I agree with you that protection costs will be proportional to the value of the resource being defended. that is my fundamental point -- saudi oil reserves would be heavily defended, similarly the great lakes, chilean lithium reserves, the mallacca straits, the three gorges dam, megan fox's ass, et al.
Haha. I can't disagree with this.
so it stands to reason that if the ability to provide security for these resources is negatively impacted due to a misallocation or mismanagement of the resource then the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by coercion is increased.
Sure, a woman with a diamond ring that is passed out in the ghetto has a high likelihood of her ring being stolen.
Otherwise, why would an ancap varying the level of spending in the first place ! and if the level of spending is critical, and the purpose of the spending is to deter coercion, then a change in the level is equally critical and directly influences the likelihood of conflict over the resource.
I agree - Resources are scare in ancap-land just as they are in statism. People with jewels and treasures in statism will likely lock them in safes in the same manner in which ancap-land will. People utilize private defense when they desire to really be defended (both in statism and ancap).
We are getting close to a moral discussion here. Reminds me of the mindset that the scantily dressed woman was asking to be raped so the rapist need not be punished.
hence ancap society will be violent on the margins where resources are being inefficiently managed and that violence will be motivated by economic profit. end of story.
end of story.
You have stated that ancap will legalize the theif's actions of taking the diamond ring from the passed out woman because economic profit is a motive on a pedestal. I disagree. I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying that it won't be lawful.
To try and form some sort of comprimise here I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I'll agree with you (subjectively) that the 10 milling machines in the basement could be utilized more effectively to produce goods that individuals want (rather than being 'excessivly idle'). But to legalize plunder in this occasion is a critical step away from free market principles. It is a threat to voluntary exchange and all ancap has done to limit compulsion.
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case— is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. - Bastiat's The Law
But how is this legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay, for it is not only an evil itself, but also it is a fertile source for further evils because it invites reprisals. If such a law—which may be an isolated case— is not abolished immediately, it will spread, multiply, and develop into a system. The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen. Do not listen to this sophistry by vested interests. The acceptance of these arguments will build legal plunder into a
whole system. In fact, this has already occurred. The present day delusion is an attempt to enrich everyone at the expense of everyone else; to make plunder universal under the pretense of organizing it. - Bastiat's The Law
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.
Sure, a woman with a diamond ring that is passed out in the ghetto has a high likelihood of her ring being stolen.--mahall
I dont see any substantive difference between an undefended diamond ring and an undefended transportation hub, water supply, industrial park, et al.
We are getting close to a moral discussion here. Reminds me of the mindset that the scantily dressed woman was asking to be raped so the rapist need not be punished. -- mahall
the rape scenario is not related to my proposition since it is not based on economic profit. the actor in your scenarion is seeking to satisfy a brute and base pleasure need at the risk of severe punishment and no economic gain. These kinds of actors will not have any power in ancap society. Indeed, they will quickly become marginalized.
In contrast, my proposition is based on economic profit driven actors -- since their goals are economic as compared to base needs, morality, egalitarianism, nationalism, religion, et al -- they will become the most powerful actors on the geopolitik since they will possess the valued economic resources.
You have stated that ancap will legalize the theif's actions of taking the diamond ring from the passed out woman because economic profit is a motive on a pedestal. I disagree. I'm not saying it won't happen. I'm simply saying that it won't be lawful. -- mahall
the question legality or justice is irrelevent if the law cant be enforced by force, ask Mubarak. We all know that tax law in the USA is unjust and confiscatory, yet we all submit, including ancaps, because we do not have the means to challenge the existing power structure.
similarly, in ancap society societal laws and norms are meaningless, if they cannot be enforced. An army that possesses tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, ICBMs, is not going to capitulate based on the dictate of briefcase carrying lawyers when 'push comes to shove'.
Morover, I think citizens in ancap society will glorify and flock to the strongest armies that provide the most effective service and secure the most capital and resources. This kind of army becomes a microsoft, walmart, apple, et al and attracts the most investment and capital.
Lastly, why is it immoral to be successful and strong ? in contrast, why is it moral to be unprofitable and weak ?
indeed, this is statist 'logic' applied to security and defense. -- namely those societal actors who have a skill set that makes them formidble fighters are not allowed to leverage their God given gifts to better themselves.
Isnt all activity in the free market competitive and predatory ?
Why should force be the only means not acceptable ? I can tell you why.... it is a scheme by the weak ans lazy to defend inefficient and unproductive management thereby avoiding the consequences associated with this sloth and wasteful behavior.
But to legalize plunder in this occasion is a critical step away from free market principles. It is a threat to voluntary exchange and all ancap has done to limit compulsion. -- mahall
all an owner has to do is provide a measure of security that deters predation ---- it doesnt have to be much. Since there are considerable transaction costs associated with coercion, security wouldnt have to be costly, just enough to insure that the costs of annexing the resource are greater than the value of the resource and the costs required to take it.
Indeed, my guess is that the future cooperative that owns the mississippi river would immediately purchase the rights of a few nuclear tipped missiles to use as a deterrent to possible predation. Likewise, Megan Fox could purchase a contract from a company that provides cruise missiles on demand to retailate against some indiscretion or grope.
it would be fun, it would be productive, but it wouldn't be peaceful.
The person who profits from this law will complain bitterly, defending his acquired rights. He will claim that the state is obligated to protect and encourage his particular industry; that this procedure enriches the state because the protected industry is thus able to spend more and to pay higher wages to the poor workingmen.--bastiat
This could include the whining from unproductive, wasteful, and inefficient owners of valued resources who would run to 'the Law' to protect their under utilized and under defended resource from predation by a productive and efficient owner.
note that their are crimes of omission that need to be enforced, namely the waste and corruption that inefficient owners of valued resources commit in ancap society. Hence they will not be protect from acts of omission, similar to the statist who should not be protected from equally inefficient and wasteful acts of commission.
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
I read them, I wasnt impressed, I've debunked them.
why hasnt the most effective system emerge by means of the most effective process ?
ponder that, and please no more ridiculous and irrelevent quotes from obscure 'authorities' -- rather think for yourself and provide your own argument. MOreover, if you use empirical evidence, provide a summation in your own words of the pertinent points.
It takes time, nothing happens overnight. -- angurse
ponder that, and please no more ridiculous and irrelevent quotes from obscure 'authorities' -- rather think for yourself and provide your own argument. MOreover, if you use empirical evidence, provide a summation in your own words of the pertinent points.--Rettoper I'm not going to simply think up history for myself. It may "work" for you but I like to be under the influence of facts and other mischievous things.--angurse
Lastly, I am issuing you a challenge angurse : is security necessary in ancap society ? and if so, how is the amount of security per resource determined ?
40,000 years of human history and no maximal capitalist society emerging out of the detritus of anarchy !!!
Okay, you can continue to hang your hat on 'it takes time' in the absence of a reason WHY.
Thanks.
I'm not asking you to 'think up history' -- I am asking you to simply read and summarize what you read.
and if so, how is the amount of security per resource determined ?
40,000 years of human history and no maximal capitalist society emerging out of the detritus of anarchy !!! --Rettoper
Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn't reveal a thing about possibilities. -- angurse
how is the amount of security per resource determined ? -- Rettoper By the owners. -angurse
how is the amount of security per resource determined ? -- Rettoper
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
reading comprehension fail....? -- nirgrahamuk
Wrong, the 'same things' cannot be said about democratic societies and toasters since they have both been realized.
was there ever a time when they weren't realized?-angurse
indeed, however you still have not answered my challenge, save the truth that toasters and democracy exists:
"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ?
Moreover, I challenged you to answer a simple question and the challenge remains unanswered, save the typical misunderstanding and diversion
" How is the level of security determined within ancap society" ?
for example, it is obvious that owners decide the level of security in ancap society, that toasters exist, and that ancap society has not emerged.
what I am challenging you to consider is how much security and why no ancap society.
in sum, if you dont understand a concept or a question -- ask for clarification.
It is a matter of interest and incentive. Within an anarchist society organisations will have no interest or incentive at using violent force to gain absolute power over everyone else.
There would be various police and defense agencies offering services to varied markets for security and defense. It would not be within the interest of one of these types of organisations to try and become a new government. If they did the population and their security forces would not have an issue resisting this new threat. They would not have communication problems and they would not have technical problems fighting this threat. In fact it would be efficient at fighting off the threat. So efficient that the environment where an organisation would think they had the opportunity to take over the region would never exist. This would ultimately be bad for business and ruin the name of the organisation that attempts to gain absolute power over everyone.
A regional centralized defensive force could exist inside an anarchist society; a government does not necessarily have to exist for that to exist. If the interests of the people within a region are the same, they could combine their efforts towards a common interest, that interest being defense of the region.
If we take an example of the UK becoming an anarchist society and then another country, say Poland. The polish army decides to try and takeover the UK, the UK being anarchist. How do you think the polish would practically take over the country?
The reason anarchist societies do not exist today is because of the state, not because an anarchist society would end up with a state so that is why they don’t exist. Circle logic of fail.
A regional centralized defensive force could exist inside an anarchist society; a government does not necessarily have to exist for that to exist. -- jack roberts
a territorial monopoly on coercive force is a tenet of statism and supports the thesis of my original post, namely that anarchism will degenerate into statism through coercive means.
The reason anarchist societies do not exist today is because of the state, not because an anarchist society would end up with a state so that is why they don’t exist. Circle logic of fail. --jack roberts
why hasnt anarchist society emerged when government fails ? Moreover, are you saying that we have always had government, hence anarchism has never been possible ?
and more importantly, why is the most effective system (capitalism) incapable or circumventing statist power and abuses and why are ancaps wasting their time promoting a system that cannot overcome statism in the absence of coercion?
lastly, the point of this thread is my assertion that coercion is a beneficial and necessary component of ancap society.
do you believe that coercion will exist in ancap society ?
do you believe that security will be necessary in ancap society ?
and what level of security is required ?
People with a common interest in defending a region are not being coerced. It could even go as far as, organisations competing at supplying defense for a region. So not only would we get defense of the country, but we would get the most efficient defense. That would not be proactive and cause problems for our country. Who knows what sort of defense we would actually have. We could have sam sites in residential neighbourhoods for a silly example.
Government fails constantly, actually government is one big fail. To say that when government fails anarchism will magically takeover, is to not understand reality. How do you expect an anarchist society to emerge, when as you said, government fails? An anarchist society can emerge very easily by the state making taxation voluntary. That would be the start to an anarchist society. But it will take a lot of hard work from people to educate the rest of the people as to the anarchist teachings before that happens. But that is another discussion. From what I know, without going back to the primitive era, we have always had a form of government, based on the history which we have, which is subject to the revision of the form of government at the time of writing and future governments. Some regions did not have governments for certain amounts of time, but within the civilised modern world we always had organisation that claimed to be running the regions that they were within. Certain organisations expanded their regions substantially, example British Commonwealth. But even so that does mean that anarchism is not possible. Anarchism requires a form of civilisation so it is not surprising that it was not the predominate system in history.
I had to read this one a few times because it is full of non-sense. Capitalism is an economic system and the state is a political system of control and dominance and “solutions”. People have been fighting the coercion of the state in its many forms for millennia. The economic system of capitalism will continue with or without the state or central planning or collectivist or monarchies or religious leaders etc.
lastly, the point of this thread is my assertion that coercion is a beneficial and necessary component of ancap society. do you believe that coercion will exist in ancap society ? do you believe that security will be necessary in ancap society ? and what level of security is required ?
Within an anarchist society individuals respect the right to use force to defends ones property. People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from. Of course coercion will exist within anarcho capital society. Of course security will be necessary.
The level of security that is required will be dictated by the consumers need for security based on several factors.
People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from.-- jack roberts Of course coercion will exist within anarcho capital society.-- jack roberts
People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from.-- jack roberts
Of course coercion will exist within anarcho capital society.-- jack roberts
well which is it ?!
will you have coercion within ancap society or not ?
People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from. . -- jack roberts Of course security will be necessary. --jack roberts
People do not condone nor encourage violence to satisfy ones needs. I do not where you got that misinterpretation of anarchy from. . -- jack roberts
Of course security will be necessary. --jack roberts
will you have theft from coercion within ancap society or not ?
you have to resolve this paradoxical thinking before we proceed.
You guys egg him on.
well which is it ?! will you have coercion within ancap society or not ?
You just do not have enough depth in your understanding of what coercion is. You can have coercion in schools or the workplace and even in family and social interactions. If that was a twisted way of asking if you will have a state in an anrcho capital society then of course the answer is no. Unless you like asking loaded and ridiculous questions?
Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.
indeed
That admission is all thats needed. All of your queries about why it doesn't exist now are utterly fruitless.
however you still have not answered my challenge, save the truth that toasters and democracy exists:
Yet, as you admit, that hasn't always been the truth. Perhaps you should think more about that.
it is manifestly absurd to support ancap society on the grounds that:
It takes time, nothing happens overnight.--angurse
Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn't reveal a thing about possibilities.--angures
Sorry, I can't answer your question, as its incoherent, peace isn't a means. Rewrite more clearly if you want a response. --angruse
(peace) = peaceful means, non-coercive, voluntary, et al.
semantic difficulties aside, the challenge remains:
I have no idea what this pertains to, if its obvious to you that owners decide the level of security, why are you asking the question again. I've already answered the question as to why ancap society hasn't emerged. -- angurse
Both challenges have been met, in the future please take the time to read my replies more carefully.--angurse
Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.--jack roberts
so you agree that coercion will exist in ancap society and that some coercive activity will be motivated by economic gain.
am I correct that this is your assertion ?
Rettoper:Yes it is likely that we will have theft by coercion but if it becomes taxation then an organisation starts to fit the definition of the state. But people will be robbed and people will conned, just the same as people are in today’s society. The only difference would be the way that policing, investigation, insurance and arbitration are handled.--jack roberts so you agree that coercion will exist in ancap society and that some coercive activity will be motivated by economic gain. am I correct that this is your assertion ?
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/18899/382546.aspx#382546
Rettoper: using this "logic" anything imaginable that doesnt exist can be confirmed simply because toasters and liberal democracy exist?! nonetheless, you still have not answered my challenge: "why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ? --Rettoper Your misunderstanding the simple argument that a lack of historical precedence does not invalidate future possibilites I find somewhat entertaining. We have gone over that so many times.... I suppose I shall suffice to challenge you with some of your own medicine. "why hasnt the most effective system (liberal democracies) emerged in North Korea? --Rettoperlike. 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 | Post Points: 20
I suppose I shall suffice to challenge you with some of your own medicine. "why hasnt the most effective system (liberal democracies) emerged in North Korea? --nirgrahamUK
"why hasnt the most effective system (anarcho-capitalism) emerged in NorthAmerica? --nirgrahamUK
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to anarcho-capitalism and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
Thanks for making it so easy for me to answer you.
"why hasnt the most effective system (anarcho-capitalism) emerged in NorthAmerica? --nirgrahamUK statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to anarcho-capitalism and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being. Thanks for making it so easy for me to answer you. -- nirgrahamuk
Thanks for making it so easy for me to answer you. -- nirgrahamuk
checkmate, you've just confirmed my assertion that ancap society is not sustainable or achievable
try reading my posts.
I have stated numerous times that ancap society is not viable as long as it rejects coercion as a means to obtain ends.
moreover, once it is achieved, coercion will be as prevalent within it as statist societies -- and likewise it will devolve into territorial monopolies of coercive power.
unknowingly, you have basically stated your support for many of the assertions I have posited on mises.org
thanks -- why dont you make me your friend, lol.
ha ha . you so funny !
it is manifestly absurd to support ancap society on the grounds that: It takes time, nothing happens overnight.--angurse and, Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn't reveal a thing about possibilities.--angures
Agreed. Now look up the terms "support" and "grounds" and see how nonsensical you are being.
in sum, your defense of ancap society is based on the following "logic": ancap society doesnt exist, liberal democracy doesnt exist, liberal democracy emerges, hence ancap society is confirmed since liberal democracy emerges !?
in sum, your defense of ancap society is based on the following "logic":
I haven't defended ancap society on said "logic" - please re-read my previous posts. The example of liberal democracy wasn't to "confirm" the coming emergence of anarcho-capitalism. There isn't a single post of mine insinuating such a thing.
You are just previously answered question with different terms. Why hasn't the most effective way to toast (toasters) emerged via the most effective means for toasting (invention).
Takes time.
My challenge to you is what factors determine the how much security is determined by the owner for a given resource?
Thats a question only the owners can answer.
and no, your assertion that liberal democracies and toaster exist, hence ancap society is possible is not an answer.
Moreover, your statement of the obvious 'owners decide the level of security' does not answer the question of how much security per resource.
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to liberal democracy and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
angurse,
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended . -- Rettoper
1) do you understand this statement ?
if not, ask for clarification.
2) do you disagree with this statement ?
if so, explain why.
so you agree that coercion will exist in ancap society and that some coercive activity will be motivated by economic gain. am I correct that this is your assertion ?
Of course coercion will exist in an ancap society, I just said that.
If individuals or an organisation try to coerce other people in to handing over money, then those people will have many methods of defending themselves and many methods of seeking justice. The difference within a statist society with regards to coercion is that the state legalizes coercion for itself, whilst in an anarchist society coercion would be illegal for everyone.
So by the very fact that coercion will be possible does not necessarily mean that a state is inevitable. ie the possibility of coercion will not ultimately lead to a state.
This is incorrect; there will be more methods of defending ones self from coercive organisations and more methods of seeking justice. The argument that territorial monopolies of coercive power will be prevalent is unfounded and illogical. People can move away from regions where such organisations try to steal from people by the use of force. There are many reasons already discussed that will prevent organisations from trying to steal from people by the threat of force. It is possible however and it could result in violence between different organisations. But that is no argument against removing larger regional territorial monopolies of coercive power.
Basically you are saying that we should keep the state in case we have more "governments" that pop up in its place... illogical. That would be like saying; we should allow the thief to keep stealing our money in case we have more thieves that will come in his place.
If individuals or an organisation try to coerce other people in to handing over money, then those people will have many methods of defending themselves and many methods of seeking justice. --jack roberts.
negligent, inefficient owner's of valued resources who do not effectively manage their resources will not have the economic wherewithal to fund an adequate level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource, hence their resource will be at greater risk of predation from profit motivated investors, individuals, and enterprises.
moreover, coercion is a means by which under utilized and inefficiently managed resources are transferred into the possession of efficient and productive owners hence society benefits since a heretofore underutilized poorly managed resource becomes more profitable.
The difference within a statist society with regards to coercion is that the state legalizes coercion for itself, whilst in an anarchist society coercion would be illegal for everyone.-- jack roberts
wrong, your subjective value judgment that coercion 'would be illegal' is meaningless and empty if you dont have the means to defend it. For example, a well armed and led PDA that covets your under utilized and hence under defended valued resource is not going to forego increased economic profit simply because you have an aversion to coercive force to achieve ends.
So by the very fact that coercion will be possible does not necessarily mean that a state is inevitable. ie the possibility of coercion will not ultimately lead to a state.-- jack roberts
simple question -- with regard to armed force, all other factors being equal, is it more/less effective to possess:
1) a larger army or a smaller army?
2) a centralized command and control or a decentralized command and control ?
3) are interior lines or dispersed forces ?
if you can accurately answer these questions, then you will understand why ancap society will evolve into a series of monopolistic territorial security agencies, albeit private. -- - Hence from here, the next step to absolutism is as easy as ceasar's crossing the rubicon.
This is incorrect; there will be more methods of defending ones self from coercive organisations and more methods of seeking justice. The argument that territorial monopolies of coercive power will be prevalent is unfounded and illogical.--jack roberts
wrong,
all other factors being equal --- the most powerful and prosperous security agencies will be those that are largest and most concentrated with a given geographic region for obvious reasons. however, I will explain the obvious for your benefit:
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.
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.
There are many reasons already discussed that will prevent organisations from trying to steal from people by the threat of force. It is possible however and it could result in violence between different organisations. -- jack roberts
the only reason an enterprise will exist in ancap society is to make a profit, period. MOreover, individuals and firms who do not engage in economic profit seeking actions will soon see their wealth relative to more profit-driven actors decline. Hence, your misguided and utopian opinion that ancap society will be pacific is illogical, albeit idealistic and well-intentioned.
In sum, when a choice exists between pacifism/status quo and coercion/profit, the most powerful profit driven actors will choose coercion to obtain profit. Moreover, these profit driven firms will eventually accumulate more power and wealth than pacifist driven individuals and enterprises. hence, maximal-capitalism, not your utopian fantasyland of maximal-pacifism.
but then again, I have already debunked your base arguments in the following thread:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19720.aspx
please read it before offering arguments that I have already debunked in detail on the thread above.
negligent, inefficient owner's of valued resources who do not effectively manage their resources will not have the economic wherewithal to fund an adequate level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource, hence their resource will be at greater risk of predation from profit motivated investors, individuals, and enterprises. moreover, coercion is a means by which under utilized and inefficiently managed resources are transferred into the possession of efficient and productive owners hence society benefits since a heretofore underutilized poorly managed resource becomes more profitable.
This is an irrelevant argument to the quoted text above it. To translate in to simpler english:
People are incapable and useless at managing valuable resources so they will be incapable of discerning the adequate level of security that the valuable resource should have, so the resource will be at a greater risk of theft from "profit seeking" organisations.
Theft is a way in which those valuable resources are allocated to owners that will more efficiently make use of them for profit and ultimately for the betterment of society. (end of translation)
It sounds like you are advocating theft, which even in a statist society would be illegal, moreover the state does not operate for profit, it operates to get the least amount of value for money spent that they can reasonably get away with. People are in fact more than capable at discerning the value of resources and more than capable of sourcing adequate security for their resources. Organisations or individuals that steal in an anarchist society will be dealt with as thieves and i think you overlook that aspect.
Your subjective judgement that people are incapable of valuing resources and selecting adequate security is meaningless and empty if you do not have the means to defend it. (This is one just for you and your strange use of the english language)
wrong, your subjective value judgment that coercion 'would be illegal' is meaningless and empty if you dont have the means to defend it. For example, a well-armed and led PDA that covets your underutilized and hence under defended valued resource is not going to forego increased economic profit simply because you have an aversion to coercive force to achieve ends.
Well that is the same even in a statist society, people will try to steal other peoples resources and if they are not defended or justice is not sourced after a theft occurs then they will get away with it. It will be exactly the same in an anarchist society and that is not realy an argument to the quoted text above it.
simple question -- with regard to armed force, all other factors being equal, is it more/less effective to possess: 1) a larger army or a smaller army? 2) a centralized command and control or a decentralized command and control ? 3) are interior lines or dispersed forces ? if you can accurately answer these questions, then you will understand why ancap society will evolve into a series of monopolistic territorial security agencies, albeit private. -- - Hence from here, the next step to absolutism is as easy as ceasar's crossing the rubicon.
I see you like to ask questions as answers. You like to set the terms of the conversation and seem to be in capable of a rational conversation. I am suspect about your sincerity and motives.
You have not demonstrated how it will end in absolutism. Questions about the effectiveness of security and armed forces are subject to semantics and examples. Your argument is that a centralised, large and interior armed force will take over the region within an anarchist society. But the possibility of a state forming in anarchist society is no reason not to abolish the state and try to exist without it. Surely then the armed force that takes over in anarchist society from your perspective would not be a good thing. In any type of society an armed force that tries to takeover would be unfavourable. But that is no reason to allow a monopoly on coercion (the state) to exist. Like i said the population of a region could pay for a centralised and large and interior armed forces to protect its' interests in an anarchist society. What makes you think that is not possible in an anarchist society?
wrong, all other factors being equal --- the most powerful and prosperous security agencies will be those that are largest and most concentrated with a given geographic region for obvious reasons. however, I will explain the obvious for your benefit:
Security forces that are operating within an anarchist society would not have a financial incentive to take over the region. They would make more money if willing customers paid for their services. Coercion does not generate profits, it might generate stolen goods. But in an anarchist society everyone and their security organisations would be against an organisation that thought it could start stealing from everyone else. That alone would create the environment where the prospect of taking over by force would not be viable. So without the political ends as a goal, there would be more money in a non-coercive security force than one that is, therefore financial incentive would not exist. The people knowing that society just changed from a statist society would be against any form of a state that starts to form and would deploy their resources to prevent such a force from becoming a state.
But I must agree that there is the possibility that a new state could be formed within an anarchist society against the will of the people. But like i said, the very fact that it is a possibility is no reason to not at least try an anarchist society.
the only reason an enterprise will exist in ancap society is to make a profit, period. MOreover, individuals and firms who do not engage in economic profit seeking actions will soon see their wealth relative to more profit-driven actors decline. Hence, your misguided and utopian opinion that ancap society will be pacific is illogical, albeit idealistic and well-intentioned. In sum, when a choice exists between pacifism/status quo and coercion/profit, the most powerful profit driven actors will choose coercion to obtain profit. Moreover, these profit driven firms will eventually accumulate more power and wealth than pacifist driven individuals and enterprises. hence, maximal-capitalism, not your utopian fantasyland of maximal-pacifism. but then again, I have already debunked your base arguments in the following thread: http://mises.org/Community/forums/t/19720.aspx please read it before offering arguments that I have already debunked in detail on the thread above.
hahaha, of course people that do not engage in business with a goal for profit will see less wealth generated relative to organisations that have a profit driven motive. That is economics 101 and they teach those basics in high school and i can't believe you actually said that. It is your presumption that i think anarchism will be a pacifist driven society. I am fully aware of the nature of man and that is why i advocate an anarchist society.
Now you have to tell me, when does the choice exist between "pacifism/status quo and coercion/profit", because to be honest mate, that makes no sense what so ever. It is almost like you are trying to group profit with coercion as if they only exist together. Absolutely ridiculous. If an organisation is ruthless and violent then the market will not do business with them and they will not do well. The only reason the state gets away with coercion is because it is has been going on for such a long time that they have wrote the legal system around it. If an organisation was created in today’s society that started demanding taxation from individuals in the name of "essential services" they would be arrested for theft and fraud. Simple as. Exactly the same would be true in an anarchist society.
I am new and have not read your apparent debunking of my base arguments. So please do point them out specifically, if you don't mind.
To say what it would be is mere speculation. To go further and say it would be proportional to something subjective like value is farsical. Proportionality implies a fixed ratio, which is simply impossible given the dynamicism of the market.
however, I will explain the obvious for your benefit
Rettoper, I said drop the disparaging language.
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended . -- Rettoper do you disagree with this statement ? -- Rettoper Yes -- angures To say what it would be is mere speculation. To go further and say it would be proportional to something subjective like value is farsical. Proportionality implies a fixed ratio, which is simply impossible given the dynamicism of the market. --angurse
do you disagree with this statement ? -- Rettoper
Yes -- angures
To say what it would be is mere speculation. To go further and say it would be proportional to something subjective like value is farsical. Proportionality implies a fixed ratio, which is simply impossible given the dynamicism of the market. --angurse
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure --- your insistence that the owner of a valued resource will not provide a level of security proportional to the economic value of the resource is illogical.
overwhelming empricial and logical evidence supports a direct correlation and causation between the economic value and the level of security. moreover, the fact that anecdotal evidence exists that does not follow this tenet does nothing to rebut this assertion and its overwhelming influence on aggregate human interaction.
for example, your strawman diversion that the level of security is subjective and that the proportion of security is not fixed has nothing to do with the substance of my thesis, much less rebutting it.
In sum, your views represent no practical or substance value -- for example, a hypothetical owner of a valued resource requesting your advice on the level of security for his valued resource would likely be met with the following:
" value is subjective, security is subjective, your choice is subjective --- hence I cannot determine the correct level of security for your valued resource or even make a determination on whether its economic value should drive the level of security"
this exchange is a perfect example of why ancap dogma remains marginalized and fringe in the meat world.
jack roberts