So you don't seem to object to voluntary association, am I correct? But if this type of society is considered valid and moral, then taken to its end, one then must object to democracy, or the imposition of the will of the majority upon those who dissent, no?
The only one worth following is the one who leads... not the one who pulls; for it is not the direction that condemns the puller, it is the rope that he holds.
Not if a society's charter is democratic.
But if one never agreed to such a charter, for example, if a parent did, but the child did not, and is now an adult with his own lawfully owned property, surely you don't imply that he is subject to the terms of a contract he never signed or gave any sort of consent to, do you? No such individual would be held to a contract he never agreed to in a court worth it's salt, would it?
I guess not. But they didn't agree to some free society contract, either.
Very funny, Ban-Evader. So out of the five definitions for "society" in that link, which one are you using here?
I'll take definition #2, Alex.
This was all a hypothetical... as in, what if an individual or group of individuals created such a charter and all voluntarily agreed to it.
So you're okay with any citizen claiming their independence and opting out of the system of taxes and welfare programs, on the condition that they write a charter for their property? And if yes, why?
On the condition that they stop using dollars, public services, and everything else the government is handing to them, yes. Because no one is stopping you from just living in the woods or renouncing your citizenship.
>living in the woods
*Maine Free State
impala76: Going back, it isn't clear why ancaps expect agencies to engage in certain types of anticompetitive behavior (like elimination of aggressive agencies), but not other types of anticompetitive behavior. Claiming that consumers will chose other agencies ignores the point that those choices would be eliminated by anticompetitive behavior.
Going back, it isn't clear why ancaps expect agencies to engage in certain types of anticompetitive behavior (like elimination of aggressive agencies), but not other types of anticompetitive behavior. Claiming that consumers will chose other agencies ignores the point that those choices would be eliminated by anticompetitive behavior.
Why do you think it is "bad" to prevent thieves from stealing, but its "good" to allow them to steal?
I agree with you there. I'm saying that there's no particular reason why agencies would only attack other agencies which agress on their clients. They're free to attack any other agency and even exploit that other agency's resources without harming their own customers.
Your equivocation on anticompetitive behavior wont work. The phenomenon that you label "anticompetitive" is itself a competition. Its as if you are a packers fan, so when they play the cowboys, you accuse the cowboys of anticompetitive behavior for tackling guys, blocking guys, sacking the qb, etc. Youre ridiculous.
The cowboys aren't eliminating consumer choices from the market. Warring agencies, though, are.
impala76: Why do you think it is "bad" to prevent thieves from stealing, but its "good" to allow them to steal? I agree with you there. I'm saying that there's no particular reason why agencies would only attack other agencies which agress on their clients. They're free to attack any other agency and even exploit that other agency's resources without harming their own customers.
Secondly, there is a reason, and its a very good one. Aggressive actions are not profitable. If they are making money by defending their clients, they have very good reasons to maintain their brand, and acquire new customers. This means more voluntary associations, and therefore more profit. Its a positive feedback cycle.
now what youre going to say is, who makes sure that every agency does that, instead of turning to robbery? I'm not a utopian. I just know that freedom is a state of mind, and people have to choose to abandon it, it cant be taken away even unto the flesh torn from their bones.
Thank you for adding some meat to your argument. Youre incorrect on both counts. First of all, these agencies would not necessarily even attack the hostile agencies. Thats one thing I keep telling you, imagine a scenario where the defense agency refrains from attacking the hostil agency. All they do is defend against attacks. so the hostile agency is free to offer aggressive services. So, we wont be hearing this anticompetitive nonsense anymore ;-)
Why would they not attack? Are you just betting they won't turn society into some Somalia POS?
Attacking other agencies doesn't prevent them from defending their clients. In fact, they can use the profit from their aggressive actions to invest in better protection for their clients. They can practice both business models, even.
So you agree that aggressive agencies engage in anticompetitive behavior?
Yes, in fact conflicting legal systems cannot coexist and anticompetitive behavior by one or the other is inevitable.
Airplanes can be made out of spruce. Looks like youre out of arguments, Malachi wins again.
On what? That under your theory, exploitation isn't supposed to be profitable? If you don't want to explain how the state is able to profit from it in a way that "private defense agencies" can't, alright.
We have been over this. The state doesnt profit, it destroys wealth.
So you're saying the state doesn't profit. Does it lose money? Does it perfectly break even? Those are the only other two options. If it loses money, when will it run out?
Wow. This guy represents millions of voters who don't understand these nuanced economic concepts. Is he an Obama supporter?
If there's an area where I've misused terminology, do point it out.
Anyway, to reiterate, truly contradictory legal systems (say, an aggressive and a non aggressive one) cannot meaningfully compete. As soon as one agency puts its decisions into practice, the other will attack its stuff and whoever wins this engagement effectively removes the loser's ability to offer its services on the market, limiting consumer choice. The only outcome of an (efficient) anarchocapitalist system is the limitation of consumer choice of at least some legal systems. If this kind of anti competitive behavior is possible, there's no particular reason why other forms of anti competitive behavior won't result as well. Let's take a concrete example since those seem to help. John's agency (or some group of agencies) convicts Jake's factory of pollution the atmosphere, causing global warming, and transgressing all over John's clients. Jake's agency (or some group of agencies) disagrees and John attacks to end the aggression. Whoever wins this conflict will have forced their particular legal interpretation upon the other. Now you're going to throw up various procedural obstacles, like "that never happens in Somalia" or "Al Gore is a false god". But that's not the point of the example. Agencies can pillage each others' clients regardless of what purported legal excuse they come up with. There's no particular reason why these legal rationales are going to be the same as what you want them to be.
"Anyway, to reiterate, truly contradictory legal systems (say, an aggressive and a non aggressive one) cannot meaningfully compete. As soon as one agency puts its decisions into practice, the other will attack its stuff and whoever wins this engagement effectively removes the loser's ability to offer its services on the market, limiting consumer choice."
Unlikely, because the agency is spending resources to attack (with no tax base!), the fact that it is attacking people would cause it to lose business, and the people getting attacked would defend themselves and get help to stop this agression. Reputation is important!
"The only outcome of an (efficient) anarchocapitalist system is the limitation of consumer choice of at least some legal systems."
Of course, some legal systems would generally be discarded (but not in a process of attacking) because people would generally regard some settlements as just and some as unjust. Of course, two people can solve the dispute any way they wish if both agree to it, and there are incentives to force such an agreement. Just like things people don't want (or don't accept in a dispute) won't be available.
"If this kind of anti competitive behavior is possible, there's no particular reason why other forms of anti competitive behavior won't result as well."
"Let's take a concrete example since those seem to help. John's agency (or some group of agencies) convicts Jake's factory of pollution the atmosphere, causing global warming, and transgressing all over John's clients. Jake's agency (or some group of agencies) disagrees and John attacks to end the aggression. Whoever wins this conflict will have forced their particular legal interpretation upon the other."
Of course in a dispute between two where there is combat the winner wins. Why is this nonexistant in government, cuz doesn't government threaten armed combat if people don't comply with their rulings? But remember that John has reputation to consider, as well as people coming to help Jake.
"Now you're going to throw up various procedural obstacles, like "that never happens in Somalia" or "Al Gore is a false god". But that's not the point of the example. Agencies can pillage each others' clients regardless of what purported legal excuse they come up with."
Well the fact that its possible does not mean it will be rampant, and I have pointed out several factors that would dissuade people from doing that in practice. Of course there may still be armed combat in an AnCap society, but I wouldn't necessarily consider things worse because of it.=
Schools are labour camps.
On the contrary, if it seized land from the attack and collected profit from it, it could invest this profit in getting better protection for its clients. There are any number of reasons why agencies can profit from attack. In fact, the reputation might cause more customers to buy its protection in fear of being attacked themselves.
Ban-Evader:I'm not sure where this is going, Auto.
Sure you do.
Ban-Evader:Anyway, if the world was like Phi wanted it to be [sic] and people had a specific culture conducive to it, then sure, his idea would work. But I'm talking about a world that doesn't necessarily have those characteristics (ie, the real world [sic]).
This is logically contradictory. If the world doesn't necessarily have those characteristics, then it doesn't necessarily lack them either, now does it? What's the point of you trying to assert that the world does necessarily lack those characteristics, and at the same time not actually assert that? Are you just trying to trip people up with intentional illogic? If so, what do you gain from that aside from simple amusement?
Ban-Evader:Going back, it isn't clear why ancaps expect agencies to engage in certain types of anticompetitive behavior (like elimination of aggressive agencies), but not other types of anticompetitive behavior. Claiming that consumers will chose other agencies ignores the point that those choices would be eliminated by anticompetitive behavior.
If someone breaks into my home, tries to kill me, and I end up killing him in response, would you say I engaged in "anticompetitive behavior"? Why or why not?
The keyboard is mightier than the gun.
Non parit potestas ipsius auctoritatem.
Voluntaryism Forum
Ban-Evader:Not if a society's charter is democratic.
That charter would 1) only be valid for the signatories, and 2) would mean all of the signatories thereby alienate any/all of their rights when some majority of them decides that they've alienated them - which is another way of saying they no longer have any rights at all (i.e. they've given up all of their rights) and only have privileges decided upon at any moment by some majority of them.
Ban-Evader:I guess not. But they didn't agree to some free society contract, either.
What do you mean by that? What are you calling a "free society contract"?
Ban-Evader:I'll take definition #2, Alex.
That definition is essentially synonymous with "community". So which of the five Dictionary.com definitions for "community" are you using here?
Ban-Evader:Yes, in fact conflicting legal systems cannot coexist and anticompetitive behavior by one or the other is inevitable.
What's your definition of "legal system"? Aside from that, and assuming arguendo that conflicting "legal systems" can't coexist, then it still doesn't follow that a given "legal system" has to be monopolized. As I see it, this means that there can be a "common law" over a given area, but that multiple independent organizations within that area are employed to settle disputes.
impala76: We have been over this. The state doesnt profit, it destroys wealth. So you're saying the state doesn't profit. Does it lose money? Does it perfectly break even? Those are the only other two options. If it loses money, when will it run out?
As I see it, this means that there can be a "common law" over a given area, but that multiple independent organizations within that area are employed to settle disputes. That's workable if there is something to keep those organizations and their enforcers in check.
As I see it, this means that there can be a "common law" over a given area, but that multiple independent organizations within that area are employed to settle disputes.
On defense from authoritarian neighbors see p. 242 of Gelderloos: Anarchy works.
Malachi:We have been over this. The state doesnt profit, it destroys wealth.
Profit.
That's a problematic notion.
Think of an expert team of thieves that manages to pull a few bankjobs right.
Say that at the cost of $10K in equipments, as well as the cost of all the training, rehearsal and the risk of being caught or killed, they get away with gains of $50M.
And now they disband, after sharing their acquired wealth according to some pre-defined scheme.
Was this operation profitable?
not in the austrian sense of the word, no.
Alright, kid, let me present you first the textbook definition of a profitable op:
Any business operation is said to make a profit if the realized gains by those in charge of making it happen are greater then the costs incurred by them.
Now you present the "austrian sense of the word". I have a sense that this is going to be funny...
please, tell me what textbook defines a "profitable op" [sic]?
Any business operation
knocking over banks and retail establishments isnt a business. businesses have customers.
is said to make a profit
by whom?
if the realized gains by those in charge
how are you measuring gains? the austrian definition of "profit" includes immaterial gains such a personal satisfaction aka psychic profit. does your definition of profit explain why someone would spend money on a hobby?
making it happen are greater then the costs incurred by them.
a crime needs victims to occur, right? it doesnt happen without the victims, thats one reason the notion of profit doesnt apply, because of externalized costs.
Now you present
the austrian sense of the word is antecedent to your participation in the discussion, you acknowledged this when you asked me about what it means to profit.
I have a sense that this is going to be funny...
trolls always find themselves to be funny. maybe youll learn something too.
malachi: knocking over banks and retail establishments isnt a business. businesses have customers.
Generally, but not necessarily. People can start up a fund with their own capital and trade stocks and bonds for your own profit. They run a business with no clients.
A business operation is just an organization dedicated to pursue profits.
So if those thieves have invested capital, and they have a plan on how to make their investment generate returns, and they follow on, they have a business.
malachi:how are you measuring gains? the austrian definition of "profit" includes immaterial gains such a personal satisfaction aka psychic profit. does your definition of profit explain why someone would spend money on a hobby?
In business it is measured in the bottom line.
But I'm not at all arguing that there are "immaterial gains" that justify certain activities that do not return profits, but these activities are generally not called business affairs.
user malachi:a crime needs victims to occur, right? it doesnt happen without the victims, thats one reason the notion of profit doesnt apply, because of externalized costs.
Yeah, that's where I was hoping to get. I'm glad you've said it.
"External costs" do not enter into profit calculation.
I agree with you, they are real, but no one gives a fuck, so long as they are external.
They are in somebody else's bottom line. Somebody else business becomes less profitable because of you.
There are many ways your business activity can create "external costs" to other people. These costs are a total non-issue regarding your decision to go into business.
The only variables you consider are those concerning your projected bottom line.
So if your (or "the austrian") definition of profits involves "external cost" computation, it is meaningless.
I can easily return your previous question to you: "does your definition of profit explain why someone would start up criminal activities?".
If not, why a few people chose a life of crime?
user malachi:the austrian sense of the word is antecedent to your participation in the discussion, you acknowledged this when you asked me about what it means to profit.
Maybe but that's entirely irrelevant.