Contracts are enforced by the spectre of direct conflict. Most people cannot be sure they will win a fight with most other people. Hence, most disputes exist between disputants who face a great deal of uncertainty regarding the outcome of direct conflict. Hence, arbitration (bargaining out a mutually agreeable settlement) is an attractive alternative. Why bother going to arbitration unless you mean to abide by the contract? Violating the contract just resurrects the spectre of direct conflict which you were originally seeking to avoid.
Well, I guess the answer to your question then would be the UN arbitrating force wouldn't need a contract with its sujugates because both sides will have agreed to abide by its decision in advance.
Well, you have to be careful with the word "stronger". If I accidentally stumble into a bad neighborhood and end up surrounded by a bunch of thugs, I'm in an extremely weak bargaining position by virtue of the immediate threat to my life. Without resorting to direct threats against me or people I care about, a wealthy man is only stronger than me in a very weak and indirect sense. Furthermore, we should expect that - in the modern, economically-advanced world - companies which specialize in the production of security (so-called private defense agencies, PDAs) would permit the poor masses to pool their resources in the form of small payments to obtain the services of a well-funded and powerful defense agency in the same way that stock shares permit even the poor to own shares in giant corporations.
If all I have is my labor, and I need land to grow food, then I need to negotiate with someone who owns land. The landowner already has land plus his own labor. He doesn't need to negotiate a deal to live, but I do. Don't you think this advantage will skew the deal to his favor?
Why would capitalists sell weapons to the laboring class (or to a defense agency that protects them)? As you state, the main purpose of this agency would be to guard the laborers against the capitalists. Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?
It is my view that the interaction of the wealthy and the poor is inherently and ineradicably dangerous for the poor. I believe that this explains why classes emerge even in the absence of the State. You can't bump into and scratch a wealthy man's carriage and end up dead in a ditch if you don't live anywhere near him or shop where he shops.
Well this certainly explains "globalization" doesn't it? Except I think you have it backwards. The rich are always trying to move the poor into other countries while the poor are always trying to move in with the rich.
We can quibble over the details of which sorts of inherently productive behavior constitute an intrusion on the property of others (for example, a factory that spews smoke into a neighborhood) but there is no room for quibbling on the distinction between mugging someone or growing corn. Mugging is parasitic. It is not productive. It is the seizure by one person of the property of another.
It's not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything. It's all negative freedom. You have no right to do anything.
I think you're missing some pieces of your syllogism.
Premise 1: Property is territory that an entity has ultimate decision-making power over.
Premise 2: The state has ultimate decision-making power over all territory in our society.
Conclusion: All property in our society is statist.
Don't you think this advantage will skew the deal to his favor?
Yes, so what? Even in primitive society, tall gatherers had advantage over short ones, and strong hunters over weak ones, and fast people over slow ones, so what?
Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?
Decisions are made by individuals, not classes. As a class, they might not want to sell, but as individuals, every one of them has an incentive - profit.
It's not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything.
How comes they are left without any property? Bad luck? What happened to charities?
I would add something like "legitimate". You implied "legal" - not even "factual", as wars and revolutions demonstrate.
PS: nice job mirroring ancap arguments back to them, that is a good exercise for everyone.
Well, I guess we need a third party to enforce the contract.
If you want an "Existence Insurance" policy and in your "Existence Insurance" policy you agree that violence can be used against you under certain circumstances such as fleeing or eluding justice if you have injured someone or damaged someones property....
If your "Existence Insurance" policy specifies violence will be used to insure justice or defend against any aggressor who injures you or damages your property....
Why does it matter who is doing the enforcement? Why does it matter who is doing the insuring? Isn't the only thing that matters is insurers and enforcers satisfying consumers? Does a monopoly magically satisfy all consumers in an of itself because of magical monopoly status or are consumers only satisfied by a monopoly when a threat of competition exists among insurers and/or enforcers and all consumers have chosen to do business with a monopoly? Insuring and enforcing involves liability and risk.
And what if the dispute is with the UN itself? How can it judge in its own cause? And what if I (a national government) don't like the UN's courts? What if I think they're biased or they just have shitty rules or processes that lead to poor performance in arbitrating disputes? Who gave the UN the right to exclude all others from providing dispute-resolution services? God? Fortune? Who?
Clayton -
Because that advantage will mean that entity will continue to grow relative to the rest of society and will eventually will be able to get away with using force. It's the road to serfdom.
Here's a market analysis. A weapons manufacturer wouldn't sell weapon's to its own employees or wouldn't allow them to join a defense organization. If it did, it would have less bargaining power with its employees than a weapons manufacturer that didn't sell weapons to its employees. Thus, weapons manufacturers that sold weapons to their employees would be less profitable and would be driven out of business. Additionally, the suppliers of manufacturers wouldn't want to sell raw materials to a company that is going to arm the supplier's employees. And then there is the capitalist defense agencies who would obviously prefer to represent a company that has no opposition from a labor defense agency. Thus, a capitalist defense agency that represents a weapons manufacturer would likely only contract with them under the condition that they don't sell any weapons to any of the labor defense agencies in other companies that the capitalist defense agency represents.
BTW, there is a real life example of something like a proletarian defense agency: The Black Panthers. California law allowed you to carry a gun in public as long as you displayed it. The Panthers would follow cops around with their guns on full display to monitor them for excessive use of force. Of course the law was soon repealed because of this.
One isn't born with any property. If a child's parents don't believe that the child is entitled to food, the child will have no freedom and die. If no one believes that he or she has obligations to others, then no one will have any freedom. If ancaps support charity, then they must believe that people are entitled to something other than the right not to have their property intruded upon.
I believe Rothbard supports a competing court system. So if you think the UN is biased, you can also arbitrate with the United States, China, etc. Of course whoever you use as your arbitrator is going to demand some sort of price (e.g. exclusive access to oil wells).
If you think about national governments as individuals and their territory as property, then a pre-UN* world at the global scale should give you a pretty good idea of what an ancap society would look like.
*Even now, the UN is so weak that it could hardly be considered an international government.
Here's a market analysis. A weapons manufacturer wouldn't sell weapon's to its own employees or wouldn't allow them to join a defense organization. If it did, it would have less bargaining power with its employees than a weapons manufacturer that didn't sell weapons to its employees. Thus, weapons manufacturers that sold weapons to their employees would be less profitable and would be driven out of business.
Absurd. It would be a PR nightmare akin to McDonalds not selling its food to its employees, or Chevy not selling its cars to it employees. Imagine watching an entire McDonald's staff rushing across the street to Burger King to grab lunch, or every mechanic and salesperson at the Chevy dealership driving away in Fords --- not a good reflection on that particular McDonalds or Chevy dealership.
The weapons manufacturer that sold weapons to its employees would have a larger potential customer base (the general public plus its own emplyees), be a more attractive employer (people that are good at making guns would want to work there, as they could purchase the guns) thereby gaining the more skilled employees in the field, leading to a superior product, allowing them to pay higher wages.
The manufacturer who refused to sell to its employees would end up with a bad image, less skilled workers producing inferior products, spending their money on the competition's wares.
faber est suae quisque fortunae
Absurd. It would be a PR nightmare akin to McDonalds not selling its food to its employees, or Chevy not selling its cars to it employees. Imagine watching an entire McDonald's staff rushing across the street to Burger King to grab lunch, or every mechanic and salesperson at the Chevy dealership driving away in Fords --- not a good reflection on that particular McDonalds or Chevy dealership. The weapons manufacturer that sold weapons to its employees would have a larger potential customer base (the general public plus its own emplyees), be a more attractive employer (people that are good at making guns would want to work there, as they could purchase the guns) thereby gaining the more skilled employees in the field, leading to a superior product, allowing them to pay higher wages. The manufacturer who refused to sell to its employees would end up with a bad image, less skilled workers producing inferior products, spending their money on the competition's wares.
A PR nightmare? A weapons manufacturer's first clients would be property owners, who need the guns to protect their property. The masses don't need guns if the property owner doesn't have them. They'd just out number him, take his property, and run. Thus, it would be a PR nightmare when the manufacturers start discovering robbers tha have guns too! The food analogy is not a good one. Giving food to employees does not give them more bargaining power. Slave owners gave their slaves food. Why didn't they give them weapons too? Why doesn't the state let its citizens have weapons? After all, allowing the sales of weapons would bring in more tax revenue.
Because that advantage will mean that entity will continue to grow relative to the rest of society
Let's take a step back. You noticed, that a person with land has a better bargaining power that a landless person. Fine. Assuming "that entity" still means the landlord, please define, what it means for it to "continue to grow". Does it mean acquiring more land? From whom, from other landlords? I am not trying to stall the discussion, I just want to be sure we are on the same page.
If it did, it would have less bargaining power with its employees than a weapons manufacturer that didn't sell weapons to its employees.
I think weapons influence bargaining power only when the perceived cost of conflict is comparable to potential gains. Value is subjective, of course, but somehow I have difficulties imagining people willing to start armed conflict just to buy a better car. Your analisys might work for labor markets with wages at sustenance level, though.
If ancaps support charity, then they must believe that people are entitled to something other than the right not to have their property intruded upon.
I would say ancaps' view of charities is not that recepients are entitled to anything but that the donors are free to give (and gain satisfaction from that).
Yes, more land/capital. First they would take all the unowned land, then the landowners who were more sucessful doing this would use their superior bargaining power to acquire land from the smaller landlords.
A company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will be more profitable. Once one company is able to do this, all companies will have to resort to violating their contracts in order to remain profitable and survive in the "free" market.
The other side of an obligation is an entitlement. If I see a person drowning and I feel obligated to save her, then I must believe that she is entitled to being saved. Or else I'm expecting some sort payment from her, but that's exploitation not charity.
I have a couple responses in regards to that Hoppe lecture.
1.) The way Hoppe presents the apple picking analogy is misleading. He claims that the laborer chooses the wage because he prefers having less now than having more later and that both parties are better off than they were before. However, in real life, the laborer doesn't choose the present over the future, but chooses the wage because if he doesn't there won't be a future. Second, the laborer doesn't choose the wage because he thinks it will make him better off than he was before, but because if he doesn't he will soon be worse off than he currently is. Without it he will starve, not be able to pay his rent, etc. He sells his labor to keep what he has.
2.) Hoppe claims monarchy is better than democracy! He would rather live in North Korea than in Denmark! His argument is that a monarch owns a country whereas in a democratic republic, the leaders are merely renting it. An owner has a greater stake in his property and doesn't want to see it be devalued. Thus, the monarch has a greater incentive to maintain the value of the property. This argument has an interesting antecedent. During the US era of slavery, the South argued that laborers were better off in the South than in North. Why? Because in the South the landowners owned their laborers and thus would take better care of them than those in the North who merely rented their laborers.
So what is wrong with this logic? A false premise. Propertarians don't value their property, they value their control of their property. Once that property stops facilitating their desire to control, they couldn't care less what happens to it. Thus an elected politician who is in danger of losing his control is easier to persuade than an unelected monarch who has much less danger of losing control. Ancap is fundamentally anti-ecology. The environment doesn't have the right to exist but the "right" to be controlled. According to the homesteading principle, land can't be owned until it's transformed. Thus, a forest can't be owned until it's chopped down. In an ancap society there would be no forests. A logging company that wasted its time planting trees would be less profitable than one that simply moved on to the next unowned forest. If ancap were ever realized, it would be an ecological disaster of the highest magnitude.
Second, the laborer doesn't choose the wage because he thinks it will make him better off than he was before, but because if he doesn't he will soon be worse off than he currently is.
So you're saying the glass is really half-empty?
Hoppe claims monarchy is better than democracy! He would rather live in North Korea than in Denmark!
It may have escaped your notice, but Denmark is a monarchy and North Korea is a Democratic People's Republic.
Ancap is fundamentally anti-ecology. The environment doesn't have the right to exist but the "right" to be controlled. According to the homesteading principle, land can't be owned until it's transformed. Thus, a forest can't be owned until it's chopped down. In an ancap society there would be no forests. A logging company that wasted its time planting trees would be less profitable than one that simply moved on to the next unowned forest. If ancap were ever realized, it would be an ecological disaster of the highest magnitude.
Well, ecological groups like to raise money for political lobbying to get governments to pass regulations designed to protect nature in its current state. Don't you think it would be better if they owned the land? Then they could make sure that no one would cut down the trees.
Fool on the Hill: The masses don't need guns if the property owner doesn't have them. They'd just out number him, take his property, and run.
The masses don't need guns if the property owner doesn't have them. They'd just out number him, take his property, and run.
Where do they run? In your dream, what happens after the property-less masses acquire property?
I give a LOT to charity - both money and time, and I in no way feel obligated to do so. In fact, if I did feel obligated, it would no longer be charitable on my part. Charity is volunatary; obligations are not.
And the US Department of Defense only defends people. I recommend reading Orwell's 1984.
How could they own the land? According to the homesteading principle, you can't own land until you transform it. So preservation of something untransformed is impossible.
If a society is goint to depend on the voluntary desire of charity, then why can't it also depend on the voluntary desire to respect another's property--rather than enforce it as an obligation?
Fool on the Hill:Well, I guess the answer to your question then would be the UN arbitrating force wouldn't need a contract with its sujugates because both sides will have agreed to abide by its decision in advance.
Doesn't the notion of a prior agreement itself imply a contract?
Fool on the Hill:If all I have is my labor, and I need land to grow food, then I need to negotiate with someone who owns land. The landowner already has land plus his own labor. He doesn't need to negotiate a deal to live, but I do. Don't you think this advantage will skew the deal to his favor?
Can you explain what you mean by "skew the deal to his favor"? To me this could mean anything from enslavement to charging a price for food that you think is "unfair".
Fool on the Hill:Why would capitalists sell weapons to the laboring class (or to a defense agency that protects them)? As you state, the main purpose of this agency would be to guard the laborers against the capitalists. Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?
This presumes two things:
1. Laborers and capitalists necessarily consider each other to be enemies.
2. If given the chance, laborers would necessarily expropriate the property of the capitalists.
Can you please support the necessity of these two notions?
Fool on the Hill:It's not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything. It's all negative freedom. You have no right to do anything.
Sure you do. You have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe on others' rights.
Fool on the Hill:Premise 1: Property is territory that an entity has ultimate decision-making power over. Premise 2: The state has ultimate decision-making power over all territory in our society. Conclusion: All property in our society is statist.
Since you define "property" as territory (i.e. land), that means you don't consider buildings, tools, machines, or even human bodies to be property? Why not?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Fool on the Hill:One isn't born with any property.
I disagree. I consider one to be born with property in his or her own body.
Fool on the Hill:If a child's parents don't believe that the child is entitled to food, the child will have no freedom and die.
This seems like a non sequitur to me. Can you please support it?
Fool on the Hill:If no one believes that he or she has obligations to others, then no one will have any freedom.
Again, I'm sorry but I don't see how this follows. Can you demonstrate how one's freedom necessarily follows from obligations to others?
Fool on the Hill:If ancaps support charity, then they must believe that people are entitled to something other than the right not to have their property intruded upon.
How is charity the same as entitlement?
Fool on the Hill:A weapons manufacturer's first clients would be property owners, who need the guns to protect their property. The masses don't need guns if the property owner doesn't have them. They'd just out number him, take his property, and run.
Can you please support the notion that "the masses" will necessarily, at any/all times, outnumber property owners, take their property, and run?
Also, I think you're equivocating with the word "property". Do you consider "property" to mean only territory, or do you consider it to mean more than that?
Fool on the Hill:Yes, more land/capital. First they would take all the unowned land, then the landowners who were more sucessful doing this would use their superior bargaining power to acquire land from the smaller landlords.
This implies that it's inevitable that "bigger" landlords (i.e. those who own more land) will acquire land from the "smaller" landlords (i.e. those who own less land). Please support this implication.
Fool on the Hill:A company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will be more profitable. Once one company is able to do this, all companies will have to resort to violating their contracts in order to remain profitable and survive in the "free" market.
Please support the notion that a company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will necessarily be more profitable.
Fool on the Hill:The other side of an obligation is an entitlement. If I see a person drowning and I feel obligated to save her, then I must believe that she is entitled to being saved. Or else I'm expecting some sort payment from her, but that's exploitation not charity.
Do you think obligations and entitlements are objective or subjective? Do you think all obligations and entitlements are created equal? Why or why not?
Fool on the Hill:If a society is goint to depend on the voluntary desire of charity, then why can't it also depend on the voluntary desire to respect another's property--rather than enforce it as an obligation?
It pretty much does already. The vast majority of human interactions involve voluntary respect for others' property.
I don't know. I'm just confused as to how ancaps think that their system of justice differs from that of statist justice administered on a global scale.
How about this: The laborer will spend more of his or her time fulfilling the terms of the contract than the capitialist will.
This presumes two things: 1. Laborers and capitalists necessarily consider each other to be enemies. 2. If given the chance, laborers would necessarily expropriate the property of the capitalists. Can you please support the necessity of these two notions?
1. "What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little, as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower, the wages of labour.
It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate." ~ Adam Smith
"The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life.
Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth." ~ Preamble to the IWW Constitution
2. "Although it's not a pleasant topic to discuss, the fact is that theft by employees of small businesses totals nearly $40 billion in this country each year.
As hard as it is to believe that someone you hire to fill a trusted position in your company would actually take from you, it happens every day in all kinds of businesses and in a variety of ways. And it is estimated that up to 75 percent of all employee theft goes unnoticed.
Some security experts predict that up to 30 percent of the nation's workers will steal at some time in their career. Difficult economic times, lack of salary increases and the threats of downsizing and cutbacks make it even more tempting for employees to help themselves." ~ MissouriBusiness.net http://www.missouribusiness.net/sbtdc/docs/problem_employee_theft.asp
Well, I guess I could have expanded the definition of property beyond territory. The state has ultimate decision making power over how I build and use my car as well.
Because voluntaryists reject socialism in it's entirety, including Limited Constitutional Socialsim. To give you an idea of how socialized injustice works by overbooking and overcharging people to mitigate the risk of every accused person demanding a jury trial I went ahead and posted my Casey article on the forum:
http://mises.org/Community/forums/p/25432/429501.aspx#429501
Justice in a free market does not need to resort to fraudulent accusations or excessive violence to obtain a proper remedy.
We can squabble over defintion, but regardless, this has nothing to do with the point I was making. I'm sure Andris didn't think I meant that people are born without bodies.
You mean that if a baby isn't fed, it won't have the freedom to do things? You need me to support that?
If a worker is obligated to help a comrade that is injured, then a worker would have freedom to do things that would be too dangerous otherwise. Note: I mean to imply a cultural sense of obligation not one enforced from above.
"In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit." ~ Wikipedia
If the giver of charity doesn't think the recipient is deserving, then why are they giving them something? I don't mean to imply the word entitlement in its externally enforced, legal sense.
I don't need to prove that everyone will steal at all times. Even if only a small group stole, capitialists would see a need to arm themselves. Besides, one needs capital in order to produce weapons. So it is by necessity that capitalists be the ones to initially control the arms supply.
You're right. In that paragraph, by property owners I meant owners of land and capital. But the last sentence used a different definition. It should probably read "take his possessions and run." Sorry for the confusion.
You can see this with corporations such as Wal-Mart. A large part of Wal-Mart's low prices is due to its monopsony power. Because Wal-Mart is the chief customer of its suppliers, the suppliers must offer it considerably lower prices or risk losing a large share of their revenue. By contrast, a mom-and-pop store is nothing to the suppliers, and thus the suppliers can get away with charging them higher prices. Similarly, Wal-Mart has many cashiers and thus is in no hurry to fill a single vacant position. It can wait until a laborer comes along that is willing to accept the low wage. However, a mom-and-pop store might only have a single cashier and thus when that cashier leaves it must find a replacement immediately or risk losing all of its revenue. Thus, applicants to that position are in a considerably better bargaining position. So Wal-Mart can subsume the market share of its rivals merely because it is big. In order to compete with Wal-Mart, I would have to have a roughly equal amount of capital so that I can get the same low prices. The free market favors big business even absent any innovations in technology or "efficiency." As Proudhon said, "competition kills competition."
Why did slavery exist if not for profit? Why did corporations have horrendous sanitary conditions during the 1800's if it would have been more profitable to have safer conditions? Why do companies pollute when they can get away with it? Why do products from China have dangerous toxins in them? Why have companies resorted to illicit means in busting unions? Why do so many companies invest in countries known for massive human rights violations?
But the vast majority of human economic interactions are taxed. Thus, other people here might argue that most interactions involve a transgression of others' property.
Fool on the Hill:Wal-Mart has many cashiers and thus is in no hurry to fill a single vacant position. It can wait until a laborer comes along that is willing to accept the low wage. However, a mom-and-pop store might only have a single cashier and thus when that cashier leaves it must find a replacement immediately or risk losing all of its revenue. Thus, applicants to that position are in a considerably better bargaining position.
If their profit margins are really lower, then how are they driving their competitors out of business?
(I'm not an expert in economics, so forgive me if I am not using the right terms or understanding things right. These are just my own attempts at trying to reason things out.)
Fool on the Hill:1. Wal-Mart's buying power might be so great that it could afford both lower prices and higher wages.
Fool on the Hill:2. People might prefer to work at another store despite a lower wage (maybe it offers them more autonomy or other non-monetary values).
Fool on the Hill:3. They might have more technical efficiency, but I'd argue that they'd still beat their competitors even if they didn't. My point was that they COULD survive and grow while paying lower wages, not that they necessarily do.
Fool on the Hill:If their profit margins are really lower, then how are they driving their competitors out of business?
I was reading the recent Slate hit piece on Robert Nozick and libertarianism, and saw this common objection that your property isnt solely yours because you drive on roads or use some other government service to acquire it. Im not entirely familiar with the libertarian rebuttals, but I completely agree that being forced to use the service changes everything. What I was struck by is how this is used to justify other taxes and government mandated services- and how irrelevent that all is. We pay seperate taxes for road maintenance and services, so how can that be used to justifiy forcing you to buy completely different services? It would be like a monopolist baker insisting I use his medical services because i bought bread from him. I understand that roads education and other government services are partly responsible for developing my skills and bringing me together with people to utilize them. but so what? what does it matter if I already paid for it? If I buy capital from someone and use it to produce something else, its still entirely my property. ford and gm are not entitled to the fruits of my labor if i use their cars to drive to work. i already freakin paid them their fair share when i purchased the car. Any thoughts on how to better handle this objection?
What I was struck by is how this is used to justify other taxes and government mandated services- and how irrelevent that all is. We pay seperate taxes for road maintenance and services, so how can that be used to justifiy forcing you to buy completely different services? It would be like a monopolist baker insisting I use his medical services because i bought bread from him.
I understand that roads education and other government services are partly responsible for developing my skills and bringing me together with people to utilize them. but so what? what does it matter if I already paid for it? If I buy capital from someone and use it to produce something else, its still entirely my property. ford and gm are not entitled to the fruits of my labor if i use their cars to drive to work. i already freakin paid them their fair share when i purchased the car.
Any thoughts on how to better handle this objection?
You have to better understand the objection before you can address it. When some people say this it's a bit of a public goods assertion; the roads wouldn't exist without the government... For others they will be equating use of the roads as some one sided exchange in which you benefitted and now are not 'giving back' to the community according to some implied agreement. The answers are relatively simple.
One, private industry can and does provide roads. I know Walter Block has done work on this, do NOT use his Disney World example. It may be true, it's a rhetorical black hole that leads to a dimension full of nothing bu ridicule and hatred.
Two, as other posts have addressed and you can use this to corner statists, the roads were already paid for. What's more, and here's the statist prod, if the state truly is voluntary then the roads were provided voluntarily, in which case how is anything owed by you or anyone else for their use? You paid taxes, correct?
For most people I think what they're getting at is the public goods argument, though they may not, and often don't in my experience, fully understand what they're arguing. It was something Jesse Ventura brought up during his run for governor when he was deciding which party to affiliate with, and he said the Libertarians didn't want the governments building roads, to which he responded, "Well how did you get here today then?" The implication of course is no government, no roads. Which of course begs the question.
So let me get this straight. Those who can only afford to shop at places like Walmart get lower prices, and those who work for Walmart get higher wages than they would in similar jobs elsewhere, and you are somehow claiming this is a bad thing?
First of all, I was making this point in response to the question of why business in free market capitalism would keep growing and growing and land/capital becoming increasingly concentrated in fewer hands. If I get you right, you are only challenging the idea that such centralization and market hegemony is a bad thing? You concede that big business is more efficient than small business and that corporations will dominate the landscape of an anarcho-capitalist world?
Second of all, we have only concluded that prices are higher at other stores in an economy in which Walmart exists. If you live in the United States, you know how expensive it is to get health care without insurance. Why do people with insurance get charged lower rates? It's largely because the insurance companies represent such a large portion of the provider's revenue that they are in a better position to bargain for lower rates. An individual by contrast, can't really negotiate his or her hospital bill very much. Now the question is, Does the existence of insurance companies not only lower the prices of the insured but also drive up the costs of the uninsured? If yes, then it would seem that the prices found at Walmart's competitors would also be lower if Walmart (and other large retailers) didn't exist.
I prefer to work in Hollywood movies. If a producer and/or director isn't willing to pay me to do so, I'm pretty much out of luck, aren't I? Let's be honest, not many dream of working at Walmart, but the longer one is without a job, the better it looks, at least in the short term.
Which highlights another point: Businesses prefer an economy with (some) unemployment.
And you don't think that efficiency has something to do with how they became so big to begin with? After all, they started out as with one store. Also, doesn't the fact that they pay higher than you claim they could get away with flatly contradict your claim that capitalists will always pay their exploited workers the least possible? By the way, the last time I checked, the mall down the street was filled with retail stores, which are of course in competition with Walmart, and don't seem to be on the brink of going out of business. Even other big box stores like Target and Kmart seem to be doing ok these days.
Businesses grow because they receive investment. They receive investment because they're profitable. In the language of capitalism, profitable means efficient. But what profitability really refers to is the proportion of the revenue that the owners receive relative to the proportion that goes to wages and supplies. So in capitalist terms, an efficient business is one in which labor receives a low share of the revenue. So sure, Walmart is efficient. And when I said it was driving smaller stores out of business, I wasn't thinking of Target and Kmart (the latter actually bought out Sears and thus has destroyed some of its competition!).
The average profit margin for retail businesses in the US is right around 8%. That means 7 or 8 cents of every dollar in sales is profit. Contrast that with Walmart, whose profit margin is 3% -- 3 cents of every dollar in sales is profit.
Is this profit measured the same way across the stores? Are they reinvesting revenue before it's considered profit? Are small retail businesses making 8% profits? Does the average retail store make 8% every year, or is it boom and bust? There is a lot these statistics don't tell.
Fool on the Hill:I don't know [whether the notion of a prior agreement itself implies a contract]. I'm just confused as to how ancaps think that their system of justice differs from that of statist justice administered on a global scale.
How can you not know? An agreement is a contract, isn't it?
Otherwise, can you expand on your second sentence? It seems rather vague to me.
Fool on the Hill:How about this: The laborer will spend more of his or her time fulfilling the terms of the contract than the capitialist will.
How do you know?
Even if the above is true, so what? The laborer agreed to it. He must have considered spending more of his time fulfilling the terms of the contract than the capitalist spends to be worth what he gets in return.
Fool on the Hill:1. "What are the common wages of labour, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little, as possible. The former are disposed to combine in order to raise, the latter in order to lower, the wages of labour. It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine much more easily: and the law, besides, authorises, or at least does not prohibit, their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. We have no acts of parliament against combining to lower the price of work, but many against combining to raise it. In all such disputes, the masters can hold out much longer. A landlord, a farmer, a master manufacturer, or merchant, though they did not employ a single workman, could generally live a year or two upon the stocks, which they have already acquired. Many workmen could not subsist a week, few could subsist a month, and scarce any a year, without employment. In the long run, the workman may be as necessary to his master as his master is to him; but the necessity is not so immediate." ~ Adam Smith "The working class and the employing class have nothing in common. There can be no peace so long as hunger and want are found among millions of the working people and the few, who make up the employing class, have all the good things of life. Between these two classes a struggle must go on until the workers of the world organize as a class, take possession of the means of production, abolish the wage system, and live in harmony with the Earth." ~ Preamble to the IWW Constitution
Those quotes are entirely irrelevant. Let's try this again. Can you prove that laborers and capitalists necessarily (i.e. all of them, everywhere, all the time) consider each other to be enemies? Cherry-picking quotes like that does not suffice as proof.
Fool on the Hill:2. "Although it's not a pleasant topic to discuss, the fact is that theft by employees of small businesses totals nearly $40 billion in this country each year. As hard as it is to believe that someone you hire to fill a trusted position in your company would actually take from you, it happens every day in all kinds of businesses and in a variety of ways. And it is estimated that up to 75 percent of all employee theft goes unnoticed. Some security experts predict that up to 30 percent of the nation's workers will steal at some time in their career. Difficult economic times, lack of salary increases and the threats of downsizing and cutbacks make it even more tempting for employees to help themselves." ~ MissouriBusiness.nethttp://www.missouribusiness.net/sbtdc/docs/problem_employee_theft.asp
Some security experts predict that up to 30 percent of the nation's workers will steal at some time in their career. Difficult economic times, lack of salary increases and the threats of downsizing and cutbacks make it even more tempting for employees to help themselves." ~ MissouriBusiness.nethttp://www.missouribusiness.net/sbtdc/docs/problem_employee_theft.asp
Again, this quote is irrelevant. Can you prove that, if given the chance, laborers would necessarily (i.e. all of them, everywhere, all the time) expropriate the property of capitalists? Once more, cherry-picking quotes like that does not suffice as proof.
Fool on the Hill:Well, I guess I could have expanded the definition of property beyond territory. The state has ultimate decision making power over how I build and use my car as well.
Are you going to expand your definition of "property" beyond territory or not? It's up to you.
Fool on the Hill:We can squabble over defintion, but regardless, this has nothing to do with the point I was making. I'm sure Andris didn't think I meant that people are born without bodies.
You wrote that "One isn't born with any property". I indicated my disagreement with that. Now you dismiss my disagreement as "squabbling over definition". Why is that? If we don't share common definitions, then we can't actually communicate. Otherwise, if we are using the same definition, then one of us isn't thinking logically.
Fool on the Hill:You mean that if a baby isn't fed, it won't have the freedom to do things? You need me to support that?
You seem to define "freedom" implicitly as including, if not simply being, "positive ability". I don't define "freedom" that way. Under my definition of "freedom", a person has just as much freedom whether he's starving or well-fed, all other things being equal.
Anyways, my answer to your last question is: yes, I need you to support that.
Fool on the Hill:If a worker is obligated to help a comrade that is injured, then a worker would have freedom to do things that would be too dangerous otherwise. Note: I mean to imply a cultural sense of obligation not one enforced from above.
If you mean a cultural sense of obligation, then there is no mechanism for enforcing such obligation. You then recognize the possibility, however near or remote, that some people will choose not to follow that cultural sense. Essentially, you're talking about charity. My question to you is: what if too few people are charitable to your liking? Are you willing to live with that? Or will you take it upon yourself to turn a cultural sense of obligation into one that is enforced from "above" (namely, by you)?
Fool on the Hill:"In a casual sense, the term "entitlement" refers to a notion or belief that one (or oneself) is deserving of some particular reward or benefit." ~ Wikipedia If the giver of charity doesn't think the recipient is deserving, then why are they giving them something? I don't mean to imply the word entitlement in its externally enforced, legal sense.
I do. Every time I use the word "entitlement", I mean it in legal terms. Otherwise, there's no good way in English to distinguish between externally enforced, or legal, obligations and obligations which are merely social, cultural, and/or ethical in scope.
Fool on the Hill:I don't need to prove that everyone will steal at all times.
Yes you do, because that's what you stated earlier - that everyone (or, at least, all laborers) will steal at all times, if given the chance.
Fool on the Hill:Even if only a small group stole, capitialists would see a need to arm themselves. Besides, one needs capital in order to produce weapons. So it is by necessity that capitalists be the ones to initially control the arms supply.
Do you consider stone and wood to be capital? A person could fashion spears, bows and arrows, and axes from stone and wood.
Fool on the Hill:You're right. In that paragraph, by property owners I meant owners of land and capital. But the last sentence used a different definition. It should probably read "take his possessions and run." Sorry for the confusion.
I strongly suggest that you take one or the other definition of "property" and hold to it throughout this thread.
Fool on the Hill:You can see this with corporations such as Wal-Mart. A large part of Wal-Mart's low prices is due to its monopsony power. Because Wal-Mart is the chief customer of its suppliers, the suppliers must offer it considerably lower prices or risk losing a large share of their revenue. By contrast, a mom-and-pop store is nothing to the suppliers, and thus the suppliers can get away with charging them higher prices. Similarly, Wal-Mart has many cashiers and thus is in no hurry to fill a single vacant position. It can wait until a laborer comes along that is willing to accept the low wage. However, a mom-and-pop store might only have a single cashier and thus when that cashier leaves it must find a replacement immediately or risk losing all of its revenue. Thus, applicants to that position are in a considerably better bargaining position. So Wal-Mart can subsume the market share of its rivals merely because it is big. In order to compete with Wal-Mart, I would have to have a roughly equal amount of capital so that I can get the same low prices. The free market favors big business even absent any innovations in technology or "efficiency." As Proudhon said, "competition kills competition."
Are you familiar with the concept of "economies of scale"?
Otherwise, what entitles mom-and-pop stores to any given amount of market share, local or otherwise? Besides, this in no way supports, let alone proves, your implicit assertion that "bigger" landlords (i.e. those who own more land) will acquire land from the "smaller" landlords (i.e. those who own less land). Can you support this assertion or not?
Fool on the Hill:Why did slavery exist if not for profit? Why did corporations have horrendous sanitary conditions during the 1800's if it would have been more profitable to have safer conditions? Why do companies pollute when they can get away with it? Why do products from China have dangerous toxins in them? Why have companies resorted to illicit means in busting unions? Why do so many companies invest in countries known for massive human rights violations?
Do I need to repeat myself? I guess I do. Please support the notion that a company that can get away with violating its contract to its workers will necessarily (i.e. all companies, at all times and places) be more profitable.
How can you not know? An agreement is a contract, isn't it? Otherwise, can you expand on your second sentence? It seems rather vague to me.
OK, let me go through this. Clayton initially claimed that the state was illegitimate because there is no contract between the state and its citizens. I suggested that this objection could be resolved if the state drew up a contract with its citizens. Clayton then backtracked and said the state has signed a contract with its citizens but that it is still illegitimate because it has gotten away with violating the contract. As I now understand it, Rothbard suggests third party "private courts" will function as arbitrators between a business and its employees (as well as between other relations) in an ancap society. If such arbitrators justify the existence of businesses because they safe guard against contract violations, then it seems to me that a similar arbitrator will justify the existence of the state. I initially suggested the UN, but now I think that the United States, France, China, etc. would be more analogous. If a business arbitrates in business/employee disputes, then the equivalent would be a state arbitrating in state/citizen disputes. Clayton asked who would enforce the contract between the arbitrating state and the state/citizen subjugate contracting with it. I agree with you that this agreement to arbitrate is a contract, but I thought Clayton was referring to some other, more general contract. So is the question who will enforce this arbitration contract between the state arbitrator and the state/citizen subjugate in a statist society? I'd turn the question back and ask, Who will enforce the contract between a business arbitrator and the business/employee subjugate in an ancap society? The answer to the second question should imply an equivalent to the first question. Thus, the logic of Clayton's reasoning cannot justify the abolition of the state without also justifying the abolition of business.
Those quotes are entirely irrelevant. Let's try this again. Can you prove that laborers and capitalists necessarily (i.e. all of them, everywhere, all the time) consider each other to be enemies? Cherry-picking quotes like that does not suffice as proof. Again, this quote is irrelevant. Can you prove that, if given the chance, laborers would necessarily (i.e. all of them, everywhere, all the time) expropriate the property of capitalists? Once more, cherry-picking quotes like that does not suffice as proof.
This is what I actually said: "Why would capitalists sell weapons to the laboring class (or to a defense agency that protects them)? As you state, the main purpose of this agency would be to guard the laborers against the capitalists. Why would they sell weapons to their enemies, risking both their lives and their power?" Nowhere did I say all laborers would necessarily steal everywhere at all times. I never even used those four words. The US government won't sell arms to al-Qaeda because it considers them enemies. That doesn't mean that all al-Qaeda members will necessarily at all times everywhere carry out attacks against the United States.
But that said, I think you could argue that the Adam Smith quote does imply that capitalists and laborers are necessarily enemies. He states that they have opposite goals--one wants to raise wages the other to lower them. People who have opposite goals are by definition enemies. Now you might say they aren't at all times trying to achieve those goals, but if we're going to use that definition, then no one could ever be considered enemies.
Again, I don't need to prove that they will do it all the time. It happens enough that businesses must adopt policies against it. That's the point.
Will it help? Will any of my arguments fall apart when if I use your definition of property? If you want to provide me with a definition, I can use it from this point on. I don't want to confuse you.
OK, we'll use your definition. I'll adjust the discussion thusly:
Me: It's not so much intrusion, but that in a pure capitalist society a large segment of the population have no freedom because they are not entitled to anything other than their bodies.
Andris: How comes they are left without any property other than their bodies? Bad luck? What happened to charities?
Me: One isn't born with any property or possessions other than one's body.
You seem to define "freedom" implicitly as including, if not simply being, "positive ability". I don't define "freedom" that way. Under my definition of "freedom", a person has just as much freedom whether he's starving or well-fed, all other things being equal. Anyways, my answer to your last question is: yes, I need you to support that.
You're defintion of freedom seems to imply that everyone always has the same amount of freedom. If that's so, why call yourself a libertarian if there is just as much freedom under an authoritarian society? How can the actions of libertarians increase freedom if freedom is merely nonaction?
Under your definition, would you say that people are entitled to not have their property infringed upon? I don't care if we throw out the word enitlement. I just mean to say that the obligation to not interfere with another's property (or possessions) and the obligation to perform "charitable" works are on the same level.