challenge #1 to angurses:
if you had *one unit of security to defend only one unit of material Au or Fe--- all things being equal -- which metal would you defend? a) Gold b) Iron c) none of the above
if you had *one unit of security to defend only one unit of material Au or Fe--- all things being equal -- which metal would you defend?
a) Gold
b) Iron
c) none of the above
Explain why you chose "C"
Challenge # 2 to angures:
If 100 million hypothetical owners randomly dispersed globally possessed *one unit of security, one kilogram of Au, and one kilogram of Fe --- which of the metals would receive the security in the most cases: a) gold b) iron c) none of the above
If 100 million hypothetical owners randomly dispersed globally possessed *one unit of security, one kilogram of Au, and one kilogram of Fe --- which of the metals would receive the security in the most cases:
a) gold
b) iron
and please explain why you chose "C"
*one unit of security = a guarantee from a reputable PDA that if your metal is stolen, you will receive a full refund for the cost of security and replacement of the stolen metal free of charge.
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
2) do you disagree with this statement ? if so, explain why.
2) do you disagree with this statement ?
if so, explain why.
I agree, The value of an object might not necessarily dictate its security in terms of the amount spent on security. Example an object worth $1 billion could cost only $1million to secure while an object worth $900million could cost $3 million to secure. It depends on many other factors.
But i do agree with the general premise that if something is more valuable then it should be allocated a level of security that is reasonable based on the value of the resource. ie more money is going to be spent securing something that is more valuable.
i do agree with the general premise that if something is more valuable then it should be allocated a level of security that is reasonable based on the value of the resource. ie more money is going to be spent securing something that is more valuable..-- jack roberts
Thank you. for the rational response.
next question:
Is the level of security for a valued resource a factor in insuring that the resource is not subject to theft, predation, or annexation?
if you can site emprical or logical evidence of a smaller decentralized command securing victory against a larger centralized command, all other things being equal, then provide your evidence.
Interestiong question. Rag-tag armies have occassionally won the field against much larger and better organized coghorts. One could argue that the Israeli defeat of the multiple Arab armies in 1948 would fit that question.
The Israeli forces were not particularly cohesive; some could have been considered loosely-organized milita active mostly in local skirmishing until the organized Arab national armies joined the fray.
One could also argue that hundreds of Viet Cong cells -- mostly operating in a somewhat decentralized fashion, and always numerically inferior to the organized national troops they were fighting -- would be another. And of course that suggests the Afghan militia arrayed against the Soviets.
Thoughts?
Interestiong question. Rag-tag armies have occassionally won the field against much larger and better organized coghorts. One could argue that the Israeli defeat of the multiple Arab armies in 1948 would fit that question. -- archimedes.
I would argue that the Israeli defense force was better organized, better trained, more motivated and more capabably led. However, every theory or ideology has examples of failure. INdeed, capitalism is the most effective economic system, yet virtually every private company fails at some point -- yet in the aggregate the system is unparalleled at creating societal wealth.
in sum, I think that you would agree that to condemn capitalism as a system because a single company fails is an absurd statist fallacy.
The Israeli forces were not particularly cohesive; some could have been considered loosely-organized milita active mostly in local skirmishing until the organized Arab national armies joined the fray. -- archimedes
I was under the impression that the Israeil defense forces had been training and preparing extensively for an anticipated campaign against the arabs. Hadn't they had been fighting the british for years prior to 1948?
One could also argue that hundreds of Viet Cong cells -- mostly operating in a somewhat decentralized fashion, and always numerically inferior to the organized national troops they were fighting -- would be another. archimedes
the viet cong was obliterated in early 1968. moreover, they were extensively supported and dependent on a hyper-statist regime for their very existance. Lastly, tif the USA was a profit driven force instead of a liberal democracy, it could have wiped out both the NVA and the VC in one fell swoop if with WMD and carpet bombing of north vietnamese centers of gravity.
however, the USA execution of the war was attenuated by political and humanitarian considerations that negated their advantages in technology and economic strength.
And of course that suggests the Afghan militia arrayed against the Soviets.-- archimedes
i believe the afghan militias received billions in lethal aid from the US, including stinger missiles that may have contributed to their victory.
however, you are correct --- even the most sound theoretical constructs on human action are NOT 100% valid and reliable, including mine.
And it's a proven fact that the most successful for profit entities will have no regard for this in anarchist society.
In today’s society in some cases people do not have security and do not think the police are capable and would not phone them. A shotgun for example could be someone’s security. Most things are not secured to an adequate level of security.
I would say it would depend on what the resource or object is, as to the amount that is actually spent on security. For example a mine of gold could cost more to secure than a pile of mined gold. You can secure things cheaper by hiding something where other people do not know where it is. But generally speaking, if a resource is valuable then people will want to pay to secure it. But most people do not take out security to secure their resources or objects. All I have is a lock on my front door. In Canada for example some people do not even lock their front doors.
In today’s society in some cases people do not have security and do not think the police are capable and would not phone them. A shotgun for example could be someone’s security. Most things are not secured to an adequate level of security. -- jack roberts
that anecdotal minitua. I could use the same fallacy to debunk capitalism by saying that "i know of myriad companies that have failed in the last year, hence capitalism is ineffective!"
of course this notion is absurd and doesnt reflect the system or the aggregate benefits of capitalism.
In addition, most people that dont have security dont have anything of value that is worth more then the transaction costs of coercion to acquire -- my thesis is based on valued resources not crap --- moreover, the valued resources I am referring to are strategic centers of societal gravity (ocean going choke points,vast mineral deposits, fresh water, agricultural centers, energy reserves, industrial centers, transportation hubs, et al) that would excite competition --- both peaceful and coercive.
would say it would depend on what the resource or object is, as to the amount that is actually spent on security.-- jack roberts
of course, you are thinking rationally. but the level of security has to be funded AND that funding has to been provided from efficient and productive economic exploitation of the resource. Owners who are negligent in leveraging the economic value of the resource will not have a level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource. WHen this condition deteriorates further, it attracts the gaze of more aggressive profit seeking actors who began to consider coercion as a means to obtain the resource -- when peaceful exchange is not possible or the costs exceed that of the use of coercion.
You can secure things cheaper by hiding something where other people do not know where it is.-- jack roberts
where are you going to hide the great lakes ? the panama canal ? saudi oil reserves ?
But generally speaking, if a resource is valuable then people will want to pay to secure it. But most people do not take out security to secure their resources or objects. All I have is a lock on my front door. In Canada for example some people do not even lock their front doors.-- jack roberts
You dont need to break a lock to plunder a canuck's property, eh -- just raise his taxes and he'll surrender the fruits of his hard earned labor like a lamb going to slaughter. Nonetheless, nobody but a petty thief is going to waste his time breaking into a canadian's house -- there is just junk in there anyway.
the most successful and profitable investors, entreprenuers, enterprises, and PDAs are going to be regional or global strategic players who own vast water resources (great lakes, mississippi river, amazon, nile, et al ) or vast energy reserves (green river, bakken, ANWR, saudi oil, et al )
this is where the violent armed struggles will be engaged and the most productive and profitable firms will acquire these from less efficient and poorly managed owners. Moreover, society as a whole will benefit since these productive new owners will better manage the property for economic gain thereby freeing up scarce resources at lower prices that were formerly denied to the market place.
And it's a proven fact that the most successful for profit entities will have no regard for this in anarchist society. -- sam armstong
thanks for the input sam -- excellent point as usual.
That is why i said it is subject to semantics and examples. I do not think there is that much of a change going from a statist society to an anarchist society with regards to rivers and lakes in terms of security. Your argument is that the state currently keeps these valuable resources safe and without the state big organisations would steal these resources from their current owners. The organisation will eventually own all the resources and that is why anarchism will never work. How do you expect someone would secure a lake? A fence? I think it would be done in the same way it is today. People currently pay private security to secure their mine or their property in some cases. So how would it be any different now that there is no state? If an organisation tries to steal an organisations resource they could be sued for theft.
But then you have to consider that with a state we have organisations that infiltrate and manipulate the governments of other countries in order to gain a competitive advantage. Sometimes they kill people and control the governments and start wars and destabilize the region. Take the Middle East and oil for example; strangely the UK still pays a high price for oil, even though they have sent military to the Middle East to secure the oil fields. Then we have the use of private military contractors for deployment in countries where valuable resources are located. How is that any different in an anarchist society?
How do you expect someone would secure a lake? A fence? I think it would be done in the same way it is today.--jack robert
If it is done the same way it is today, then the entity that has the territorial monopoly on coercion would be responsible for security. The only difference is that in ancap society that monopoly PDA would be private and not subject to political machinations and thus more profitable and less costly. However, a territorial monopoly could easily and slowly morph into an oppressive absolutist enterprises, at least locally. Eventually I see these large regional PDAs coalescing into even larger global PDAs until an uneasy but balance of power emerged between the competing regional hegemons --- very similar to today's multipolar statist competition.
People currently pay private security to secure their mine or their property in some cases. So how would it be any different now that there is no state? If an organisation tries to steal an organisations resource they could be sued for theft. -- jack robert
private security is simply protection against petty criminals, it is not protection against large organized aggression. The state provides protections and security against large scale threats from external organized private and public entities.
But then you have to consider that with a state we have organisations that infiltrate and manipulate the governments of other countries in order to gain a competitive advantage. Sometimes they kill people and control the governments and start wars and destabilize the region. Take the Middle East and oil for example; strangely the UK still pays a high price for oil, even though they have sent military to the Middle East to secure the oil fields. Then we have the use of private military contractors for deployment in countries where valuable resources are located. How is that any different in an anarchist society? -- jack roberts
of course, nobody can predict exactly how ancap society would evolve, however the same general rules apply. hence, ancap society would likely morph into a series of PDAs with territorial monopolies on armed force. MOreover , they would probably engage in the types of activities that you outlined above, albeit with more lethality and less cost since they are for profit private entities. However, ancap PDAs would only engage in aggressive action that was economically profitable and sustainable, hence the only armed force would be that designed to 'liberate' under utilized resources from negligent owners thereby earning the aggressive PDA and its investors a profit. Moreover, society as a whole would benefit since heretofore under utilized resources would be made available to the market place.
unfortunately, as regional PDAs got stronger, the allure of absolutism would be too great to resist -- hence we return full circle to statism.
"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" lord acton.
I think an anarchist society is worth the risk of absolutism and as we fight to change the state, we would fight to retain anarchism.
The main difference is that the state has all these nationalist underpinnings and people have a sense of patriotism to their region and this makes them more gullible and susceptible to manipulation.
Sorry what does PDA stand for? I am guessing a private defense agency or something similar. I call them PMC, private military contractors. They pretty much run the wars these days and some argue that the military industrial complex actually runs the government and in turn the world. So i hear your argument but I see it as a levelling of the playing field. Also without governments the PMC would not be able to get away with wars and aggression in the name of freedom or patriotism or for the good of the country etc. Even in today’s society, with the state. We should acknowledge that wars of aggression and the acts of PMC in other countries do not necessarily associate with their country of origin. If an oil company wants to pay a PMC to secure an oil field in another country, they do it by convincing the governments of countries that it is within their interest. It would be better if the government told them that it was a private interest and not a national interest ie “you are on your own”. In an anarchist society they might not do it openly or they probably would not do it openly, as their reputation would be on the line.
But if they did do it openly in an anarchist society then everyone would know that, that oil company paid a PMC to steal oil and then that might affect the price and demand of their oil. Oil is a bad example because i think it might be one of those resources where people will pay for it no matter where it came from or how many people died etc. But most people do not vote with their money they vote in fictitious elections instead.
I still have to come back to interest and incentive and the practicality of it. You say that they will develop in to “oppressive absolutist enterprises locally”. I would like to hear how you think an oppressive absolutist enterprise would be oppressive? Martial law? Check points? Excessive CCTV? Policing of victimless crimes? Forcing people to be slaves?
We are running out of resources so with or without a government we are going to see organisations fighting over resources for the fore sable future. It is only going to get worse in the regard. But I must agree that there is a risk with an anarchist society that some of the biggest PMC will just violently control the rest of the population. But then that risk is true even with a state, some might argue that risk is greater.
I think an anarchist society is worth the risk of absolutism and as we fight to change the state, we would fight to retain anarchism. The main difference is that the state has all these nationalist underpinnings and people have a sense of patriotism to their region and this makes them more gullible and susceptible to manipulation.--jack roberts
The main difference is that the state has all these nationalist underpinnings and people have a sense of patriotism to their region and this makes them more gullible and susceptible to manipulation.--jack roberts
what is the difference between anarchist underpinnings and patriotism ?
however, it appears that patriotism and nationalism have inspired more risk taking and committment than anarchist movements which are generally heavy on bluster and light on substantive action.
Also without governments the PMC would not be able to get away with wars and aggression in the name of freedom or patriotism or for the good of the country etc.--jack roberts
your correct, however, PMCs would be fighting wars for economic gain instead of freedom or patriotism.
Even in today’s society, with the state. We should acknowledge that wars of aggression and the acts of PMC in other countries do not necessarily associate with their country of origin. If an oil company wants to pay a PMC to secure an oil field in another country, they do it by convincing the governments of countries that it is within their interest.--jack roberts
interesting observation, I suppose that PMCs would be soliciting capital from investors in a similar manner.
It would be better if the government told them that it was a private interest and not a national interest ie “you are on your own”. In an anarchist society they might not do it openly or they probably would not do it openly, as their reputation would be on the line.--jack roberts
reputation in ancap society would be based on return on investment. PMC that were able to secure valuable economic centers of gravity from negligent or inefficient owners would be respected and receive continued investment and funding.
I would like to hear how you think an oppressive absolutist enterprise would be oppressive? Martial law? Check points? Excessive CCTV? Policing of victimless crimes? Forcing people to be slaves?-- jack roberts
It would be dependent on the CEO, board of directors, regional culture, et al. HOwever, history has shown the trend toward more liberal governance due to globalization and the mobility of labor and capital. REgional hegemons cant be too oppressive or they will decline in strength. The problem is plunder. A corrupt leader only has to maintain absolute control until his death, similar to professional managers who plunder a vulnerable company and jetison with a golden parachute to retire comfortably till death. Similarly, these professional managers could provide a mechanism for their offspring to enjoy the fruits of his labor. In this case, the hegemon would create a societal framework that was sustainable similar to a monarchy. the problem is that we are back to square one, full circle --- anarchy, monarchy, statism, democracy, anarchy, monarchy.....
i think the best course of action is to strengthen our liberal democracy to prevent statists from economic plundering. The system has already demonstrated that it is effective at protecting civil and political liberties - we simply need to tweak it to prevent economic coercion.
We are running out of resources so with or without a government we are going to see organisations fighting over resources for the fore sable future.-- jack roberts
we will never run out of resources or food within a nominally free market economy. technology and innovation are always one step ahead of scarcity.
But I must agree that there is a risk with an anarchist society that some of the biggest PMC will just violently control the rest of the population. But then that risk is true even with a state, some might argue that risk is greater.-- jack roberts
in contrast, liberal democracies provide numerous checks and balances to forestall the emergence of absolutism. unlike anarchists PMCs which control all aspects of coercive power within the same organization -- liberal democracies decentralize coercive elements - funding (taxpayers), strategic command (civilian president), distribution of funding (civilian congress) oversight (congress and media), militia (state) fight wars (military) munitions (private industry), naval assets (navy), ground assets (army), air assets (air force), intelligence gathering (numerous agencies), law enforcement (numerous agencies across local, state, and federal jurisidictions), diplomacy (civilian state dept.) and others.
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"
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"
First - that isn't a sum. Learn what sum means. To the point, utter nonsense. The owner of a valued resource would come to me in actual time and space, where I can point to current trends. But only trends, I cannot give "logical evidence" for the amount of security assessed to the value because of there isn't any such thing, at least not in reality or as you say "the meat world."
Whats the point of issuing a challenge if you are going to answer for me?
Currently an Oz of gold is worth more than an Oz of iron so I would insure the gold over the iron, most people would as well. However, the value of the two isn't fixed, nor is the amount of insurance. That is:
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended
is absolutely false.
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended -- Rettoper That is absolutely false -- angurse
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended -- Rettoper
That is absolutely false -- angurse
rather than challenging the substance of my assertion that there is a direct correlation between the level of security and the value of a given resource, predictably you have again engaged in another semantic diversion.
moreover, as the level of security provided to a given resource is decreased , the likelihood that the resource will be subject to predation increases. Similarly, the more a given resource increases in economic value, the likelihood that it will be subject to predation if the level of security does not change increases.
again for your benefit, I will repharse my original challenge to illustrate more clearly the substance of my assertion that the level of security and economic value of a resource are directly correlated among rational actors in the overwhelming majority of case studies.
if you had one unit of security (NOT INSURANCE) to allocate to either 1 ton of Au or 1 ton of Fe -- which resource would you provide the unit of security to defend? a) gold b) iron c) none of the above.
if you had one unit of security (NOT INSURANCE) to allocate to either 1 ton of Au or 1 ton of Fe -- which resource would you provide the unit of security to defend?
c) none of the above.
I haven't insited such a thing. -angurse
Lets see the proof of proportionality.--angurse
First - that isn't an example. Learn what example means. To the point, its the whole of your thesis and its thoroughly refuted by an elementary lesson in value.--angurse
First - that isn't a sum. Learn what sum means. To the point, utter nonsense. The owner of a valued resource would come to me in actual time and space, where I can point to current trends. But only trends, I cannot give "logical evidence" for the amount of security assessed to the value because of there isn't any such thing, at least not in reality or as you say "the meat world." --angurse
your obviously not capable or interested in engaging is substantive debate -- instead focused on inane and endless semantic and grossly ambigous diversions that are a waste of time. In sum, thanks for the English lesson, however this is not an english usage forum.
Lastly, since you are incapable or unwilling to engage the substance of my arguments, I am challenging you to offer your own:
explain your position on the relationship between the economic value of a given resource and the level of security provided to defend that resource -- if such a relationship exists.
for example, do you disagree with the following tenets:
all other factors being constant -- as the level of security for a given resources decrease -- do you agree that the likelihood the resource will be subject to predation increases ? and, all other factors being constant --- as the value of a resource increases and the level of security remains constant, do you agree that the likelihood the resources will be subject to predation increases? enjoy.
all other factors being constant -- as the level of security for a given resources decrease -- do you agree that the likelihood the resource will be subject to predation increases ?
and,
all other factors being constant --- as the value of a resource increases and the level of security remains constant, do you agree that the likelihood the resources will be subject to predation increases?
enjoy.
Rettoper:your obviously not capable or interested in engaging is substantive debate -- instead focused on inane and endless semantic and grossly ambigous diversions that are a waste of time.
If you think discussing with him is such a waste of time, then don't. But enough with the constant meta-arguments about your opponent not meeting your argumentative standards. I'm sick of this dross polluting the forum. Make arguments and counter-arguments. No more deriding of your opponent's faculties (argumentative, intellectual, et cetera) whatsoever.
dj sanchez,
your right and I'll cease -- but It wont be as much fun.
you know I have never complained to a moderator about a single post.
nonetheless, I have been booted from leftwing forums for far less severe indiscrestions (like committing the 'heinous act' of citing facts and logic to debunk statist schemes).
What are you talking about? That exact assertion was refuted on the previous page. And Challenged on this very page.
"Lets see the proof of proportionality."
moreover, as the level of security provided to a given resource is decreased , the likelihood that the resource will be subject to predation increases.
This is a false assumption, the likelihood of a resources predation depends entirely on its perceived value. If its value is seen as low, people won't waste their time.
Similarly, the more a given resource increases in economic value, the likelihood that it will be subject to predation if the level of security does not change increases.
The likelihood would increase regardless of security level.
Insurance is security.
Currently an Oz of gold is worth more than an Oz of iron so I would insure secure the gold over the iron, most people would as well. However, the value of the two isn't fixed, nor is the amount of insurance security.