the utility of coercion to achieve positive societal change is based on the following:
valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.
owners who fail to exploit valued resources effectively will see lower revenues. as a result, less revenue will lead to weaker defenses.
a profitable capitalist will identify poorly defended and under utilized valued resources and enlist a PDA to annex the resource by force when it cannot be obtained by peaceful means.
in turn, the capitalist who recognized the true value of the resource and exploited its benefits more effectively then the former capitalist or property owner has benefitted soclety by increasing societal wealth and productive capacity. Moreover, the efficient capitalist will earn more revenue from the resource than the inefficient capitalist thereby allowing for a stronger defense which will deter predation and further violence.
In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. the faith-based notion by many ancaps on this site that anarchism is peaceful is not supported by logic and free market mechanisms.
Moreover, ancaps who discount this argument on moral grounds are deluded to think that economic decisions can be effectively determined by considering morality, justice, equality, et al.
for example, what are the units of measure and the markets for trading "morality" "justice" "decency" et al?
where does the pacifist ancap include "morality" or "justice" on his company balance sheet ?
and can any PDA, industry, or society maximize profits and maintain competitiveness when making economic decisions influenced by subjective value judgments ?
according to the faith-based pacifist ancap, yes.
I say no.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists... Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
If they are being underutilized then peaceful exchange is always possible by definition.
/thread
Rettoper:valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.
Rettoper:a profitable capitalist will identify poorly defended and under utilized valued resources and enlist a PDA to annex the resource by force when it cannot be obtained by peaceful means.
Rettoper:in turn, the capitalist who recognized the true value of the resource and exploited its benefits more effectively then the former capitalist or property owner has benefitted soclety by increasing societal wealth and productive capacity. Moreover, the efficient capitalist will earn more revenue from the resource than the inefficient capitalist thereby allowing for a stronger defense which will deter predation and further violence.
Rettoper:In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. the faith-based notion by many ancaps on this site that anarchism is peaceful is not supported by logic and free market mechanisms.
Rettoper:For example, what are the units of measure and the markets for trading "morality" "justice" "decency" et al?
Rettoper:where does the pacifist ancap include "morality" or "justice" on his company balance sheet ?
Rettoper:and can any PDA, industry, or society maximize profits and maintain competitiveness when making economic decisions influenced by subjective value judgments ?
Okay this is starting to look like spam. Do you really need multiple threads to expose your flawed rhetoric? Srsly.
seiben,
How do you know what maximizes "economic benefit"? Particularly when each individual's utility is subjective and cannot be aggregated or compared?
resources have economic value equal to the revenue they generate for their owners/investors/society.
if a valued resource can generate more revenue if used for oil extraction versus environmental concerns, then the society that is motivated by profit versus aesthetic motives will be stronger economically and therefore stronger militarily.
Why would you need violence to bid resources away to more profitable sectors? The price system already does this.
if all societal actors were motivated by purely economic considerations AND agreed on the economic value of coveted resources then there wouldnt be a problem.
However, not all individuals value resources based on economic considerations. Many actors in society are motivated by other goals -- pacifism, egalitarianism, liberty, nationalism, religion, environmentalism, justice, et al.
when an actor witholds a valued resource from production because of religious motives (ancient burial ground) society as a whole suffers economically. Moreover, the actor who disregards economic gain for intangibles will not have the capital to defend or hold this valued resource from actors who are motivated by profit.
the profit seeking actor will always have more resources to wage war then the actor who subordinates economic goals for some other aesthetic goal.
In most cases, its probably cheaper to either buy or buy-in to resources. For example, if you are sitting on an oilfield, I can offer you my services to develop it for you and get paid a sallary or comission.
Your right.
however, if an environmentalist, pacifist, religous zealot, et al refuse to sell the valued resource for non-economic motivations then an investor who covets the resource will fund a PDA to take it by force if necessary.
moreover, if a resource is not being under utilized economically, then the owner will likely not have the capital to defend it with a force commensurate to the economic value of the resource.
in sum, the austrian and ancap are correct in their belief that freedom equals prosperity. however, those actors that are motivated by profit will eventually gain the most power and be in a position to coerce those actors who subordinated economic growth for some other goal.
Realizing that violence is less profitable than trade stops predation and violence in the first place.
not true,
some coveted resources will not be for sale for a variety of reasons. moreover, many owners of valued resources will overvalue and under defend their resources. In this case, these miscalculating and negligent owners will see their property annex by force by investors and PDAs that correctly valued and utilize the valued resource
in sum, investors and PDAs that correctly value and exploit resources -- will have more resources to defend the resource. IN contrast, miscalculating, excessive cost-cuttting, and negligent owners will not have the capital to defend resources.
in the end, society as a whole benefits since the resources value is better utilized.
If you institute violence, you put a giant moral hazard on society where anyone can attack anyone else on the grounds that they percieve higher social utility for the resources. Practically any resource is sub-optimally allocated at any time because human beings forecast imperfectly.
NOt true,
if valued resources are subject to predation if they are not utlized effectively then those owners will not have the capital to defend the resource. In contrast, if a resource is exploited effectively then the owner will naturally have the means to defend it. Moreover, society will benefit since a resource that heretofore was being underutilized is now in production.
Moreover, any owner that gets lazy and allows the value of the resource to decline through lack of investment will be at risk of losing the resource to more aggressive investors and their PDAs of choice.
of course, resources are never utilized 100% effectively due to human limitations, however if an investor perceives that a resource is being underutilized and underdefended then that resource is subject to predation. If it as indeed being underutilized and underdefended, then the attack will likely be successful.
Nowhere. Just as there are no units of economic utility that can be measured or compared. The incomparability of these fuzzy concepts is the reason your argument doesn't fly.
wrong.
the costs to explore, extract, and ship minerals, oil, et al can be calculated relatively consistently and accurately. Moreover, the costs that ships passing through a choke point will pay can be determined by the value of the products they are shipping.
in contrast, the pacifist, environmentist, , egalitarian, et al cant put a price or make a reasonable economic calculation on these goals, hence any economic decisions based on these considerations will be flawed and inefficient. The more aesthetic values are considered, the more inefficient the economic calculations.
It shows up as a consequence of economic behaviour. A society of psychopaths might have a very low murder rate because economic incentives are so strong.
if this is true, how does it show up ? prove it.
then you should be able to show me the economic calculations that prove your assertion.
how do you calculate with reasonable accuracy into how these incentives translate into reduced violence?
are there opportunity costs associated with the goal of reduced violence ? and if so, how do you calculate that ?
how many units of "pacifism" or "non-violence" or "morality" is equal to a barrel of oil, or an ounce of gold, or the toll through the strait of malacca, et al.
Money is not the only unit of account in markets, even if it is the only comparable one.
true, however it is the only one in which economic prospertiy and strength can be insured. And with economic strength and prosperity come military power.
the USA did not attain hegemony by the promotion of life and liberty alone. Primarily we were able to dominate the globe by economic freedoms that focused resources on the attainment of profit versus intangibles like pacifism, egalitarianism, religious worship, mercantilism, et al.
I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit. The hapiness that an artist gains from painting on streetcorners does not have a market price, but they judge it to be in their best interests anyway.
You might be happy and content, but if you operated your business under this framework within the PDA industry -- you would be bankrupt or worse.
If they are being underutilized then peaceful exchange is always possible by definition.--azure
what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource, or it is under defended ?
then peaceful exchange is not possible, by definition.
in sum, many actors in society put other considerations ahead of economic value -- hence they prefer the simple beauty of an undamaged landscape to the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil underneath it.
should an investor, company, society forego the oil because a single environmentalist enjoys his view ?
would the society that put attractive views ahead of economic growth be more powerful militarily ?
which society do you think would eventually emerge as a hegemon ?
>>what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource,
spoken like a true non-economist and anti-capitalist
Where there is no property there is no justice; a proposition as certain as any demonstration in Euclid
Fools! not to see that what they madly desire would be a calamity to them as no hands but their own could bring
In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable.
No. At best, it means there are instances where coercion can be profitable. That is, there are instances where the use of coercion will result in a "better" life for the masses than doing things only voluntarily. You don't get to jump from, "Coercion can be profitable" to "Coercion is necessary to insure (sic) social growth and prosperity."
Regardless, very few people care solely about money profits, and there are many variables a firm must consider before using coercion. In the case of the developer who can't get the last homeowner to sell, thus ruining their whole venture (be it a freeway, shopping mall, whatever), the developer must consider more than the cost of removing the homeowner by force versus the cost of relocating or redesigning. There is the risk of losing business (members of the community boycotting because of the unethical decision), the risk of unanticipated retaliation (low-cost or even pro bono work by other PDAs, trying to gain favor with the public; anti-big-business-using-coercion groups, perhaps using guerilla tactics to make the company suffer), the risk of higher costs in future ventures (more homeowners might refuse to sell to such a company the next time they want to expand), etc. Not saying that no one would ever dare taking this risk, but we have no idea of the spontaneous order that would emerge to prohibit such uses of coercion/encourage peaceful solutions in the absence of the state.
Rettoper:resources have economic value equal to the revenue they generate for their owners/investors/society.
Rettoper:if a valued resource can generate more revenue if used for oil extraction versus environmental concerns, then the society that is motivated by profit versus aesthetic motives will be stronger economically and therefore stronger militarily.
Rettoper:if all societal actors were motivated by purely economic considerations AND agreed on the economic value of coveted resources then there wouldnt be a problem.
Rettoper:however, if an environmentalist, pacifist, religous zealot, et al refuse to sell the valued resource for non-economic motivations then an investor who covets the resource will fund a PDA to take it by force if necessary.
Rettoper:in sum, the austrian and ancap are correct in their belief that freedom equals prosperity. however, those actors that are motivated by profit will eventually gain the most power and be in a position to coerce those actors who subordinated economic growth for some other goal.
Rettoper:some coveted resources will not be for sale for a variety of reasons. moreover, many owners of valued resources will overvalue and under defend their resources. In this case, these miscalculating and negligent owners will see their property annex by force by investors and PDAs that correctly valued and utilize the valued resource
Rettoper:if valued resources are subject to predation if they are not utlized effectively then those owners will not have the capital to defend the resource.
Rettoper:in contrast, the pacifist, environmentist, , egalitarian, et al cant put a price or make a reasonable economic calculation on these goals, hence any economic decisions based on these considerations will be flawed and inefficient. The more aesthetic values are considered, the more inefficient the economic calculations.
Rettoper: if this is true, how does it show up ? prove it. then you should be able to show me the economic calculations that prove your assertion. how do you calculate with reasonable accuracy into how these incentives translate into reduced violence?
Rettoper:are there opportunity costs associated with the goal of reduced violence ? and if so, how do you calculate that ?
Rettoper:You might be happy and content, but if you operated your business under this framework within the PDA industry -- you would be bankrupt or worse.
Your basic argument is that if we don't go 110% military might, something bad will happen. In your view, there is no room for religion, environmentalism, or TV in society because those things aren't A) Tanks, or B) Used to make tanks. A man who takes a 20 minute nap is wasting resources, and according to you will be attacked for letting his guard down. I believe this is false because property rights do not always have to be defended with guns. People are interdepdendent on eachother's property rights, and so there is an incentive to leave them alone so we can continue having division of labor etc. I WANT other people to have property rights because it will make me better off. They don't have to threaten me.
Somebody is back for more attention!
You caught me LS. I'm just did it for the lulz.
what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource, or it is under defended ? then peaceful exchange is not possible, by definition.
The owner will not be willing to exchange anything that can be offered for it at a profit to the offerer (that is, there exist no possible peaceful exchanges) if and only if the good is in its catallitically optimal position. Moving the resource by force can only lower total utility. More generally, if a peaceful exchange is possible at all, then there always exists such an exchange which is more optimal than all of the possible coerced exchanges.
In short, violence never ever works and no act of aggression can ever be justified by a catallitic argument.
Work the proof out for yourself if you don't believe me. You look like you could use a good excercise in logic.
In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. --rettoper (emphasis added)
You don't get to jump from, "Coercion can be profitable" to "Coercion is necessary to insure (sic) social growth and prosperity." --michael j green
nothing like misrepresenting my quotes and creating strawmen to argue.
Regardless, very few people care solely about money profits, and there are many variables a firm must consider before using coercion.-- green
wrong. profit is the only consideration a company must follow, otherwise it will fail in competition with a profit driven enterprise. This is true within the PDA industry. those PDAs that place profit above aesthetic intangibles will emerge stronger than those competitors.
n the case of the developer who can't get the last homeowner to sell, thus ruining their whole venture (be it a freeway, shopping mall, whatever), the developer must consider more than the cost of removing the homeowner by force versus the cost of relocating or redesigning. There is the risk of losing business (members of the community boycotting because of the unethical decision), the risk of unanticipated retaliation (low-cost or even pro bono work by other PDAs, trying to gain favor with the public; anti-big-business-using-coercion groups, perhaps using guerilla tactics to make the company suffer), the risk of higher costs in future ventures (more homeowners might refuse to sell to such a company the next time they want to expand), etc. Not saying that no one would ever dare taking this risk, but we have no idea of the spontaneous order that would emerge to prohibit such uses of coercion/encourage peaceful solutions in the absence of the state. --green
so prove your assertion. What is the economic calculation that determines when coercion is not profitable and when it is profitable ?
what is the unit of measure for coercion?
In what market is this economically critical "commodity" or "liability" traded and shorted ?
how do you include its calculation on your balance sheet ?
in sum, the pacifist ancap is not a capitalist because he places peace above profit. Moreover, a society that subordinates peace over profit will fail as surely as a society that places egalitarianism over profit.
why ?
the problem of economic calculation.
Economic value is subjective, or "aesthetic".--seiben
the price of oil is $73.
the price of gold is 1275.00
the price of coffee is 2.00
what is the price of egalitarianism?
what is your price for peace ?
what is your price for morality ?
moreover, how do you include these costs in your economic calculations in determining whether a specific enterprise is profitable or not ?
They are. Just not in the way you think they are. People buy TVs out of aesthetic considerations. People want to stay alive out of aesthetic considerations. This is a false dichotomy. All goods are demanded subjectively by consumers. You're just worried that people might not prioritize living over smelling flowers, which is a little silly because people usually don't. --seiben
not true, some people forego additional profits for aesthetic motives.
for example:
I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit.--seiben
if a PDA did this, they would fail in open competition with a profit driven PDA. You cant fund an army on psychological benefits.
This presupposes that there are people who care about forest preserves more than living.--seiben
where did I say that aesthetic values lead to death ?
I simply stated that those individuals, enterprises, and societies that subordinated profits to aesthetic ends will be lesseconomically prosperous then those societies that were more motivated by profit seeking.
which confirms the premise of my assertions that economically successful ancap individuals, enterprises, and societies will place profits ahead of intangibles to a greater degree than less economically successful societies.
I didnt say that those societies that were more successful economically would be happier or more content. however, they would be militarily more capable in the long term since they would have the capital to build stronger armies and wage war more efficiently when not encumbered by aesthetic ends like egalitarianism, pacifism, religion, liberty, nationalism, et al.
Ancap society is likely to have huge respect for property rights even if they are not always put to "optimal use". Ancap society in fact presupposes egalitarian property rights...
what is the market price for "respect for property rights" ?
how do you include this economically vital "commodity" in your economic calculation ?
In other words, there is an incentive not to miscalculate.--seiben
always,
and I agree with you that individuals, enterprises, and societies constantly miscalculate value since it is largely subjective, if predictable and economically measurable in standard units/price.
that is why 99% of companies fail and ancap society will be as violent as our current geopolitic.
Whether you have enough capital to defend the resource is not tied to how well you use the resource.--seiben
are you kidding ?
I will allow you to take back this absurd statement.
I could be using my land to its maximal economic use and still be overtaken by an angry barbarian mob.--seiben
I never suggested otherwise.
of course, if a competitor with significantly more resources coveted your land, presumably he could take it by force despite the fact that you utilized it to maximum effect.
this is precisely why I believe that ancap society will eventually decay into absolutism.
"power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely"
of course, all ancaps naively disagree with this adage and they believe that the only corruption that leads to absolutism comes from statist origins.
they are dangerously wrong -- thats why I am contributing to this forum -- to correct this folly.
I could be just sitting around on my land and not doing anything with it, and be able to fend off invaders with a shotgun and a few land mines. Defense/offense is an empirical matter... whether you have *enough* resources to do X cannot be decided a priori.
good luck defending your property from tanks, cruise missiles, battleships, et al with a priori as your defense.
in sum, wars are generally won by material means. The society that can throw the most hardware and manpower into the battle will prevail in the long term. Moreover, there is no a priori to dispute the overwhelming empirical evidence to support the assertion that economic strength leads to military power that leads to better odds in battle.
But in pursuing these goals, they use the market and they use currency, integrating these concepts into the whole. The same way that the aesthetic desire for TVs and backrubs is integrated into the economy.
not to the same degree that profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies integrate into the economy.
in sum, no society will be 100% driven by profit. however, those societies that are the most profit driven will be the most powerful economically.
this is as close to a priori argument I can offer.
in contrast, ancap societies that penalize the use of coercion to obtain profit are committing the same economic calculation problems in the economy that marxist commit when they sanction profit driven enterprises in the pursuit of egalitarianism.
But you missed the point, which was that desires are only individual. There is no "social goodness" or "social economics". Individuals cannot be aggregated. I can't come up with an average of how much you and I like icecream.
i havent stated otherwise.
I have stated that individuals that disregard profit for aesthetic goals will be less economically successful than profit driven individuals.
Each sociopath thinks: "Man, I would like to kill some people. But I also want to have a house and TV and internet... and I also don't want to be killed myself. I guess I should trade with other people to get these things" If everyone takes this option, everyone protects themselves and becomes dependent on eachother's economic freedom (freedom to produce houses/tvs/internet), serving as a counter incentive to murder. It is true that if everyone really really really wants to murder no matter what, it will probably happen. But anarchism is the system which establishes the most incentives against this. --seiben
I would be more amendable to your argument if you could quantify the costs of "murderous behavior"
what is the unit of measure for "murderous behavior" ?
where is this commodity traded?
if "murderous behavior" has a real impact on economic output, why cant I short it in the marketplace ?
if you desire peace, what is the price per unit of peace ?
where is peace included on your balance sheet ?
Subjectively. The same way you calculate whether to eat a ham sammich or turkey sammich.-- seiben
yesterday, I paid $7.00 for a 1/2 pound of ham and $10.00 pound for turkey (i know it is pricey, but it is low fat and low sodium)
I subjectively determined that this was a fair price
albeit subjective, what is the going price for peace ?
what value do marxists place on egalitarianism ? what is the unit of measure that marxists use for egalitarianism ? what is the unit of measure pacifist ancaps use for non-violence ?
Why? My reasoning is not fundamentally different from anyone else's.
simple, if you operated your PDA by anything other than profit, you would not accrue the capital needed to fund training, research, intelligence, operations, weaponry, et al required to compete against more profit driven PDAs.
Your basic argument is that if we don't go 110% military might, something bad will happen.
wrong, I never stated this.
I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society -- the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily.
In your view, there is no room for religion, environmentalism, or TV in society because those things aren't A) Tanks, or B) Used to make tanks. A man who takes a 20 minute nap is wasting resources, and according to you will be attacked for letting his guard down.
again -- I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society -- the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily. moreover, I acknowledge that no society will be 100% focused on profit, however the more profit driven societies will be the most economically prosperous.
I believe this is false because property rights do not always have to be defended with guns. People are interdepdendent on eachother's property rights, and so there is an incentive to leave them alone so we can continue having division of labor etc.
what is the unit of measure for "trust"?
how much is trust per unit compared to the price of a glock or mossberg ?
if you believe you can forego defense of your property rights because you trust your fellow man to act in the best interest of society -- why do we need guns or PDAs ?
are you saying that ancap society will render guns, defense, and PDAs obsolete ?
and if not, how many guns and how much defense is necessary ? how do you calculate the amount of defense needed ?
again, if "trust" has real economic utility in deterring attack and providing for defense - how much is it worth ?
how do you calculate "trust" in your economic calculation of how much to spend on defense ?
I WANT other people to have property rights because it will make me better off. They don't have to threaten me.--seiben
how bad do you want property rights ?
and how much are you willing to pay for it ?
and what is the unit of measure for it ?
and where is it traded ?
in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits --- the same as societies that put a premium on egalitarianism that likewise negatively impact economic health and well being.
if you want peace and property rights then fine -- however, you are not a purist anarchist since you cant put an economic value on property rights and peace. moreover, to promote these goals it does indeed impact economic prosperity in a way that reduced profits.
if not, please provide the cost analysis disproving my assertion of how promoting peace and property rights increases societal economic profits.
"in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits"
I haven't read this whole thread so I apologize if this has already come up but...
If people value peace and property, then wouldn't it be profitable to help them attain these?
The owner will not be willing to exchange anything that can be offered for it at a profit to the offerer (that is, there exist no possible peaceful exchanges) if and only if the good is in its catallitically optimal position.-- azure
peaceful exchange will be preferred and more frequent.
however, there are myriad instances when (1) a coveted resource is not for sale by the owner, (2) it is under utilized, and (3) therefore it is under-defended. Hence it will be subject to predation
Moving the resource by force can only lower total utility. More generally, if a peaceful exchange is possible at all, then there always exists such an exchange which is more optimal than all of the possible coerced exchanges. -- azure
if someone doesnt want to sell his land because he enjoys the view -- how much money would convince him otherwise ?
for example, what is your unit price per view ?
what is your unit price per sq. ft. of ancient burial ground ?
what is the unit price per sq ft of polar bear habitat ?
in sum, many resource owners do not want to sell. in many cases, these resources will have economic value that is being denied to society and profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies.
these individuals will leverage their economic strength gained through profit driven enterprises to annex by force those resources owned by economically inefficient individuals motivated by aesthetics.
In short, violence never ever works and no act of aggression can ever be justified by a catallitic argument. Work the proof out for yourself if you don't believe me. You look like you could use a good excercise in logic.
tell that to alexander, hannibal, ceasar, tamerlane, temujin, charlemagne, napoleon, mao, stalin, bush, et al.
If people value peace and property, then wouldn't it be profitable to help them attain these?-- matthewF
it would not be economically profitable because you cant measure the per unit value of peace and property rights.
if individuals, enterprises, and societies have a goal of promotion of property rights and peace that is fine, but profits will be surrendered to obtain these intangibles. moreover, there is no measure to calculate how much profits suffer as a result of the attainment of these goals.
what is the cost/unit/peace or cost/unit/property rights ?
so how do you include something in your economic calculations that has no discernable economic standard to measure or compare ?
at least I know that a pound of ham is roughly $5 and that a gallon of gas is roughly $2.75 -- so I can compare the two. try doing that with egalitarianism, peace, liberty, nationalism, et al.
this is the economic calculation problem of pacifist anarchism that many self-proclaimed ancaps on this site are guilty of.
the same as marxists (who I debate with greater fervor) who surrender profits and economic efficiency in the name of egalitarianism.
Rettoper:the price of oil is $73. the price of gold is 1275.00 the price of coffee is 2.00
Rettoper:what is the price of egalitarianism? what is your price for peace ? what is your price for morality ?
Rettoper:moreover, how do you include these costs in your economic calculations in determining whether a specific enterprise is profitable or not ?
Rettoper:not true, some people forego additional profits for aesthetic motives.
Rettoper: I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit.--seiben if a PDA did this, they would fail in open competition with a profit driven PDA. You cant fund an army on psychological benefits.
Rettoper:where did I say that aesthetic values lead to death ?
Rettoper:which confirms the premise of my assertions that economically successful ancap individuals, enterprises, and societies will place profits ahead of intangibles to a greater degree than less economically successful societies.
Rettoper:I didnt say that those societies that were more successful economically would be happier or more content. however, they would be militarily more capable in the long term since they would have the capital to build stronger armies and wage war more efficiently when not encumbered by aesthetic ends like egalitarianism, pacifism, religion, liberty, nationalism, et al.
Rettoper: what is the market price for "respect for property rights" ? how do you include this economically vital "commodity" in your economic calculation ?
Rettoper: and I agree with you that individuals, enterprises, and societies constantly miscalculate value since it is largely subjective, if predictable and economically measurable in standard units/price. that is why 99% of companies fail and ancap society will be as violent as our current geopolitic.
Rettoper: of course, if a competitor with significantly more resources coveted your land, presumably he could take it by force despite the fact that you utilized it to maximum effect. this is precisely why I believe that ancap society will eventually decay into absolutism.
Rettoper: "power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely" of course, all ancaps naively disagree with this adage and they believe that the only corruption that leads to absolutism comes from statist origins.
Rettoper:in sum, wars are generally won by material means. The society that can throw the most hardware and manpower into the battle will prevail in the long term. Moreover, there is no a priori to dispute the overwhelming empirical evidence to support the assertion that economic strength leads to military power that leads to better odds in battle.
You're basically claiming that the market might have a shortage of security. There are no shortages on free markets.
Rettoper:not to the same degree that profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies integrate into the economy.
Rettoper:in sum, no society will be 100% driven by profit. however, those societies that are the most profit driven will be the most powerful economically.
Rettoper:I would be more amendable to your argument if you could quantify the costs of "murderous behavior"
Rettoper:what is the unit of measure for "murderous behavior" ?
Rettoper:if "murderous behavior" has a real impact on economic output, why cant I short it in the marketplace ?
Rettoper:simple, if you operated your PDA by anything other than profit, you would not accrue the capital needed to fund training, research, intelligence, operations, weaponry, et al required to compete against more profit driven PDAs.
Rettoper:again -- I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society -- the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily. moreover, I acknowledge that no society will be 100% focused on profit, however the more profit driven societies will be the most economically prosperous.
Rettoper:if you believe you can forego defense of your property rights because you trust your fellow man to act in the best interest of society -- why do we need guns or PDAs ?
Rettoper:are you saying that ancap society will render guns, defense, and PDAs obsolete ?
Rettoper:and if not, how many guns and how much defense is necessary ? how do you calculate the amount of defense needed ?
Rettoper:again, if "trust" has real economic utility in deterring attack and providing for defense - how much is it worth ?
Rettoper: how bad do you want property rights ? and how much are you willing to pay for it ?
Rettoper:and what is the unit of measure for it ?
Rettoper:and where is it traded ?
Rettoper:in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits --- the same as societies that put a premium on egalitarianism that likewise negatively impact economic health and well being.
Rettoper:if you want peace and property rights then fine -- however, you are not a purist anarchist since you cant put an economic value on property rights and peace. moreover, to promote these goals it does indeed impact economic prosperity in a way that reduced profits.
Rettoper:if not, please provide the cost analysis disproving my assertion of how promoting peace and property rights increases societal economic profits.
Don't know why I'm bothering to respond, but I just want to make clear that I did not mean to misquote you. Even with your qualifier of "sometimes," I still think you have not proven it is "necessary to ensure social growth." It may sometimes be the best way to gain control of resources in order to put them to a better use from the perspective of the masses. Sure, this can mean that, without using coercion in certain instances, society may not be as wealthy as it otherwise might be; I think this is different from stifling social growth.
If you'd like to point out my straw man, go ahead and do it. Good luck, though, considering I agree with the broader point that, some times, it can pay to coerce.
profit is the only consideration a company must follow
First, a company is not people. Owners of a company (people), in their capacity as owners, want to maximize profits, but this still need not be their only concern. Second, the actual point was that consumers do not care solely about lower prices or whatever else the company using coercion can offer. I might remove a lone homeowner by force so as to develop a shopping mall, only to find that perspective consumers are boycotting my mall in response to my tortious action. Though they would otherwise want to spend money at my shopping mall (they prefer that this space have a mall to a lone house), they refuse to patronize my business because of my decision to annex another person's property. All this in addition to possible legal fees, retaliation, etc., means that my decision to employ coercion is unprofitable.
What is the economic calculation that determines when coercion is not profitable and when it is not profitable ? what is the unit of measure for coercion?
What? It's no different than any other business decision.
As usual, you're simply throwing out terms without any regard to their relevance.
These are not products. But you can buy things like charity, security to try and produce them.
security has a price. I can pay $50/month for alarm monitoring, $20/hour for a guard, legal advice for $100/hour
what is the price of property rights/ unit ?
what is the price of peace /unit ?
It shows up in consumer demand. If people buy safety, the price of padlocks and alarm systems will increase.--seiben
fair enough,
if peace and property rights "show up" in consumer demand, what are their costs per unit ?
if they have real economic value how do you efficiently calculate for them when you making economic decisions ?
what are their specific units of measure and costs per unit ?
Its a false dichotomy. You are foregoing profits at a second job right now because you'd rather engage in this "uneconomic" debate on the mises.org forums. There is no distinction between "aesthetic" and "economic" behaviour. All wants and needs are subjective.--seiben
you prove my point even if you dont understand it.
by engaging is an economically inefficient exercise in exposing ancap folly -- I am foregoing economically more beneficial activities. Hence I have placed asethetics ahead of profits. a society of debaters would be subject to predation from a society of profit seekers.
Actually the army IS funded on psychological benefits: namely everyone's innate desire to stay alive and have security.--seiben
how many tank rounds, missiles, ships, bombers is this "psychological benefit" worth ?
how much is everyone's inate desire to stay alive worth in terms of bullets, oil, titanium, high ground, et al ?
presumably if these goals are force multipliers that have economic value and can be used to calculate defense spending, however by how much can defense be reduced ?
You're arguing that if people don't devote 100% of their resources to military they'll be attacked by people who do.--seiben
no, your manufacturing a strawman.
i stated that the more profitable an enterprise utilizes a valued resource, the more capital is available for defense, and the less likely that resource will be attacked.
The profits are a RESULT of prioritizing "intangibles". I can have a very profitable back-rubbing business. It is entirely founded on everyone's aesthetic desire for back rubs.--seiben
and this intangible can be economically valued. there is no calculation problem since I know the value of an hour massage relative to a pound of ham and can make an efficient economic value judgment on which one to spend my money on.
however, I will ask you again --- what is the unit price of peace, property rights, relative to an hour massage ?
Your argument reduces to "If you spend all day producing guns, you'll have more guns than you would otherwise". This is a really grim assessment.--seiben
my argument does not assert this at all. I merely stated that societies that are more focused on profit will be economically more prosperous then societies that subordinate profit seeking for some other intangible. this is not grim.
unless you can quantify "grim" in terms of unit price per pound of ham .
Depends on the ancap legal system. If people purchase security on the market, you buy "respect for property rights" with security guards and fences. If people provide legal services socially, as they have done in most historical examples of anarchist societies, legal services will be provided outside the market by non-aggressive reputation organizations.
security will be most efficiently allocated to resources that provide economic benefit. those owners that spend exorbidant capital to defend resources for the sake of property rights will see their capital and economic wherewithal decline. simarily, aggressors who misuse capital to take resource of little economic value simply to gain property rights or deny others property rights will likewise see their capital and economic net worth decline.
in contrast, individuals, enterprises, and societies that correctly value resources according to its economic value and not "property rights" will be more economically efficient and prosperous.
in sum, if individuals expend capital and resources to defend property simply for the sake of property rights and not a quantifiable economic output from that resource -- then these individuals will decline in wealth and economic power relative to profit seekers who value resources for their ability to provide measurable profits, not some intangible like "property rights".
the balance of your post demands a more thoughtful response than I have time for.
I am going to make a value judgment on the fly and I decided to watch the notre dame-state game.
unfortunately for the economic health and well being of our society, I have again opted for prodigious consumption of alcoholic beverages, football, and home made subs.
later.
Rettoper:if peace and property rights "show up" in consumer demand, what are their costs per unit ?
Rettoper:how many tank rounds, missiles, ships, bombers is this "psychological benefit" worth ?
Rettoper: and this intangible can be economically valued. there is no calculation problem since I know the value of an hour massage relative to a pound of ham and can make an efficient economic value judgment on which one to spend my money on. however, I will ask you again --- what is the unit price of peace, property rights, relative to an hour massage ?
Rettoper:in contrast, individuals, enterprises, and societies that correctly value resources according to its economic value and not "property rights" will be more economically efficient and prosperous.
Rettoper:in sum, if individuals expend capital and resources to defend property simply for the sake of property rights and not a quantifiable economic output from that resource
At any rate, to recap, you are focusing on a false dichotomy between "aesthetics" and "economics". The two concepts are completely intertwined. Economies will always be the result of subjective preferences. The price mechanism distributes resources to more economic ends depending on how subjective preferences and purchasing power play out. There is no need for a force mechanism.
Additionally, "the market" is not the only basis of law or exchange in anarcho-capitalism. I've put forward social-law as a plausible means of providing order in ancapland. Social mechanisms will also likely provide many other goods and services outside of the formal monetary economy. Family, friendship, friendly socieities etc.
If it is not for sale then it isn't being under-utilized.
Think about it.
if someone doesnt want to sell his land because he enjoys the view -- how much money would convince him otherwise ? for example, what is your unit price per view ? what is your unit price per sq. ft. of ancient burial ground ? what is the unit price per sq ft of polar bear habitat ? in sum, many resource owners do not want to sell. in many cases, these resources will have economic value that is being denied to society and profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies. these individuals will leverage their economic strength gained through profit driven enterprises to annex by force those resources owned by economically inefficient individuals motivated by aesthetics.
A good view can very easily provide more value than a factory built on the same location. Value is subjective. Who are you to declare it would provide more value to tear down one thing and replace it with another? Only the property owner can decide that.
Murder exists. I get that. That doesn't mean it's justified. I think this goes without saying but you seem to be incredibly confused.
srsly, you, jon irenicus, filc, sam armstrong, angurse, giant_joe, andrew cain, et al should form a league of extraordinary gentlemen to educate the ignorant masses with your brilliance.
What the hell do you think this website is for? That's exactly what this forum is, stupid references aside.
These threads make me think that Mises may have been wrong on polylogism. ;)
Retropper:valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.
According to whom are those resources not being utilized to maximum economic benefit of society?
Retropper:according to the faith-based pacifist ancap, yes.
It is not faith that leads us to believe in markets. On the other hand it is entirely by faith that you believe everyone will turn into savage warlord.
If it is not for sale then it isn't being under-utilized. Think about it.--azure
Think about it.--azure
I have thought about it.
myriad private enterprises have gone bankrupt without being offered for sale prior to failing.
by your definition, if a company is not for sale, it is not falling. Moreover, an environmentalist who refuses to exploit hundreds of billions of dollars in energy and mineral resources to preserve the natural integrity of the landscape is foregoing economic benefit for some aesthetic benefit.
while this aesthetic value has benefit, it cannot protect this property from predation from more profit motivated individuals and enterprises.
think about that.
A good view can very easily provide more value than a factory built on the same location. Value is subjective. Who are you to declare it would provide more value to tear down one thing and replace it with another? Only the property owner can decide that.--azure
if you claim that a "view" is more productive economically than you should have an economically accurate measure of the increased economic productivity of your "view" than using the resource for some other economic purpose.
for example, what is your unit of measure for "views" ?
what is the price per unit of your "view" compared to the price of a gallon of gas $2.75 ?
in sum, you dont have a clue how much economic value your "view" represents. It is similar to the economic calculation problem that marxists encounter. moreover, individuals, enterprises, and societies that are driven by profit as opposed to aesthetic goals will be more economically successful and hence have more capital in which to wage war and defend valued resources.
Murder exists. I get that. That doesn't mean it's justified. I think this goes without saying but you seem to be incredibly confused.--azure
virtually all societies have used warfare to attain both economic and philosophical ends.
In many cases, these actions were done in response to a survival level threat from a competitor. whether it is justified or not is subjective. the point is that it is the responsibility of owners of valued resources to provide adequate defense for their property or resources as history has shown that failure to do so will result in loss by predation.
In sum, pacifist ancaps do not have the emotional or intellectual wherewithal to understand and use coercion to gain and hold power. until they figure that out, they will remain fringe and irrelevant.
According to whom are those resources not being utilized to maximum economic benefit of society? --- filc
the market.
actors who do not exploit valued resources effectively will not have the capital needed to defend these resources with a force commensurate with the true value of the resource.
for example, an environmentalist who refuses to exploit his land for its oil and mineral resources will see his land annexed by an investor who recognizes the true value of the resource. Moreover, the new owner will utilize the resource more effectively thereby increasing overall societal prosperity and productivity. also, the new owner will have more capital in which to defend the resource which reduces the risk of further conflict.
It is not faith that leads us to believe in markets. On the other hand it is entirely by faith that you believe everyone will turn into savage warlord.--filc
strawman.
produce the quote in which I said "everyone will turn into savage warlord(s)"
What the hell do you think this website is for? That's exactly what this forum is, stupid references aside.--sam
and you have been at the forefront of educating the ignorant masses sam with your razor sharp wit and arguments.
thanks again dude.
obviously, I stand corrected on all points.
Retopper:valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.
Filc:According to whom are those resources not being utilized to maximum economic benefit of society?
Retopper:The Market
If this were the case then those resources would be potentially up for transaction on the market. Confiscating property by force however is not a form of market activity. Are you arguing that it is? Market activity does not involve violence. Or as Azure said
Azure:If it is not for sale then it isn't being under-utilized.
Perhaps you should think about it again.
Retopper:myriad private enterprises have gone bankrupt without being offered for sale prior to failing. by your definition, if a company is not for sale, it is not falling.
by your definition, if a company is not for sale, it is not falling.
Where did we say that? And why does it matter whether a company is shown to fail or not fail? What does that have to do with anything? Also what is considerd as "failing" is a matter of opinion Retropper, or have you forgotten that?
An enterprise's direction is being moved at the hand of the owners or management of some sort. If he/they mis-guides it then consumers will move elsewhere. If he drives his business to the ground, well who are you to judge the methods he used to try and succeed? For all we know he wanted to drive his business to the ground. It's not open for analysis. You are not a central planner.
You can sit back in your high-horse and pretend you know how better to manage business and allocate resources, but we would all know you as the socialist planning fraud.
Retopper:according to the faith-based pacifist ancap, yes
Retopper:It is not faith that leads us to believe in markets. On the other hand it is entirely by faith that you believe everyone will turn into savage warlord.
Retopper:strawman.
Look my friend we have talked about this before. If your going to use the word it would help you to understand its meaning.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
Explain how it is a strawman?
Also explain to us why you keep calling us "Faith Based", and explain to us how by contrast you are not a "Faith Based" socialist, and then furthermore explain to me what it has to do with the discussion at hand?
Retopper:produce the quote in which I said "everyone will turn into savage warlord(s)"
Is it or is it not your position that PDA's will tend to become hegemonic PDA's? Did you or did you not say that violence and war is profitable? Do you REALLY want me to quote you Retropper?
Isn't that the premise of your entire platform? Are you confused about what even you stand for now?
This has got to be the silliest thread on this board.
yessir:This has got to be the silliest thread on this board.
Look at the argumentation styles employed on this thread. IT is specifically designed to drag others down the garbage shoot into a very sad, pathetic, and logically erroneous discussion. For example....
Things like
Retropper: faith-based pacifist ancap
Retropper:I stand corrected on all points.
Retropper:srsly, you, jon irenicus, filc, sam armstrong, angurse, giant_joe, andrew cain, et al should form a league of extraordinary gentlemen to educate the ignorant masses with your brilliance.
Retropper:you are now a member of the league of extraordinary gentlemen joining jon, filc, angurse, sam, et al.
Retropper:you are moving up in the heirarchy of the league of extraordinary gentlemen.
Retropper:and you have been at the forefront of educating the ignorant masses sam with your razor sharp wit and arguments. thanks again dude. obviously, I stand corrected on all points.
And anytime someone actually even attempts to introduce logic or reasoning back into the discussion, Retropper wittingly responds with
Retropper:I have thought about it.
OR something like that, then completly ignores the point addressed. So the chance to even critically analyze his argument or ours, as a mutual attempt to find a truth, is entirely thrown out the window.
He also says every other post is a strawman, often times out of place in contexts that make no sense. Which leads me to believe he saw someone here use it first, then just adopted it and ad-hoc uses the word "StrawMan" at random on various points.
So in sum, it should be no suprise to us that these threads, and others presented by Retropper are essentially threads of garbage. I can't think of a worse way of debating then those tactics presented here on these threads.
You ever notice how I never have to proceed beyond the first sentence?
So let's address your claim going point by point through everything your claim is based on...
Positive societal change is valued resources being used to maximum economic benefit.
Positive societal change is more revenue and better exploitation of resources.
Positive societal change is annexing resources by force when it can't be obtained by peaceful means.
Positive societal change is using coercion to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not profitable.
Please post the address of anyone who believes everything above is positive societal change so I can test out a utility of coercion theory when the SHTF and just shoot those bastards in order for society to evolve into that faith based, pacifist, voluntaryism you keep referring to.
Even if 99% of companies did fail, the 1% still around would obviously be enough to satisfy market demand (or else the others wouldn't have failed in the first place).
this statement offers nothing to rebut my assertion that an under utilized, under defended valued resource will not be annexed by force from a profit motivated PDA funded by profit driven investors ?
This is an objection to markets for law. I think markets for law can work better than state law, but I prefer, and most anarchists implicitly advocate social-law. That is, legal services produced without regard for individual wealth or status in the market.
ancap society offers no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency of the PDA industry that would forestall the emergence of local, regional, and national hegemon cartel.
after this, the establishment of absolutism is assured in order to reduce the costs and conflict associated with competition among disparate PDAs.
It is chiefly because of this that we cannot have a state. A monopoly arbitrator must be avoided at all costs.
ancap society offers no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency of the arbitration industry that would forestall the emergence of local, regional, and national hegemon cartel.
in sum, profit is the motivation of the dominant PDAs and arbitration agencies.
PDAs and arbitration agencies that subordinate profits for some other goal will fail relative to profit driven enterprises.
if one society invests more in war machines than the other, it would be able to take them over. They still have the incentive to trade between eachother though, so even if war is profitable, trade is more profitable still
trade has increased throughout recorded history, yet the frequency and severity of warfare has increased in parallel.
moreover, not all valued resources can be exchanged by peaceful means. often one or both actors will not trade -- then coercion will be considered.
in sum, your assertion only applies when both parties volutarily submit to peaceful exchange. this is not always possible.
Even if you don't buy that, if one society begins to pose a threat to other societies, the price of security will be bid up, bringing the under-protected consumers up to snuff with whoever is threatening them.
if the price of security is bid up, then those owners of valued resources who have under utlized their resources will not have the capital to provide necessary defense.
no, there will never be a shortage. however, malinvesting owners of valued resources will not have the means to defend their property or resources.
Even people who just wanna make money do so by catering to aesthetic desires. A good example is plastic surgeons.
fine, you malinvest your money on improving your personal appearance then the likelihood your property will be annexed by force increases due to reduced expenditures on defense.
This false dichotomy again... You can't *not* be driven by profit. If I trade your pizza for my wristwatch, we both profit. How much? Don't know the $$$, but we both profit subjectively.
you make the false assertion that every valued resource is for sale.
Depends how bad everyone else wants to stay alive. If they're humans, its probably a lot. They'd be willing to put most of their income to security.
true, the security industry in ancap society will be huge.
that increases the likelihood that a hegemon cartel will emerge and establish hegemon status.
Actually if I reduce my profits and invest more in military expansion, I'll do even better. Profit is revenue - costs. Consumers want to pay you as little revenue as possible. You maximize profit by getting your costs as low as possible. The profit driven military is very very lean. The might-driven military probably has awful profits because its costs are so high. -- seiben
in this statement you are advocating a "profit driven" military in contrast to a military that invests in capital improvement .
In order to have military might, they have to actually put the resources towards gunz. So your argument really does reduce to "the society that puts more resources into military will have a better military".
in this statement you are advocating a military forego profits to invest in "gunz"
when you make-up your mind, I will respond.
in reality, the PDA that finds the most efficient balance between operations and capital improvements will emerge as one of the hegemon PDAs. nonetheless, these PDAs will look for underdefended valued resources to annex in order to increase profits to fund both operations and "gunz"
I don't need guns to stop my friends from taking my stuff. I do need some security to stop strangers though. It just depends...
if a society places trust and friendship ahead of profits, it wont be in power long.
why?
because a society that presupposes that it can reduce defense expenditures because of a subjective value judgment like friendship will have resources that are under defended due to an incalcuable "friendship" dividend.
It will render them less useful than they are in more primitive economies. The more trade interdependence there is, the less people will have to gain by attacking eachother.
again, not all resources will be available for trade. moreover, if trade was a deterrent to conflict than this dynamic would be reflected in the global geopolitik (which has always been anarchic) --- in contrast, as trade has increased so has conflict.
Depends on the stakes. I would say its worth a lot but difficult to procure.
your right,
ancap societies would devout substantial societal resources to defense. as a result, the PDA industry would be huge and conflict would be frequent.
I'll pay for security till I benefit less from additional security than i would from spending money on something else.
obviously, you support my assertion that security is needed in ancap society. moreover, if it is required, then those individuals, firms, and societies that underfunded security would be subject to predation.
hence proving my assertion that underfunded, under utilized valued resources would be more likely to be annexed by force.
You can't put an economic value on concepts, but you can put economic value on things that LEAD to those concepts.
it is intuitive that if an individual, firm, society spends more on satisfying aesthetic goals versus security then they risk predation at the hands of a more security oriented firm or society.
If ur not blowin stuff up, u got more stuff.
not so,
if the stuff you covet is not for sale.
then the only method to obtain it is by coercion.
Look at the argumentation styles employed on this thread. IT is specifically designed to drag others down the garbage shoot into a very sad, pathetic, and logically erroneous discussion. For example....-- filc
then why are you here ?
are you a masochist ?
live_free_or _die
coercion to remove statist structures would unquestionably result in positive societal change.
moreover, coercion used to force the reallocation of scarce resources from heretofore unprofiable and inefficient uses to more efficient and productive uses is positive.
my point is that pacifist ancaps who discount the utility of coercion to obtain wealth, power, and security will remain irrelevent and fringe.
in sum, coercion will be part and parcel of ancap society (if any emerge), irrespective of the emotional handwringing of a few faith-based ancap posers. if a profit can be obtain through the implementation of force, then force it is.
Rettoper: This has got to be the silliest thread on this board.--yessir thanks for the substantive, factual, logical,and empirically supported post based on your contribution you are now a member of the league of extraordinary gentlemen. congrats.
This has got to be the silliest thread on this board.--yessir
thanks for the substantive, factual, logical,and empirically supported post
based on your contribution you are now a member of the league of extraordinary gentlemen.
congrats.
How is this not an antagonistic post?
Rettoper,
I've deleted all of your "league of extraordinary gentlemen" posts. I said no more whining posts, and I meant it.
Let the market figure it out. If people really want to stay alive (which they do) they will probably purchase enough military defense.
yes, military expenditures will be high in ancap society because the stakes and the value of resources will be higher then in inefficient and unproductive statist societies.
in sum, defense expenditures will parallel the value of the resources being defended. since ancap society is more prosperous, defense spending will be far greater than expenditures today.
You are making the mistake of comparing concepts to things. You should compare things to things. For example, backrubs and ham give you hapiness. Security gives you property rights and peace... you can assess the cost of security.
you misunderstood my question.
for example, how do you determine the security expense of a the following two properties (1) the arctic national wildlife refuge and (2) an area of comparable size in the southwest desert.
note that ANWR has significant oil reserves .
Property rights usually aren't asserted over things that have no value. I *could* homestead a barren piece of land, but instead choose the more fertile one.
then you understand that a fertile piece of real estate requires a greater defense expenditure then a barren piece of land. Moreover, if you didnt farm the fertile land then you wouldnt have the required revenue to fund an appropriate level of defense.
so my assertion is that a valued resource must be utilized effectively or the owner will not have the resources required to provide for a level of defense that corresponds to the value of the property or resource.
in turn, a capitalist we recognizes the real value of the resource and who can efficiently manage it to maximum societal benefit will be motivated to fund a PDA in order to take the resource by force.
society benefits because a heretofore under utilized resource is now open to the markets thereby increasing societal wealth.
Defending the resource for its own sake DOES have an economic output - its psychological value to the holder. This value is quantified by the price mechanism....
how are you going to fund the defense of a resource that does not generate any income ?
psychological value is not marketable.
however, if your resource had no economic utility, you wouldnt need to defend it since nobody would want it for economic reasons.
paradoxically, you would be forced to expend resources to defend it from morons that coveted the land for psychological value it offers. individuals, firms, and societies that expended scarce resources to defend economically useless resourced for psychological reasons wouldnt last long in open competition with individuals, firms, and societies motivated by profit.
my argument is simple.
if a valued resources is under utilized economically then the owner will not have the economic wherewithal to defend it. hence it will be subject to annexation by investors who recognize the true economic value of the resource and contract a PDA to take it by force.
moreover, owners of valued resources who place aesthetic considerations above economic and security considerations in the management of valued resources will see the likelihood of the resource being attacked increase
I've put forward social-law as a plausible means of providing order in ancapland. Social mechanisms will also likely provide many other goods and services outside of the formal monetary economy. Family, friendship, friendly socieities etc.
ancap society is driven by profit, not utopian aesthetic goals.
if you redirect resources and capital toward attainment of aesthetic goals then you sacrifice on security and defense thereby increasing the likelihood that individual, company, and societal resources will be taken by coercion.
in sum, ancap society is based on profit. hence the name maximal-capitalist. as opposed to maximal-friendship or maximal-family or maximal-egalitarianism
[FOR POSTS SUCH AS THESE, USE THE MEMBER ISSUES FORUM.]
I have thought about it. myriad private enterprises have gone bankrupt without being offered for sale prior to failing. by your definition, if a company is not for sale, it is not falling. Moreover, an environmentalist who refuses to exploit hundreds of billions of dollars in energy and mineral resources to preserve the natural integrity of the landscape is foregoing economic benefit for some aesthetic benefit. while this aesthetic value has benefit, it cannot protect this property from predation from more profit motivated individuals and enterprises. think about that.
Notice I said "optimal." If nobody wants to buy a sinking asset to keep it afloat, then that asset will and should fade into nothingness. Minerals laying in the ground whose value to society is less than the costs of extracting them will and should stay there.
Your whole Might Makes Right thing is really, really annoying. And your "If we don't steal everyone's money to provide for a military we'll get invaded" line is the oldest one in the book. Come back with a criticism that doesn't get blasted down every friggin week.