurse
i have to respond to this post since you have made some excellent observations.
allowing resources to remain idle can be a profitable course of action. Of course, the substance of my assertion were largely that PROFITABLE enterprises and individuals would ultimately accumulate the capital needed to both defend and coerce valued resources from less profitable competitors.
but yes, you are correct that sometimes allowing resources to remain temporarly idle is preferable to less profitable immediate uses.
however, since you didnt specifically assert otherwise, I assumed your example of an idle forest was simply an example of a negligent and lazy owner as opposed to a profit driven calculating owner reacting correctly to changing market conditions.
This rests on the assumption that wealthier an actor becomes the more likely they are to steal, the opposite is more common.-- angurse
that is an accurate assumption since a wealthy actor has more capital to fund a coercive act. but these occurances will be rare and only viable when coercion is more profitable then peaceful exchange and the transaction costs of coercion are less then the resulting profit from annexing the valued resource.
later, my shift is over.
thanks for the debate, you hit a three at the end by citing the importance of idle resources under certain market conditions.
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
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?
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?
You haven't responded to my claim.
I said: Peaceful exchange is always possible.
What the actor/enterprise would do is entirely different than what they could do. So please read more carefully before throwing out your "manifestly false" cries.
Furthermore, every purchaser, of anything, at any time, would like to buy on better terms than those presented. Similarly, to call a price "exorbitant" price" is meaningless. "Exorbitant" compared to what? Show the criteria to determine whether a price is "fair" or "exorbitant." The same can be said for "inefficient." Show the criteria to determine whether the use is "efficient" or "inefficient."
But to answer your question, no. Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.
obviously if the resource is utilized in this manner it is not IDLE.
I haven't argued against the notion that wealthier firms and individuals have more means at there disposal. Just the likelihood of them coercing and benefit they'll derive from said actions.
but yes, you are correct that sometimes allowing resources to remain temporarly idle is preferable to less profitable immediate uses. however, since you didnt specifically assert otherwise, I assumed your example of an idle forest was simply an example of a negligent and lazy owner as opposed to a profit driven calculating owner reacting correctly to changing market conditions.
Why would such an assumption be the default?
that is an accurate assumption since a wealthy actor has more capital to fund a coercive act.
but these occurances will be rare and only viable when coercion is more profitable then peaceful exchange and the transaction costs of coercion are less then the resulting profit from annexing the valued resource.
No that isn't an accurate assumption. Its a logical misstep. Having more means at your disposal in no way means that you are more likely to use them coercively.
You haven't responded to my claim. I said: Peaceful exchange is always possible. What the actor/enterprise would do is entirely different than what they could do. So please read more carefully before throwing out your "manifestly false" cries. --angurse
What the actor/enterprise would do is entirely different than what they could do. So please read more carefully before throwing out your "manifestly false" cries. --angurse
in a fantasyland world of miscalculating idiots, peaceful exchange is possible if idiots are willing to pay incredibly exorbidant rents, fees, et al for a valued resource when they could take the same resource by force at less costs
But to answer your question, no. Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.-- angurse
if transaction costs of coercion are prohibitive, why would ancap society need PDAs ?
The forest is idle "acres of forests just sitting" - the capital is not. The more liquid the resource (like capital) the more mobile it is.--angurse
waste of time,
go back look at my post, i said specifically that the resource cant be leverage in any way for profit.
you are playing games here and not interested in seriously engaging the substance of my posts and assertion --- rather you are engaged in disengenious sideshows, semantic diversions, and fallacious evasions.
i am out of here.
"in a fantasyland world of miscalculating idiots, peaceful exchange is possible if idiots are willing to pay incredibly exorbidant rents, fees, et al for a valued resource when they could take the same resource by force at less costs."
1. Cost is subjective.
2. How does this respond to the other argument?
'if transaction costs of coercion are prohibitive, why would ancap society need PDAs?"
Even in a society without coercion, people may get defense because they want to feel secure, or to guard against an uncertain future.
Schools are labour camps.
Nitpicks from previous article:
"in sum, capitalism is profit, the means by which profit is attain is secondary."
All human action seeks to profit. This is not exclusive to any political or economic system.
"Of course, peaceful exchange benefits society to a greater extent than a coercion exchange."
No, peaceful exchange benefits both, while coercive exchange benefits the exploiter at the expense of the exploited.
"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."
Are you trying to implicate that it is morally right? Coercion isn't only possible in this circumstance. What do you mean by the word "possible".
"property is a valued resource that is precious and coveted,"
property doesn't need to be seen as precious.
"therefore it must be efficiently utilized and defended or it will be annexed to the overall benefit of society."
1. Property doesn't need to be effeciently utilized, it is up to the owner.
2. Property doesn't need to be defended by the owner.
3. "overall benefit to society" how are you determining this, utilitarianism?
"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)."
1. I see a problem with your strategy. What if there is no "center of gravity"? Also, your definition of "center of gravity" is vague, and makes it sound like there are multiple "centers to gravity". I want to know exactly what you mean by the metaphor.
2. I see another problem. There are scenarios where the application of force is more effective when it is done in small numbers, or unfocused, or done later rather then now. Such as assasinations, large numbers could botch the attempt. To what particular problems does your theory apply.
"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''"
Strawman, what ancap is adverse to is not the concentration of power in one PDA, but the use of coercion, for example, to prevent another PDA from forming, or forcing people to stay within that PDA. Concentration of power is perfectly compatible with ancap, as long as the power was obtained through noncoercive means, and the people in power do not utilize coercion. Also, Lord Action was speaking in terms of political power of the government, not necessarily of power in an ancap society.
"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,"
Actually, they would be at an advantage. Assuming your theory is correct, that force would be most effective if quickly and effeciently concentrated at the center, the ancap organizations would have every incentive to cooperate, mobilize a force in great numbers and quickly, and cooperitively attack the weak point of any aggressor. i should point out that your strategy does not seem to state that a force is at a disadvantage if there are multiple organizations, where did you get the theory. Even if consumers would be better served by one PDA, the possibility of customers refusing service will prompt the PDA to improve its tactics.
"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. "
Why doesn't a state have these shortcomings? or one PdA?
"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."
But PDAs can choose to concentrate their forces under a unified command if they choose to. Or cooperatively pay for a unified command.
A lot of people say that people are intuitively against libertarianism, but I agree. It's just that libertarianism isn't a philosophy
that is being taught at schools, university's etc so a lot of people don't know what it is really about. They just
assume things, and after having 15 years education about the virtues of the state, few people will realize that it
could actually work.
But, I think there is hope. I can clearly remember that I actually had a intuition towards libertarianism at school.
Back then I was a social liberal, just as my parents. But when we had to learn Keynesian Economics I remember
that I had trouble with understanding the models because they didn't really made sense to me at that time (it didn't changed
my mind about politics though). Later, when I was introduced to Milton Friedman I understood why. Because Keynesian
Economics is bs. So this is a great advantage for AE. The only thing is we have to keep promote the ideas.
peaceful exchange is always possible -- angurse
what if the owner refuses to sell ?
The same reason society need locks. Because not all men are rational, they don't possess perfect knowledge, and they simply aren't angels. Maybe they'll straighten up, I doubt it though. -- angurse
you are correct that many market participants dont possess perfect knowledge and this condition will lead many to successfully and unsuccessly use coercion to gain a profit. This does indeed prove my assertions that coercion is simply a means to an end -- in the case of profit driven actors, coercion is used to secure a profit when peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.
on the other points you are manifestly wrong.
it is not irrational for a profit-driven actor to use coercion to annex a valued resource if peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.
what is irrational is pacifists posing as ancaps believing that coercion is only the act of an irrational person. This idealist naviete is one of the reasons why there has been no sustainable pacifist ancap societies.
Normal 0
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.
In sum, you advocate corporate charity so negligent owners like our turner can fund defense for idle resources.
seriously dude, this business model would lead to both the charitable organizations and associations AND your hypothetical turner being ripe for predation from a profit driven individual, investors, and enterprises.
resources need to be utilized to their most profitable use or the owner will not be able to provide a commensurate level of defense for that resource.
eliotn,
of course cost is subjective.
the substantive of my argument was that in the absence of peaceful exchange or if peaceful exchange was too costly -- profit driven individuals, enterprises, and investors will use coercion to secure the resource by force. This is beneficial to society since it will allow for the reallocation of resources from unproductive uses to productive uses.
Even in a society without coercion, people may get defense because they want to feel secure, or to guard against an uncertain future. --eliotn
why would anyone feel insecure in a world without coercion ?
but we all know the pacifist view is unrealistic and fantasy.
coercion is simply a means to an end, it won't disappear when/if government disappears. in fact, it may be more common since many governments are motivated by stability, equality, and peace -- if not economic profit
in contrast, ancap society will be profit driven, hence if coercion can be utilized to gain a profit in the absence of a peaceful exchange -- then coercion it is.
Exchange with someone else. Notice how easy it is:
A: I would like to buy a soda, please.
B: That'll be $2.00
A: $2.00! What an exorbitant price! I won't pay.
Mr. A now has two options to procure the soda, find someone else who is willing to sell for cheaper or steal it. In the long run the former is the better idea.
If you used words correctly, I'd respond to that. Moving on...
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.
Concentration of power is perfectly compatible with ancap, as long as the power was obtained through noncoercive means, and the people in power do not utilize coercion. Also, Lord Action was speaking in terms of political power of the government, not necessarily of power in an ancap society.--eliotn
But PDAs can choose to concentrate their forces under a unified command if they choose to. Or cooperatively pay for a unified command.--eliotn
Acton was referring to human beings, not systems.
you dont think that concentrating military power is dangerous?
private PDAs that possess tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, et al will likely coalesce to more effectively meet external threats, then society is at increased risk of the emergence of absolutism.
In contrast, if PDAs dont align to meet threats, they can be destroyed in detail by a larger unified force.
nonetheless, it will no take long for ancap society to morph into a geopolitik of monopoly defense establishments within the various global ancap societies.
BramElias,
I agree with you that education will lead to a more free society.
I also agree with you that AE is far more effective at generating societal health and well being then socialism and other keynesian schemes.
IN sum, facts are stubborn things, mankind is becoming more free, albeit in fits and starts.
however, if anything is constant over history is the utility of coercion to secure ends/goals in the absence of peaceful negotiation or exchange.
it is probably beneficial that humans are expert and comfortable in the use of coercion since we would have never left the savannah.
angures,
your entire post is rife with misrepresentations, misunderstanding, fallacies, and diversions that I will have to address them in detail starting with the following:
my original post:
it is not irrational for a profit-driven actor to use coercion to annex a valued resource if peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible. -- Rettoper
your response:
I've already explained why it is. "Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs." Please address arguments, you sound like a parrot.--angursee
I have covered this elementary tenet numerous times, please go back and read the original thread if you dont understand.
however for your benefit and education I will repeat this simple tenet:
coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, and (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion.
coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion.
coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion. -- Rettoper
Your claim that "long-term repercussions of the theft is what leads to higher transaction costs" is irrelevent to the assertion above.
REad the above quote, I clearly acknowledge that there are transaction costs associated with the use of coercion
and the fact that you have cited a specific transaction cost does nothing to refute my assertion.
do you understand the quote above?
dude, I am watching the super bowl and will address YOUR non-sequiturs and strawman after the game.
coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion
" the substantive of my argument was that in the absence of peaceful exchange or if peaceful exchange was too costly -- profit driven individuals, enterprises, and investors will use coercion to secure the resource by force. This is beneficial to society since it will allow for the reallocation of resources from unproductive uses to productive uses."
Did you answer the question of when coercion is beneficial? You simply said that "if it is too costly", which really means whenever someone decides to, as costs are subjective to the individual. The way you worded it makes it seem that all coercion is beneficial to society, which is a self-contradiction (what happens when two people use coercion against each other, whose coercion is beneficial to society?) and demonstratably false. Also, how do you define what is unproductive
"why would anyone feel insecure in a world without coercion ?"
I assume that they are uncertain in regards to whether there will be violence in the future. If everyone felt that they would not be coerced in the future, PDAs, as well as other means of self-defense, will not be undertaken.
"coercion is simply a means to an end, it won't disappear when/if government disappears. "
Agreed.
"in fact, it may be more common since many governments are motivated by stability, equality, and peace -- if not economic profit"
Sorry, but this is a red herring. How does a government's motivation determine that it will use less coercion then PDAs? Also, people within governments don't always have these ends in mind.
"in contrast, ancap society will be profit driven"
No, everyone acts in order to profit, and instituting a government creates no exception. Note that profit is subjective, and does not mean monetary profit, but that the world will change to a state that is perceived as better by the actor.
angruse,
you have left the tracks completely,
the fact that there are transaction costs is not a rebut of the following statement:
coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion -- Rettoper
Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.
In sum, your assertion simply supports my thesis or does nothing to refute it, namely that ancap society would devolve into larger hegemonic firms thereby increasing the threat of absolutism.
The way you worded it makes it seem that all coercion is beneficial to society, which is a self-contradiction - eliotn
you are correct not all coercion is beneficial to society. but eventually the accumulated coercive and peaceful exchange within the overall ancap economy will allow valued resources to be reallocated to their most efficient economic use.
(what happens when two people use coercion against each other, whose coercion is beneficial to society?) and demonstratably false.Also, how do you define what is unproductive-- eliotn
coercion is simply a means to redistribute valued resources, the individual or enterprises that is the most productive will generally win this competition thereby allowing for the reallocation of valued resources to its most economically productive owner.
an unproductive use is demonstrated when an inefficient or negligent owner cannot provide adequate defense because he has not utilized the valued resource productively. Hence coercion is a useful tool to reallocate resources from unproductive uses to productive uses when peaceful exchange is not possible
Sorry, but this is a red herring. How does a government's motivation determine that it will use less coercion then PDAs? Also, people within governments don't always have these ends in mind. -- eliotn
I base this assertion on the empirical evidence that confirms that liberal democracies are inherently peaceful toward other liberal democracies:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM
No, everyone acts in order to profit, and instituting a government creates no exception. Note that profit is subjective, and does not mean monetary profit, but that the world will change to a state that is perceived as better by the actor. -- eliotn
True, everyone has different goals. However within ancap society those individuals and enterprises that are economically profit driven would accumulate the most valued resources, wealth, and material power -- all required to build and maintain powerful security agencies.
In contrast, those actors who were not motivated to accumulate material wealth and profit would not have the capital to fund aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, nuclear weaponry, et al.
In sum, aesthetically motivated actors would not be able to fund powerful PDAs relative to more economically profit driven actors hence that would eventually impact their ability to defend and hold these valued resources.
Rettoper,
I'll admit I didn't read every post in this thread but you essentially see a legitimation of coercion to maximize output efficiently?
Do you disregard social justice in this premise for the sake of argument? If so, your recap is false, in my opinion, because the primary tenet of libertarianism is focused on justice for the individual against coercive exchange (the reason why the state has been eliminated).
The hypothetical contemporary world of ancap is a property-based society. The largest companies deliver the most satisfaction, they are the ones which provide individuals with the goods on their praxeological lists. A coercive exchange is not mutually beneficial therefore neglecting the essence of libertarianism. In markets, competition is very ambitious and the companies which respect property and adhere to libertarian justice will be the most succesful, most effective AND most efficient. As Angurse has mentioned the transaction costs are signifcantly higher in coercive exchange; not to mention the effect on reputability and public mindfulness on incorruptibility.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Not so. The transactions costs for specific companies - namely ones that are more likely to annex your property, would increase. As people would want much more to do business with them due to the increased risk.
Do you disregard social justice in this premise for the sake of argument? If so, your recap is false, in my opinion, because the primary tenet of libertarianism is focused on justice for the individual against coercive exchange (the reason why the state has been eliminated). -- mahall
liberty and freedom, while natural rights, are not guaranteed.
it is the responsibility of the individual citizen or enterprise to secure and protect their own liberty.
moreover, it is despotic to hold another person responsible for insuring and protecting another citizen's 'rights'.
in ancap society, private individuals and enterprises would have to enforce and protect their own freedom and it could only be guaranteed by force.
follow this exchange from a contributor who did not understand this truth to better understand my position:
"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. ... -- angursee 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? -- Rettoper Non-sequitur. Difficulties with capitalism don't change the definition. --angurse 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 Defending rights has nothing to do with capitalism qua capitalism. However, to respond to your non-sequitur challenge..... angurse I'm SOL in such circumstance, as would be pretty much anyone in such situation. -- angurse
"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. ... -- angursee
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? -- Rettoper
Non-sequitur. Difficulties with capitalism don't change the definition. --angurse
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
Defending rights has nothing to do with capitalism qua capitalism. However, to respond to your non-sequitur challenge..... angurse
I'm SOL in such circumstance, as would be pretty much anyone in such situation. -- angurse
Of course, this skeptic came around to admitting the obvious. However, he confirms his lack of understanding with his last statement -- 'pretty much anyone in such situation' -- wrong -- an individual or enterprise that was well armed (due to productive profit seeking actions) would largely be immune from predation.
The hypothetical contemporary world of ancap is a property-based society. The largest companies deliver the most satisfaction, they are the ones which provide individuals with the goods on their praxeological lists. A coercive exchange is not mutually beneficial therefore neglecting the essence of libertarianism. In markets, competition is very ambitious and the companies which respect property and adhere to libertarian justice will be the most succesful, most effective AND most efficient. As Angurse has mentioned the transaction costs are signifcantly higher in coercive exchange; not to mention the effect on reputability and public mindfulness on incorruptibility. -- mahall
Not true, Ancap society is based on capitalism which is only sustainable by profitable activities. Moreover, when property or resources change hands through coercion they are still in private hands.
Lastly, ancap society would reward profitable enterprises and individuals -- not necessarily those that respected property rights at the expense of increased profits.
history is replete with examples of the societies that wielded power productively being the most powerful, secure, and prosperous -- if not the most feared and respected.
individuals and enterprises that expertly accumulated and wielded valued resources would attract the most investors, talent, wealth, capital, and power irrespective of the manner in which they obtained this power.
What are you talking about? Re-read your own premise.
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?
Any individual, even one who "was well armed (due to his profit seeking actions)" is still completely SOL with a Mossberg in his mouth. He has obviously lost the struggle at that point. Enterprises don't have mouths though so it doesn't apply there at all.
Not so. The transactions costs for specific companies - namely ones that are more likely to annex your property, would increase. As people would want much more to do business with them due to the increased risk. -- angurse
this comment doesnt make sense. A targeted company would have to spend more money on defense, if it was small relative to the predator PDA then its bottom line would suffer and it would be at increased risk of failure. Moreover, it is absurd to think that a company at risk of predation would attract investors since these new owners would be at increased risk of losing their investment. In contrast, productive and profitable individuals, investors, and enterprises that would likely see an increase in investment capital from profit seeking investors irrespective of whether the productive firm used coercion or peaceful exchange to increase profits.
IN sum, profit seeking investors would never invest in unprofitable companies simply because they are 'peaceful and nice'. Of course, idealist pacifist would invest in 'nice' firms and see their investment decline due to predation among other factors.
Take a look at the geopolitik -- respect for private property at the expense of profit doesnt guarantee anything, except that you have abrogated an important method for gaining wealth, security, and power and at the same time given your profit seeking rival a critical upper hand in future competition.
See Warren Buffet for a refutation of your naive assertion: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther_darfur.fortune/index.htm
Also, this analysis is completely nonsensical. It isn't the cost of security that would increase, the cost of doing business would increase. --angurse
WOW are you serious dude !
by your definition, the cost a firm spends on security is not part of the cost of doing business ?!
If your analysis were correct it would logically lead to decreased competition - angurse
my analysis does lead to decreased competition, as I stated earlier:
Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.--Rettoper
Increased competition lowers a firms market share it doesn't increase it. Learn basic economics. --angurse
This is getting tedious. Across the entire market, competition weeds out the less productive enterprises eventually leading to a market of nimble large and stable firms (PDAs) exactly as I stated above.
In sum, through lack or understanding or evasion, you cherry-picked your analysis by focusing on an individual hypothetical (unproductive) firm that loses market share due to unproductive business practices -- but the industry as a whole would see these weaker firms fail due to acquisitions, predation, and mergers with larger more productive firms.
Any individual, even one who "was well armed (due to his profit seeking actions)" is still completely SOL with a Mossberg in his mouth. He has obviously lost the struggle at that point. Enterprises don't have mouths though so it doesn't apply there at all. -angurse
you seriously dont understand the idea that a 'mossberg in the mouth' implies that your security regime had failed and should not be taken literally ?
IN sum, the inefficient and unproductive actor didnt lose the 'struggle' at the moment the mossberg was inserted into his pie-hole -- it was lost when the defeated actor was unable or unwilling to effectively manage his coveted resource(s) at an economically profitable level. Hence, he did not have the resources to fund an adequate security regime.
if you need clarification or dont understand the difference between literal and figurative, please ask.
Rettoper:liberty and freedom, while natural rights, are not guaranteed. it is the responsibility of the individual citizen or enterprise to secure and protect their own liberty. moreover, it is despotic to hold another person responsible for insuring and protecting another citizen's 'rights'. in ancap society, private individuals and enterprises would have to enforce and protect their own freedom and it could only be guaranteed by force.
The individual is free to choose if or how to defend themselves and their property. I don't think we were debating this.
Rettoper:Not true, Ancap society is based on capitalism which is only sustainable by profitable activities. Moreover, when property or resources change hands through coercion they are still in private hands.
In ancap there is no such property besides that of 'private hands' ownership, no argument there. My posistion is that using Mossbergs offensively as a means of exchange is much more costly than voluntarism.
Your description reminds me of eminent domain, do you agree?
Rettoper:Lastly, ancap society would reward profitable enterprises and individuals -- not necessarily those that respected property rights at the expense of increased profits.
You have described the actions of a crime syndicate and then declared the capitalist society would approve of their profit seeking, coercion based, venture. I don't think that is a sound argument. An anti-statist (voluntary) society would not approve of statist (involuntary) means.
By the way, every society is based on individual self interest (greed) and profit.
Rettoper:history is replete with examples of the societies that wielded power productively being the most powerful, secure, and prosperous -- if not the most feared and respected.
Sure, history certainly is ripe with coercion, doesn't mean the future has to be.
Rettoper:individuals and enterprises that expertly accumulated and wielded valued resources would attract the most investors, talent, wealth, capital, and power irrespective of the manner in which they obtained this power.
'Ancap power' is a different breed of power then which you have just described. Just out of curiosity, how attracted would capitalist individuals be to enterprises which wrecklessly pollute riverways and refuse to pay compensation?
A targeted company would have to spend more money on defense, if it was small relative to the predator PDA then its bottom line would suffer and it would be at increased risk of failure. Moreover, it is absurd to think that a company at risk of predation would attract investors since these new owners would be at increased risk of losing their investment. In contrast, productive and profitable individuals, investors, and enterprises that would likely see an increase in investment capital from profit seeking investors irrespective of whether the productive firm used coercion or peaceful exchange to increase profits.
Nowhere have I postured a scenario where a company is "targeting" another. Your are refuting arguments that haven't been brought up. Please stick to my argument.
Quote me.
my analysis does lead to decreased competition, as I stated earlier: Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.--Rettoper
Read the last line.
Across the entire market, competition weeds out the less productive enterprises eventually leading to a market of nimble large and stable firms (PDAs) exactly as I stated above.
Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition
angurse,
I will try and make it easy for you and go very slow since it is apparent that you either dont understand my thesis or you are unable to rebut it with substantive debate so you have resorted to off-topic, vague and diversionary fallacious retorts.
1) do you believe that coercion exists ?
2) if yes, do you believe that all actors that resort to coercion to achieve economic ends are irrational ?
I am trying to make it easy for you, so we will resolve these simple points before moving forward.
Angurse,
I would disagree. Action is always rational.
"I base this assertion on the empirical evidence that confirms that liberal democracies are inherently peaceful toward other liberal democracies:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM"
This only answers part of my question, of whether such a government will be hostile to certain other governmental organizations through war. What I want to know includes whether people within government employ coercion against people in areas that are not liberal, or whether such an organization employs coercion against residents, known as citizens.
"coercion is simply a means to redistribute valued resources, the individual or enterprises that is the most productive will generally win this competition thereby allowing for the reallocation of valued resources to its most economically productiveowner."
If you accept this argument, you must accept that all existing governments are economically productive. All successful crime is economically productive. This is contradictiory with my definition of economic productivity, which is the test of whether a firm is satisfying consumers without coercion.
"an unproductive use is demonstrated when an inefficient or negligent owner cannot provide adequate defense because he has not utilized the valued resource productively."
Non-sequitor. How someone defends a resource has no correlation on how they are using it productively. To show my point, firms that
"Hence coercion is a useful tool to reallocate resources from unproductive uses to productive uses when peaceful exchange is not possible"
This argument justifies all coercive exchanges in all situations. If a peaceful exchange was possible in the scenario, it would have been done beforehand, as both actors would have voluntarily accepted it. You can cite scenarios where someone used coercion in an instance where it would have been possible to do the exact exchange, except both actors didn't know it, but I could counter by making the exchange more favorable for the coercer.
Hence, the need to define what you mean by "when peaceful exchange is not possible", as some other arguments indicate that this is contradictiory to when you say coercive exchange is economically productive.
"True, everyone has different goals. However within ancap society those individuals and enterprises that are economically profit driven would accumulate the most valued resources, wealth, and material power -- all required to build and maintain powerful security agencies.
In contrast, those actors who were not motivated to accumulate material wealth and profit would not have the capital to fund aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, nuclear weaponry, et al."
1. I see a non sequitor. Motivation to acquire material wealth does not imply material wealth. People may be motivated to gain material wealth, but choose inappropriate ends to their means. On the other hand, people who are unmotivated to gain material wealth may receive an inheritance or gift.
Also, the fact that PDAs are profit driven is actually a boon, as it motivates them to provide effective defense. Coercion is unprofitable as people will stop using their service and rival PDAs will be on their case.
Makes the term rational a bit too pleonastic for my casual tastes, loosen your Misesian terminological standards a bit.
I've got it on the mind since I'm reading HA for the first time. Would you agree that 'illogical' or 'unreasonable' would be the better desciptive word for a resort to coercive exchange? I hear what you are saying but action, by defintion, is rational.
How about mistaken? Also emphasis should be placed on the nature of the mistake, it seems people often have in mind mistakes of a technical nature
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
angurse take note --- eliotn offers an example of rational, informed, and substantive rebuts:
What I want to know includes whether people within government employ coercion against people in areas that are not liberal, or whether such an organization employs coercion against residents, known as citizens.-- eloitn
all government is coercive -- liberal democracies employ a more subtle and less violent form of coercion.
If you accept this argument, you must accept that all existing governments are economically productive. All successful crime is economically productive. --eloitn
government is not economically productive since wealth is redistributed from profitable enterprises and individuals to politically connected enterprises and individuals. Politicians and their cronies in the private and public sector are motivated by the rules of politics, not economics.
How someone defends a resource has no correlation on how they are using it productively. To show my point, firms that....This argument justifies all coercive exchanges in all situations. If a peaceful exchange was possible in the scenario, it would have been done beforehand, as both actors would have voluntarily accepted it. You can cite scenarios where someone used coercion in an instance where it would have been possible to do the exact exchange, except both actors didn't know it, but I could counter by making the exchange more favorable for the coercer. -- eliotn
all exchanges whether peaceful or coercive represent subjective value judgments on the value of the resource being traded and coerced -- and the means by which the resource changes hands.
Hence, coercion is justified in all cases it is used when the actor believes that he is using the most effective means to achieve his goal. In fact, all forms of coercion can be considered pre-emptive and self-defense because of the inherent nature of mankind toward violence.
the need to define what you mean by "when peaceful exchange is not possible", as some other arguments indicate that this is contradictiory to when you say coercive exchange is economically productive. --eliotn
peaceful exchange is not possible when an actor decides it isnt. the market will eventually determine whether coercive acts are economically successful as it does with peaceful exchanges.
Motivation to acquire material wealth does not imply material wealth. People may be motivated to gain material wealth, but choose inappropriate ends to their means. On the other hand, people who are unmotivated to gain material wealth may receive an inheritance or gift.. -- eliotn
I disagree, call me crazy or an idealist -- but I am going to go out on a limb and assert that economically motivated actors will accumulate more economic wealth then actors who are not motivated by economic ends.
of course, we are dealing with human beings, never an exact science, and I am sure you could cite anecdotal evidence of a non-economically motivated actor becoming rich.
Also, the fact that PDAs are profit driven is actually a boon, as it motivates them to provide effective defense. Coercion is unprofitable as people will stop using their service and rival PDAs will be on their case.-- eliotn
we says a PDA must provide defense? It is possible that private militaries possessing tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, et al will be funded by plunder, mergers, acquistions, hostile takeovers, and profit driven investors to secure lucrative centers of gravity like, water/food stuffs, geographic choke points, energy reserves, transportation hubs, earth orbits, mineral deposits, industrial centers, et al.
moreover, a successful and aggressive offensive minded PDA would attract more investors, talent, and resources. IN contrast, I think PDA that provided security to individual citizens would be equivalent to local police and of no consequence to PDA that projected power on a global scale.