Centinel:If resources can be transferred from inefficient to productive capitalists then society will be much more dynamic and richer.
And you claim to be Austrian?
To paraphrase Marc Faber: We're all doomed, but that doesn't mean that we can't make money in the process. Rabbi Lapin: "Let's make bricks!" Stephan Kinsella: "Say you and I both want to make a German chocolate cake."
Centinel: Answer this question: If you could realize a significant profit by investing in a firm that specializes in taking resources by force, would you invest in this firm ?
Answer this question:
If you could realize a significant profit by investing in a firm that specializes in taking resources by force, would you invest in this firm ?
Anyone could realize a significant profit by investing in a firm that speacializes in the taking resources by force, but will it happen?
You are mentally stuck into thinking that because x could y, then x will y. This is a logical fallacy in your reasoning that exists in almost all of your posts.
Centinel:1) the house will be plundered if a profit seeking actor or firm believes that acquiring the property can deliver a net profit relative to the transaction costs.
What about the transaction costs incurred by the disspossed; do they not exist?
2) the house is not available for peaceful exchange.
If you asked a college student to have sex with you, but she did not allow you to because you were ugly, would you coerce her into having sex with you if you knew that you would not be caught and that she would not tell anyone about it?
Centinel: If you asked a college student to have sex with you, but she did not allow you to because you were ugly, would you coerce her into having sex with you if you knew that you would not be caught and that she would not tell anyone about it? --- daniel muffinburg No, I'm not ugly and I have never had a problem getting laid. Moreover, I am more a capitalist than a lover.
If you asked a college student to have sex with you, but she did not allow you to because you were ugly, would you coerce her into having sex with you if you knew that you would not be caught and that she would not tell anyone about it? --- daniel muffinburg
No, I'm not ugly and I have never had a problem getting laid. Moreover, I am more a capitalist than a lover.
Is that a yes or a no?
As a result, I would enter into a business arrangement with her, charge you $100 for 5 minutes and split the proceeds with her.
Thanks for telling me your business plan. I'll pay her $50.01, which is more than she would have gotten by doing business with you, and you get nothing.
It doesnt matter how the transfer occurs so long as the transaction costs are less than the expected gain from the acquistion.
I don't think anyone disputes that this is how the real world works. But I'm baffled by your distinction between the state of affairs in a "free market" versus something else. Coasean theory regarding efficient rules assumes nothing about the wider state of society and culture - transaction costs are just as determinative of Coasean-efficient rules in Soviet Russia, North Korea, Somalia or the United States.
You must understand that it doesnt matter how an inefficient owner loses his mismanaged resources -- what is important is that the free market allows for the transfer of resources from inefficient to efficient.
Are we talking about what should the rules be or why the rules are what they are? You seem to constantly conflate the two.
btw, where is your methodology ?!
Start with the first few chapters of Human Action and then we can talk. I'm not 100.0% in agreement with Mises, but pretty damn close, closer than Rothbard I think.
INdeed, it is amusing when anarchists discount the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends
What the hell are you on about? Please quote me where "anarchists" (e.g. Mises, Hoppe, Rothbard, etc.) discount "the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends." Please, I would love to see that quote.
However statists use these schemes to maintain power despite the obvious economic waste and opportunity costs.
You don't see the inconsistency in your views that the State is inefficient but so are "anarchists" ideas about society (in some way or other, it's genuinely difficult to tell what your point is)?
I am always amused by the anarchist fantasy that removing government and magically the same actors will instanteously become 'inherently harmonious'
No, sociopaths will always be sociopaths. The difference is that if the pre-legal cultural foundation for law shifts healthier, more well-adapted views on what constitute good laws, the sociopaths who are currently controlling 90+% of the Earth's wealth would be marginalized like all the other sociopaths who are generally either in prison, die young or piss-poor or both.
Not true, as I have stated specialization of labor, economies of scale, and a desire by industry leaders to reduce the costs and risks associated with competition and this will lead to territorial cartels of armed force.
Hoppe has refuted this in many places. Armored transport carriers, for example, are extremely non-aggressive precisely because they are held fully legally liable for their actions. In a society where you can't just pin a tin badge to your lapel and gain legal immunity for anything you do, security producers and insurers who insure against losses from crimes of aggression would tend to be extremely hesitant to use force and would tend to refuse to take on customers who are not also extremely hesitant to use force.
Of course not.
What the hell does that rebut??
Clayton -
"And you claim to be Austrian?"
The process that he was talking about is about as austrian as you can (see Mises' "consumer's democracy") get and is axiomatically the tendancy that will prevail on a free market, as well as being definitively true from the standpoint of a consumer.
Centinel, are you a capitalist?
Centinel: Centinel, are you a capitalist? -- z1235 Yes, with a caveat.
Centinel, are you a capitalist? -- z1235
Yes, with a caveat.
How many people did you beat up (and took their wallets) on the street last week?
people are just trying to get by with what cards they were dealt with.
What other cards can they possibly use? Did I miss the news of a new magic cure for ugliness?
Many have a pair of ducks. Hence, they cant succeed relative to their peers by following societal rules of voluntary and peacful exchange.
Hence, they cant succeed relative to their peers by following societal rules of voluntary and peacful exchange.
Absurd - just go out and do it.
Indeed, in the minute that it took me to write this post at least 5 people in the USA alone were raped, murdered, robbed, or beaten. Imagine the numbers worldwide!
Imagine the numbers worldwide!
So what? What does that have to do with anything?
IN sum, your theoretical framework based on the fallacy that all humans are motivated by the same goals and means is not supported by one shred of logic, fact or empirical evidence.
You're right. Some people really are motivated to seek pain and eschew pleasure. And here I thought Mises was right that all humans seek pleasure and eschew pain. Silly me.
Centinel: I'll pay her $50.01, which is more than she would have gotten by doing business with you, and you get nothing. -- Daniel Muffinburg Glad we resolved that you have to pay for sex. Now we are just haggling over the price.
I'll pay her $50.01, which is more than she would have gotten by doing business with you, and you get nothing. -- Daniel Muffinburg
Glad we resolved that you have to pay for sex.
Now we are just haggling over the price.
I can't believe I have to explain this, wait, it's Centinel: Will =/= have to.
For your benefit:
Neodoxy: "And you claim to be Austrian?" The process that he was talking about is about as austrian as you can (see Mises' "consumer's democracy") get and is axiomatically the tendancy that will prevail on a free market, as well as being definitively true from the standpoint of a consumer.
In the context that he made that statement, it was an interpersonal utility comparison.
Centinel, you are the Barry Sanders of dodging questions; you are able to juke every question that will end you run, but you will never win the Super Bowl.
Centinel: @z1235 I think I know where you are going with this, so lets not waste bandwidth tip-toeing around the issue.
@z1235
I think I know where you are going with this, so lets not waste bandwidth tip-toeing around the issue.
I noticed that you didn't answer my question. How many people did you beat up (and took their wallets) on the street last week?
+1 z... let's hear your reply Centinel. Methinks your actions belie your beliefs.
Is this a serious argument?
Indeed, in the minute that it took me to write this post at least 5 people in the USA alone were raped, murdered, robbed, or beaten.
This is why no one takes you or your arguments seriously. This, along the lines of wishful thinking and utopianism, has nothing to do with any argument at hand.
Centinel: I noticed that you didn't answer my question. How many people did you beat up (and took their wallets) on the street last week? -- z1235 of course, zero.
I noticed that you didn't answer my question. How many people did you beat up (and took their wallets) on the street last week? -- z1235
of course, zero.
"I'm not here to advance the discussion"
Well neither are you friend. :)
[Edit] In fact I did add something. I called your argument utopian and non-relevant. A non-sequitur.
I also asked if you took this line of reasonign seriously.
As others have suggested you tend to dodge questions. It raises more questions than answers. For one is this line of reasoning even pertinent?
Centinel: @ z1235, I have repeatedly posted the circumstances under which a competitor would use force to annex these resources within ancap society: 1) peaceful exchange was not possible (the owner won't sell) 2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to annex the resource (the owner wants too much for the resource) 3) the resource can provide a positive return on investment (the transaction costs of armed force are less than the expected gain from annexing the resources) so for the 2nd time, in answer to your question of whether I am a capitalist or a pacifist that would depend on the circumstances, my immediate and long term goals and the skill set I bring to the table.
@ z1235,
I have repeatedly posted the circumstances under which a competitor would use force to annex these resources within ancap society:
1) peaceful exchange was not possible (the owner won't sell)
2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to annex the resource (the owner wants too much for the resource)
3) the resource can provide a positive return on investment (the transaction costs of armed force are less than the expected gain from annexing the resources)
so for the 2nd time, in answer to your question of whether I am a capitalist or a pacifist that would depend on the circumstances, my immediate and long term goals and the skill set I bring to the table.
Which one of these circumstances were not present as you passed by every smaller/weaker person carrying a wallet on the street last week?
A) Empirically we know that force has always cost more than voluntary exchange. The only entities that have ever been able to show the contrary are entities which are blessed with ideological approval, like States, and therefore can afford to perpetuate this behavior. However due to a lack of calculation they still run at a perpetual loss. Most countries must pump the money machine to stay afloat. If your argument were true governments would not need to inflate themselves to stay in business.
B) Prices, being a derivative of exchange, are impossible to calculate when an exchange occurs via force. Its true that violent agencies may sell stolen goods after robbery but usually at such a discounted price that it often raises the question of whether or not the effort was worth it. Furthermore if a vast majority of market activity is squelched by violent agencies, ones that you suggest, then the affairs of business accounting becomes less and less accurate. This makes it more and more difficult, even impossible, for theiving guilds and organizations to determine whether or not their activities are actually profitable. Economics simply cannot permit widescale organized crime without extreme economic impoverishment.
Therefore it is logical to assume that such activity will be kept at bay by simple economic factors. We know that general welfare and the standard of living for everyone will drop under such conditions of widespread violence. Every human actor, including the thief himself, then has every incentive to deter such activities from occuring.
This is an interesting point because it shows how violent agencies, such that you mention, have economic incentives to eliminate other competing violent agencies. They must remain a monopoly for their business to work. In the case of the theif he has an incentive to ensure that there exists no other theives in the area. This is why States can only operate succesfully as a monopoly.
If we take your argument as being true than all we've shown is a possible avenue for the formation of new states. We did not refute markets or the effectiveness of market anarchy. We have empirical evidence for this argument since all governments globablly seak to be a monopoly provider in force. We have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
C) Via Praxeologically we know that voluntary exchange can be said to create more wealth than involuntary exchange. In the case of voluntary exchange both parties stand to gain. Both parties recieved something they wanted more then what they gave up. In the other case only one party stands to gain. On the net we are more impoverished in situations where involuntary exchange occurs. The more frequent this becomes the more disfunctional society as a whole becomes(Again economic calculation).
So, the success of a particular crime syndicate rests on their ability to remove other crime syndicates from immediate competition. Given this we could argue that it is more likely that a crime syndicate will become a legitimate security agency rather then a security agency becoming a crime syndicate. The crime syndicate has financial motivation at becoming legitimate. A legitimate agency already accounting in profits has no incentive to move into an area where profits cannto be easily calculated. You'll notice that the wealthiest investors do not drop their money in such incalculable risks. Especially when we consider the role of capital and long term investments.
~~~
The arguments I present above must be repeated at least once a week here on this forum. I'm sure people have mentioned what I wrote, in different words, at least once a week for the past 3-4 years. Literature has been written about this for hundreds of years. You understand why we may be short or annoyed, if not tired, of giving the same exact arguments over and over ad infinitum. Its maddening to assume that you will just sign up on the forums here and think your are present a bit of information we haven't already heard. As if you had some novel or original new amazing idea. That you will somehow miraculously and brilliantly reveal the erroneous concept of praxeology and the conclusion it ultimatley presents, markets.
I don't have enough firearms, tanks, planes, ships, nukes, satellites, missiles, et al at my disposal to deter retailation from state and local law enforcement legal institutions within our Constitutional Federal Republic that reject the use of coercion to obtain desired ends.
Then, via your own words, you must agree that what your argument actually presents is the possibility of the formation of new states within market anarchy. The argument is not, OTH, that guilds of theivery will form and run rampent. Such organizations cannot afford to have competition. They can only succeeed via a monopoly, or a State.
This isn't an argument against the effectiveness of market anarchy.
The bottom line is that anarchist society would punish owners of vital resources who did not effectively manage these resources. In most cases, these owners would simply sell these assets. However, in many cases these assets would not be for sale or the owner would ask to much for the resource. In this case, these resources would likely be targeted for prediation by profit seeking opportunistic CMAs.
This is still an assertion. None of your 3 points, points 2 and 3 being highly unlikely, give any more credence to the assertion. The assertion is only standing on its own as speculative. Your logic does not reveal that there would be more or less crime in an anarchist society.
Lets pretend your argument were true, even if not logically thorough. If 10% of capital assets were expropriated inappropriately then thats 30% better than our current scenario where at lest 40% of everyone's assets across the board are subject to expropriation by the state.
Thats not much of an argument IMHO.
Also if a certain line of assets become targeted by such predation then we introduce an entreprenerial incentive to deter and protect these assets.
As stated in my argument above it's more likely that a mafia like agency would be become legitimate(Which they did) then a security agency becoming a crime syndicate where future assets and investments and securities cannot be easily calculated.
Centinel: Which one of these circumstances were not present as you passed by every smaller/weaker person carrying a wallet on the street last week? -- z1235 I don't have enough firearms, tanks, planes, ships, nukes, satellites, missiles, et al at my disposal to deter retailation from state and local law enforcement legal institutions within our Constitutional Federal Republic that reject the use of coercion to obtain desired ends.
Which one of these circumstances were not present as you passed by every smaller/weaker person carrying a wallet on the street last week? -- z1235
Assume, for the sake of argument, that these institutions (whether state monopolies or private) -- which are there to protect the smaller/weaker -- did not exist or would have no chance of knowing about your transgressions. What would your answer be under this assumption?
What if voluntary exchange is not possible ?
You don't have to repeat the scenario.
than the costs of armed force to take the resource.
You missed my argument. You don't know what those costs are. They're extremely difficult and/or impossible to measure
Emprically, we know that force has been used to take resources when voluntary exchange is not forthcoming for myriad reasons.
In fact, you cant name a society on the face of the Earth that didnt secure their land by force or had to defend it from prediation at least once in its history.
Correct.
So the notion that force is always more costly than voluntary exchange is irrelevant and absurd
It is relevant to your argument. Also if it's absured why did you bring it up? It was your assertion that it was the other way around.
because many owners won't sell and many ask a price that is more than the costs of using force and many rational and successful actors have used force throughout history.That is the incorrect reason for the predation. We have governments not because they are trying to secure expensive capital assets people are unwilling to give up.
because many owners won't sell and many ask a price that is more than the costs of using force and many rational and successful actors have used force throughout history.
There is no example in history of the exact type of predation your referring to.
Wrong
You have to know what a price is to be able to make that judgement. Do you know what prices are? Do you know where they originate from? Given that y ou do not how can you make such economic arguments from a state of ignorance?
If all resources are available for voluntary exchange, then maybe yes. However, not all resources are available for voluntary exchange -- see above.
However, not all resources are available for voluntary exchange -- see above.
How does all resources not being available change the praxeological axiom? It does not. I don't think you understood a word I said. Frankly given how you've responded I'm suprised so many people have invested such time with you.
You don't know what praxeology is. You do not know what prices are. Yet your here making an economic argument.
The bottom line that debunks your theoretical nonsense
LOL. Ok you just refuted capitalism. Start writing some books. You just debunked 300 years of economic literature. :)
Or perhaps you didn't read past the first line in each point I raised.
The bottom line
The bottom line is that you have to have at least some knowledge of your opponents argument before you can be in a position to judge. You've got zero austrian literature under your belt. You don't understand the most fundamental concepts of which the entire framework is built on.
You are also not interested in learning it, as is apparent. What ground do you hope to cover here?
Rothbard made this quote for you.
“It is no crime to be ignorant of economics, which is, after all, a specialized discipline and one that most people consider to be a ‘dismal science.’ But it is totally irresponsible to have a loud and vociferous opinion on economic subjects while remaining in this state of ignorance.”
Citing a realistic hypothetical -- a corporate military agency (CMA) is contracted by a group of oil companies to take the Bakken reserve by force. A consortium of environmentalists own this energy bounty and wont release it to drilling. Other than energy, this region holds no significant economic value, as a result the environmentalists dont have the economic wherewithal to defend the resources.
They're accounting and books are crutched off of pre-existing and neighboring markets. They calculate in the same way russia tried to calculate. Because of that they tend to bloat and overspend. Military goods are bloated in price. The incentives and price structure is entirely different.
For you to corretly understand what is going on here you must first know what prices are and where they come from.
Your entire thesis in contigent on price theory explaining the accounting capabilities of a crime syndicate. Not even understanding it you've already jumped from A to Z and made a conclusion while missing all the steps in the middle.
Centinel your entire argument rests on fundamental economic theory that you are not interested in learning.
Posting pretty pictures doesn't refute anything. For lack of a better way of putting you don't really have an argument at all.