Political Theory

Re: How do you respond to this,

Clayton — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 01:01:55 GMT

One of the more awesome insights isn't that the market process isn't a process of competition, but of widespread social cooperation. The element of competition in a market isn't as nearly as important as that fact.

Yes, the market is the social phenomenon that emerges under conditions of non-exclusive or non-privileged production. Whether this production is inherently competitive or inherently cooperative is moot. What makes it different from non-market production is that it is non-exclusive (non-monopolistic).

Clayton -

Re: How do you respond to this,

Clayton — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:58:19 GMT

Government are more peaceful with respect to each other than with respect to those they govern

This doesn't necessarily follow at all. Governments are inherently aggressive both internally and externally because they only very indirectly bear the costs of most of their aggression.

The point is not so much "anarchy" versus "archy" as it is peer legal standing. Governments (of roughly equal power and size) are legal peers with respect to one another. Businesses that exist under disparate monopolist jurisdictions also stand as legal peers with one another. This means that the legal arrangements between these peers must reflect the interests of both parties instead of only the interests of one party. That is, international relations are inherently bilateral (or multilateral) and, therefore, respectful whereas intranational relations are inherently unilateral and abusive.

Clayton -

Re: How do you respond to this,

mahall — Tue, 08 Feb 2011 00:47:46 GMT

I agree. This is why you see the phenomenom of supposedly cut throat competitive companies sharing manufacturing techniques and market strageties. Industry realizes cooperating even with their harshest competitors is positive-sum.

Re: How do you respond to this,

AdrianHealey — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:31:06 GMT

One of the more awesome insights isn't that the market process isn't a process of competition, but of widespread social cooperation. The element of competition in a market isn't as nearly as important as that fact.

Re: How do you respond to this,

Lyle — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 22:23:46 GMT

The market embraces both competition (vertically) and cooperation (horizontally). The market is both zero-sum and positive-sum. I get a job because I out competed someone else for the job (I win, another lost). I get a job because I cooperate with someone else providing the job (I win, another wins). When the aggressive force comes into play (ie. state), it promotes competition both vertically and horizontally. Employers do not get to cooperate with employees but must employ who the state says they will (Employee wins, Employer loses). Employees do not get to compete fairly amongst themselves to cooperate with employers, but take jobs the states says they will take (Employee 1 loses, Employee 2 loses).

So you are right: Competition is not always zero-sum. It can be negative-sum as well.

Re: How do you respond to this,

mahall — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 10:17:47 GMT

Competition is not always zero-sum.

Re: How do you respond to this,

Lyle — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 00:18:52 GMT

Anarchy means social cooperation. Statism means social competition. Competition leads to war because it is zero-sum. Cooperation leads to peace because it is positive-sum. Greed first led us to trade then to steal.

Re: How do you respond to this,

Jeremiah Dyke — Sun, 06 Feb 2011 00:09:38 GMT

I think i found the error in the language, it's simply a mischaracterization of our conclusion . What they should have derived is

anarchy is more peaceful than governance (1)

We live in a state of governance (2)

governments live in a state of anarchy (3)

Government are more peaceful with respect to each other than with respect to those they govern

Re: How do you respond to this,

Autolykos — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 17:08:00 GMT

MaikU, states aren't the same as people, right?

Re: How do you respond to this,

John Q — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:38:35 GMT

Guess I should have added that to me it appears to be the fallacy of a false dilemma.

Re: How do you respond to this,

John Q — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:37:01 GMT

I suppose I would respond by saying that states' existence in anarchy is fully and wholly dependent upon the use of violence, force and coercion (or the threat thereof) as a means of achieving its ends with the intent to rule the others should the opportunity present itself, whereas an individuals existence in anarchy, properly understood, is dependent upon mutually beneficial transactions and therefore lacking the mechanism to be able to rule over others even if the desire to do so did exist.

Re: How do you respond to this,

scineram — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:29:32 GMT

Then anarchists are for the status quo?

Re: How do you respond to this,

MaikU — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 13:18:19 GMT

As far as I remember, I read this or similar argument in essay by Alfred G.Cuzan, if I am not mistaken. And it is actually pretty nice point. States do exist in anarchy. There is no grand ruler that rules over the states. There is no one government, that decide things.

Even the state's government is anarchic. There is no master politician, that decide things, they all work on their own. Sure, they have influence, accept bribes etc., but there is not King so to speak. Even president do not have such power.

Anyway, read for yourselves, I am terrible story teller http://mises.org/journals/jls/3_2/3_2_3.pdf

Re: How do you respond to this,

Michael J Green — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 05:12:56 GMT

States are not "always at war," and history suggests that states maintain amicable relations when they adopt liberal values (free trade and open communication) and agree to a uniformity in certain rules. But, obviously, states have the taxing power, conscription and ideological support to offset many of the costs of going to war. Those in the government don't suffer much directly from waging war; in many cases, they directly benefit from it. A "PDA" would presumably be unable to charge such high prices from its customers in order to wage war with other PDAs.

I also imagine "warfare" in such a world would be much different, without the conventions regarding nation v nation war and the horror of total war. There are many reasons to think that should PDAs engage in war, they would target the owners and managers, not the customers or even the grunts (except in defense). Again, having to directly bear the costs, quick and covert actions would be more appealing than traditional, large-scale war.

Re: How do you respond to this,

Laotzu del Zinn — Sat, 05 Feb 2011 02:47:35 GMT

Technically states, with respect to each other, exist in a statelessness... it's not really anarchy (no rulers and all that).

It's clear that some states rule other states, de facto.