Wait. Retopper?
Wrong, the costs of military action can be calculated in the same manner as any industrial enterprise. Capital costs, depreciation, personnel costs, retirement, medical insurance, life insurance, equipment replacement costs, et al. Essentially nothing is different. Moreover, the gain can be calculated down to the dime based on the expected economic return from the resource that was captured.
Capital costs, depreciation, personnel costs, retirement, medical insurance, life insurance, equipment replacement costs, et al. Essentially nothing is different.
Moreover, the gain can be calculated down to the dime based on the expected economic return from the resource that was captured.
You misunderstand what calculation is. Of course the State and its military apparatus use the administrative tools created in the market: book-keeping, management, inventory, etc. However, the similarity ends there. Unlike the State, a private business can make profits, suffer losses and go bankrupt. Even though it's silly to speak of the State as "making a profit", I'll grant you that for the sake of argument. But what the State cannot do is suffer losses or go bankrupt.
Calculation is the result of the possibility of both profit and loss (and, ultimately, bankruptcy). If you can only realize profits but not losses, then you cannot calculate. If you cannot go bankrupt, you cannot calculate. You're flying blind. And it's bad enough when the State does this but when it regiments the market through inflation, regulation, taxation, cartelization and monopolization, the problem is magnified millions of times over.
The warmongering State is unable to calculate precisely because of its definitional power to seize whatever it requires. When you can seize whatever you require, you cannot calculate.
Clayton -
Empirically speaking though, I don't have a history of theft under any circumstances -- at least not as an adult. However, I would welcome the opportunity to join in and profit from the liberation of statist hell holes like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al.
However, I would welcome the opportunity to join in and profit from the liberation of statist hell holes like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al.
The very definition of a chicken-hawk.
Centinel: 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? -- z1235 As I have repeatedly stated, it would depend on the circumstances at the time -- my financial situation, my moral compass, the potential victim, et al. Empirically speaking though, I don't have a history of theft under any circumstances -- at least not as an adult. However, I would welcome the opportunity to join in and profit from the liberation of statist hell holes like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al. Does that count ?
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? -- z1235
As I have repeatedly stated, it would depend on the circumstances at the time -- my financial situation, my moral compass, the potential victim, et al.
Empirically speaking though, I don't have a history of theft under any circumstances -- at least not as an adult.
Does that count ?
Maybe be we can try this from the opposite direction. Give us an example in which you would you coerce a woman into having sex with you?
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."
corporate military agencies (see private)
Public/private is just a terminology of convenience... there is no property of "publicness" or "privateness" of any organization except as a matter of convention. The US government can be thought of as a private entity in the exact image of your imperialistic Corporate Military Agencies. But that doesn't change the fact that both the US gov't and your hypothetical CMA's take what they require through seizure and thereby lose the ability to suffer losses, go bankrupt and, therefore, calculate.
Prices, profit, loss. These are all required in order for economic calculation to exist. Any form of aggressive force wipes out profit & loss and does damage to prices. A total planned economy wipes out all three. Fascism - what you are really espousing - is the most delicate balance between aggressive force and the economic reality of calculation but, in the long run, fascism also kills calculation and the economy.
politicians and bureaucrats may not be able to calculate economic costs and returns when they tax and print -- the consequences of reckless behavior is still felt.
Well, duh. This follows from the principle of cause-and-effect... which are implicitly assuming in every statement you've made in this thread. Economic calculation is not the same thing as "if you continue on a reckless course of action, you're going to feel the consequences." This crude and rudimentary sort of "gut check" is what Mises identifies with primitive forms of production such as basic agriculture or hunting in his article on Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.
No one denies that a vague sense of the general outcome of things is impossible. The generals going to war usually can correctly estimate whether they are likely to win or lose. The Prince can, in fact, calculate how much he is spending on his military campaigns and he can assess the expected returns of his campaigns in the form of taxes or other economic gains. But the point remains that none of this rises much above the level of a gut-check... 90% art, 10% science.
But the idea that Princes go to war primarily to seize new assets is mistaken on two counts.
First, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real power (undeputized power). All power is private. The Prince is not powerful because he is Prince. He is Prince because he is powerful. Do you see the distinction? The Royals are powerful whether or not they are sitting on a throne and the same is true of the powerful merchants that are largely hidden behind the scenes in modern politics. The Prince's aim is not to enrich the Crown but to empower himself and, possibly, to empower his family. The Crown can be taken from the Prince but his power cannot be taken from him.
Second, most wars whose aims have been primarily economic have been a net loss. The history of Europe is replete with aggressive, expansionist monarchs launching - and usually winning - foolish wars to annex new territories, only to have those territories drain the royal coffers with costly rebellions and insurrections and an increased burden in maintaining the frontiers.
The Habsburgs - arguably the most powerful royal family ever - are said to have lived by the saying, "Let others wage war, you - happy Austria - marry!" They married and thereby conquered. This strategy of peaceful political unionism was vastly more successful than the policy of expansionist warfare pursued by many of the other royal houses of Europe. It turns out that shooting, burning down and blowing up the territory you're aiming to annex significantly diminishes its capital value. Who would have thought?
Name the economic input or output that you claim can't be calculated by a CMA that uses armed force to secure a valued resource?
THe inputs and outputs are exchange ratios(Prices). If you understood the least bit of what I said before you would understand that your argument ncessarily involves a massive distortion of price ratios ultimately deterring the growth of anything your advocating.
The end result can only be a state. However since you do not know what prices are, do not understand exchange ratios, and are not willing to understand or learn economic calculation your entire argument is ultimately superfluous. Your scenario is not economically possible unless your arguing the formation of a new state.
If that is the case its a different argument entirely. The point is you do not understand your own argument and you are not willing to learn economics enough so that you do understand it.
We do not need to name specific inputs or outputs. The point is that exchange ratios are being distorted. There exists a natural drive for crime syndicates to protect their existing population from other crime syndicates. In other words, this is the formation of a state.
This argument is not an argument against the effectiveness of market anarchy. One of the problems here is you need to correctly identify what your argument actually is. You won't be able to do that unless you start reading up on the concepts discussed here.
We're not even at a point where I am trying to say your wrong. We're at a point where I am asking you to formulate a coherent argument.
TLDR. Inputs and Outputs are sidestepping the point and ultimately irrelevant. You dissmiss the importance of accounting in capital goods and in general economic calculation.
Are you retopper? lol...
You contradicted yourself in the same post
No contradiction at all. If you succeed in purchasing a business that is losing money, your initial "success" results in a loss. Like all non-Austrians, you completely neglect the two most important factors in economic theory: time and uncertainty.
The only reason a Prince gains power is because he is born into the monarchy
*groan*
"a Prince" and "the Prince" are different concepts. The former is the English word denoting "the son of a King"; the latter is used in its more general sense (from the Latin) to refer to the potentate or monarch whether his dominion is hereditary, by conquest or some other form.
I'm just wondering if Retopper has read von Mises' Socialism.
While it may not lead him to anarchism, which is fine - it ought to show that we are doing nothing more than living well within the liberal tradition. I also wonder if he knows that Schumpter, Hayek, von Mises, and Lachmann all knew there were very real conflicts with Democracy and Capitalism.
Once again, it is no reason to lead someone de facto against Democracy and a priori towards anarcho-capitalism. It should show someone though what the real engine of liberalism/ civilization is, that we are well within the liberal tration, as well as to show someone there is no reason to ultimately care about govt as "things in themselves"
Frankly, if a civ has not been undermined in an awful way by left wing academics or having little custom of federalizers - I can see why someone ma think of Democracy as a pretty safe bet for helping maintain order in "the way things work" - if a market system is already firmly in place.
"As in a kaleidoscope, the constellation of forces operating in the system as a whole is ever changing." - Ludwig Lachmann
"When A Man Dies A World Goes Out of Existence" - GLS Shackle
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but Murphy does a good job here:
http://mises.org/daily/1855
In addition, the absurd notion that anarchist society would be peaceful is easily debunked by the following tenets: Armed force will be used in peaceful exchange is not possible Armed force will be used if peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force, and Annexation of resources will generate a positive return on investment.
In addition, the absurd notion that anarchist society would be peaceful is easily debunked by the following tenets:
The same exact evidence can be used against the existence of a peaceful state.
Armed force will be used in peaceful exchange is not possible Armed force will be used if peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force, and Annexation of resources will generate a positive return on investment.
The first one is empirically problamatic. The other two points have already logically been debunked countless times by countless people. Retopper is just ignoring the points. There is no other word for it other than stubborn. This isn't about having an intillectual debate where sides are considered.
Representative sample from tl;dr post:
Also, unlike most products and services, armed force is territorial.
So, armored transport and bodyguard agencies are just figments of our collective imagination, I guess.
Hayek, from Why I am Not a Conservative:
""Only at first foes it seems paradoxical that the anti-internationalism of conservatism is so frequently associated with imperialism. But the more a person dislikes the strange and thinks his own ways superior, the more he tends to regard it as his mission to "civilize" other[10] - not by the voluntary and unhampered intercourse which the liberal favors, but by bringing them the blessings of efficient government. It is significant that here again we frequently find the conservatives joining hands with the socialists against the liberals - not only in England, where the Webbs and their Fabians were outspoken imperialists, or in Germany, where state socialism and colonial expansionism went together and found the support of the same group of "socialists of the chair," but also in the United States, where even at the time of the first Roosevelt it could be observed: "the Jingoes and the Social Reformers have gotten together; and have formed a political party, which threatened to capture the Government and use it for their program of Caesaristic paternalism, a danger which now seems to have been averted only by the other parties having adopted their program in a somewhat milder degree and form.
Schumpeter:
http://www.panarchy.org/schumpeter/imperialism.html
von Mises:
http://mises.org/nsande/pt1iich2~c.asp
This i really just tip of the iceburg stuff, but I'm lazy and don't want to get too much into this. So I'm done. Either way those are three of the biggest names you'll encounter who are not a fan of colonizing / investing in war for profits, etc
Scientificaly, we are not Keynesians.
Oh right, and there was a book written a while back ago that was a pretty good refutation of mercantilism, maybe you have heard of it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wealth_of_Nations
Centinel, the same evidence you present can be used to argue that states would be in constant war, hence making them no better than anarchy, really.
Plus,
liberal democracy which is specifically designed to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society with this misrepresentation
This is a complete illusion. There is no "law of physics" that makes the government work. Remember, it's made of people. You cannot "institutionalize" transparency and justice by decree. They can only exist if both your employees and people you govern hold them dear. And hey, if this is the case, why do you need a government?
The state is smoke and mirrors. In what way is power balanced in the government? Checks and balances? You mean to tell me that a 200-year old paper called the Constitution prevents the president from killing us all with his army? Oh please. Try more like "there would be a revolution." There's nothing inherent to the state that keeps things functioning. It's all culture of the populace (Besides totalitarianism, I suppose, but that's irrelevant).
Liberal democracy. Only Rettopper uses such contradicting terms. :)
This is rettoper. Your using the same argument you've used for the past year! Tireless you are sir! Bravo!!!
The history here makes the title of this thread that much more LOL
Just search for his name in the archives. You will see that his argument has not matured one snidget. Considering its been over a year and his position is exactly the same I doubt we can expect anything more out of him.
If by some miracle this isn't Rettoper than it must be his rhetorical and argumentation clone. Either way there is something to be gained by digging in reference to "Centinel's" argument.
He seems to be copying a page from the government... whenever you wear out your reputation with one name, just change it. It's like CSD (Child Services Division) here in Oregon ... that acronym came to have the same element of terror associated with it as Freddy Kreuger... so they changed it to SCF (Services to Children and Families). Of course, changing your name from "Nazi" to "Schmazi" doesn't change anything, so I'm sure they'll have to change it again, soon enough.
I thought it obvious by his use of "In sum" and "Manifestly absurd."
Daniel Muffinburg: I thought it obvious by his use of "In sum" and "Manifestly absurd."
Haha! Manifestly absurd! That definately concludes it.
faith-based
This is a retopper phrase. Also what ad hominem?
Hence, as I have stated previously, those who gain power in society are those who most aggressively promoted their own self-interest -- not those whose self-interest most benefits society.
I don'tthink anyone disagrees with with, and anyone who does is in folly. This simply isn't part of the issue and misses the point.
The point is when you say:
Moreover, the use of armed force will result in at least two beneficial outcomes:
It is not in agreement with Austrian science, classical liberal trade/ social science theory, nor do I think it is in much agreement (?) with most "Chicago" styled economics.
I mean I don't know how to calculate, conceptualize or distibute, or estimate the profit value of a public threat of force against another public body with resources. It is out of the realm of scientific or logical thought...all I have are speculations
note that systems that have never succeeded under any circumstances don't count
If we're to be guided by only what has already been tried, where would we be right now?
You have failed to explain how the state prevents the army from enslaving all of us.
If this coercion thing is incalculable. Then how does an anarchist firm determine the appropriate level of funding for security ?
I don't know what an anarchist firm is - nor am I even capable of venturing a guess. However, a firm calculates like everthing else that is forming the engine of civilization - via entrpreneurial risk taking and looking at profit and loss. Governments can not operate in this way - they can only exist via subsidy and/or "wealth creation". I'm not going to debate this, as you should be familiar with why that is being said now. If not I will direct to the economic texts that show what I am talking about.
And we don't have to call it coersion, we can simply call it "government subsidy" and get rid of all pretenetious and confusing ethical arguments you may think about when you associate things from this site. No one should be interested in the "use of force" - it's a red herring- just the functions of how things work and are allocated and why in a civilized society.
The fact is government at best could be seen as providing cultural expectations for externalities hence being able to maintain a general homeostasis in a content society. Liberal countries (NOT neccessarily democratic), by their nature create more content societies due to good customs on issues of property rights and wealth creation which is brought on through the market mechanism , that's it.
Also:
If your definition of an anarchist is someone who wants anarchy "here, now, and with no compromises" one can sympathize with your distate for anarchists. However, any political theory / position that asks for such a thing in a fairly well functioning society is daft (and I do consider the West to be functioning fairly well) and we should all know better than that. When opponents of a socio-political position create such a pre conceived image they create carictures, and will be lead into a confusing world of bad arguments and missing far to many points due to the carictures they create.
As has been stated numerous times... A security agency does not derive it's revenue from coercion. It does not break the fundamental principles of price calculation. Problem solved.
The costs of using armed force are as easily approximated as any capitalist endeavor. You have insurance costs, medical costs, fuel costs, equipment depreciation, equipment replacement costs, personnel costs, et al.
Moreover, the expected gains can be easily calculated from a captured resource, similar to if the resources was acquired by peaceful means.
What is the difference in determining the output of an oil field if I acquire it by force or voluntary trade ??? --- It is the same.
Hence, the formula is Expected economic gain from resource that is annexed - expected costs of military exercise to take resources = net gain.
Where is the speculation in this ?
No one is denying people could just walk around and take stuff without a trade and barter system.
However liberal society / civilization as we know it is based off of trade and barter. And if you want to start doing that stuff "for society" some serious questions arise. You are still asking questions that even old Adam Smith recognized as fallacy. In the same way as you see this as an investment is the same way old imperialists, mercantilists or Keynesians who think "war is good for the economy" . This has nothing to do with anarchy vs democracy - but socio- economic science.
I think you are losing site as to what wealth is, what wealth creation is, and why the incentives are there to begin with
If you want that position, that is fine - but you are not a capitalist / free marketeer. Look into Friedrich List, J M Keynes, Paul Krugman, Kenneth Arrow, etc