nvm

[Hygro]

Thanks for the article, Kerozine

 

[Hygro]

Ok, I'm this thread is on page 4 given my settings so that doesn't help me. Instead of using a theoretical argument of why that's false, let me give an example from history.

In post civil-war southern USA, blacks were finally achieving certain levels of political and economic equality. Union troops enforcing martial law created a safe haven that allowed blacks, who represented sizable portions of southern society, to enjoy power in both state and federal offices, as well as start businesses and begin taking control of their own destinies.

Political forces killed Reconstruction in the 1870s, over a decade later.

Blacks were still in a position of proportionally appropriate power, both economic and political.

So what happened? "Firms" of out-law but unpoliced conspiring white men orchestrated terrorism. Lynch one man. Burn down the business man's house. Drive another out of town. Rape another's daughter. You know what happened? The community couldn't effectively enforce anti-guerilla tactics. They needed the army back. But the army was gone. Most blacks were not attacked, but enough were that the fear of being a target for being too successful was enough to drive THE ENTIRE POPULATION into a subservient, social underclass that lead to loss of suffrage, property, and reasonable legal standings for almost 100 years, when a NATIONAL movement, with laws passed by a "foreign" (federal, not state) entity, enforced with federal government troops brought back a semblance of equality.



You are assuming market equilibrium, which is a hypothetical scenario and does not exist. You are also assuming that every firm-leader and employee has the same level of motivation, an assumption that only. Collusion, sex, disinformation, bribery, intimidation, terrorism, murder, takes the competitive will out of people. The fact that there is a winner and a loser in the equal game of chess or checkers should be enough to know that the equality of individuals and firms don't exist.



No, because democracies allow the population to create monopolies. Armies and police forces and legal departments are monopolies. While small scale corruption exists and will continue to, no corporation has taken control of the US government, ever. The government continually makes anti-corruption efforts that prune past infestations.

Fact: before world war 1 we had globalization at a level comparable to today. We had trade interests that for decades in the late 1800s and early 1900s convinced all the leaders of the world that war was a thing of the past. There was too much cross national capital interest for war to be rational. BUT irrational forces caused a war so great and destructive we didn't even begin to get globalization back for another 60 years.

Woo I win! If Xarthaz won't give me the acknowledgment of a convincing argument I'll declare it myself.

 

[Hygro]

Alright that's a fair point. But so far you have answered my theoretical arguments with "I already addressed that". And yet I read all your posts in this thread and felt you had not. This means we're going in circles.

Nevertheless it's important to remember that while empirical reality may not account for proper variables, neither can economic theory. Because reality doesn't conform to the cut-and dried setting of our theories.

I feel you still have not addressed the rather important theoretical argument in which I state that zoomed out micro-economic theory doesn't apply with such a disequilibrium among the real people and their tolerance for violence, cruelty, honor/dishonor, risk-taking. The variation is as great as stone and water.

On Killing shows us that really only 2% of the human population can remorsefully kill without fatiguing. Even with modern training (until the Korean war we had a fire-rate of 20% or less--and the majority of those shots were posturing aka deliberate misses--and total civil war bayonet stabbings in the single or double digits) which allows our soldiers to reflexively kill, they need to be in appropriate combat situations and need to be properly conditioned--and still with all of that our soldiers fatigue and suffer emotional wounds from killing our enemies.

What's my point? That there's no "market solution" to a lack of central policing or government military monopoly. Any "solution" would equate either tyranny by dictator, or tyranny by terror. And that is no ideal society, that's a living horror.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Anarchism will simply collapse as governments take over.

Remember, a free market is free of both private terror and government interference. In anarcho-capitalism sure we would have no government interference, but private terror would be 100%. That wouldn't be a free market. Eventually it would turn into a kleptocracy or socialism(as governments defend private property).

 

[Teeninvestor]

I understand your concern for the possibility of terror and destruction, but 100%(ok maybe 99.5%) of people have incentives to have an organisation to defend themselves against terror. While a sufficient majority of those people think that a government is necessary to achieve it, a government will be accepted. If people dont support the idea of a government and dont contribute capital to a government, then any would-be government has no resources to force their will onto people (other then possibly by outside subsidies, as has been the case of many sadistic governments forcing their will onto people).

I am a supporter of the free market. However, anarchism goes too far. Free Markets cannot be defined in anarchism. Who will defend property??? Eventually these voluntary associations you refer to will evolve into government.

Government can be good for their people, especially when defending them from foreign attacks(whether military or economic). Governments can also help finance industry through joint ventures and chengbao. China has done some experimentation in that area. However, most western governments are way too large due to their costly social programs as well as subsidies to corporations(the latest bailout is just an atrocity).

 

[Bill3000]

I understand your concern for the possibility of terror and destruction, but 100%(ok maybe 99.5%) of people have incentives to have an organisation to defend themselves against terror. While a sufficient majority of those people think that a government is necessary to achieve it, a government will be accepted. If people dont support the idea of a government and dont contribute capital to a government, then any would-be government has no resources to force their will onto people (other then possibly by outside subsidies, as has been the case of many sadistic governments forcing their will onto people).

so, um, a social contract then?

How is that "anarcho-capitalism" again?

 

[Gustave5436]

I am a supporter of the free market. However, anarchism goes too far. Free Markets cannot be defined in anarchism. Who will defend property??? Eventually these voluntary associations you refer to will evolve into government.

No one. This is the error of "anarchist"-capitalism. The abolition of the government would be immediately followed by a general strike and the workers seizing control of their homes and workplaces from the virtually powerless capitalists.

Of course, "anarchist" capitalism isn't the least bit anarchist. It has a state and a military and all that, it just uses slightly different names for them.

 

[holy king]

teeninvestor vs xarthaz : clash of the titans!

 

[Hygro]

An-cap works for the benefit of people's differences by not enforcing people to do anything they dont want to (ie support disgusting bollocks with tax money) , thus preventing large scale aggressions from forming and not trying to suppress the variations which, as you say, are like fire and water. Socialist policies create tension, by forcing people with different ends to work for a common end, either by controlling production or by controlling labour, which have a comparable effect.

How does the 2% example support government military? It seems to me like it would advocate the relative peacefulness of people and the lack of massive war and horror unless forced to behave otherwise. As far as training being necessary for giving people capability to kill, why couldnt PDA-s train just like government, albeit using capital more effectively?

How does a lack of central planning lead to tyranny or terror? I cant understand the mechanism that would cause it. It seems to me like the opposite is the case, due to all people yearning for protection of themselves while only a small minority wants to impair that of others.

I'll address this with a real world situation and then continue theoretically.

Right now in Mexico, police and government officials are fleeing. They, with support of the people, with support of the mexican economy, are losing a war to druglords. They fear for their lives. The risk of death is enough that they are completely surrendering their power. All it takes is the will-to-power. The druglords are more motivated, and are more violent people. People form collectives, i.e. government, that defends against such threats and

Here's why fewer violent people is a more dangerous situation that greater numbers of violent people: the violent people have a monopoly of power. Most people won't stand up to stop them. And under most real world conditions, they will mafia-status form cartels and divide up regions of control, if they are rivals, or will team up together.

I keep saying this, but I'll be more explicit. Your view is too zoomed-out. You keep assuming market equilibrium. You ignore how serious it is for people to fear for their lives, and what people do in those conditions. People get conservative. They get tribal. They adopt conservative values of authoritarian unity for the purpose of self-preservation. An cap is a super liberal system. But it's a system that is 100% wide open for fear, which ultimately leads to some form of government.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Ive gotta' disagree with you on this. I believe they have power if they manage to convince the masses, that it is useful for them to support the government.

As for the mexican government, why bother participating in a conflict which benefits no one? All the drug wars are similar: trying to empty an ocean of water by carrying it inland with buckets. Doesnt matter how many buckets you have, you arent gonna empty the ocean! Im not sure if people would waste their money on wars which dont benefit them(in fact hurt them due to crippling a big export industry) if they had the choice between different PDAs. If the real majority actually hated the presence of a drug industry, it wouldnt stand a chance. And since the govt goes against the people, its power weakens.

You accentuate the importance of fear, i accentuate the importance of support. I believe if people are educated enough on theoretical an-cap then violent group trying to enforce their beliefs has little power. There was a reason why the commies of russia and nazis of germany had to create an idea of an "enemy" aka jews or kulaks. It was because it is easier to find support for a specific enemy which the general population could agree upon hating rather than a general economic plan which no majority of people would support.

In the case of a slow transition to a no-government regime and people's support for it, sufficient market equilibrium would exist for the competitions of PDA-s, private courts and other features to be stable(except perhaps from the invasions of outside governments trying to "liberate" the people from anarchy). In the case of a revolution, a void of power would remain and would likely be taken over by the central revolutionaries or some other power hungry group.

Heres a good idea of how PDA-s could function without fear and terror as long as people wanted such a system to exist http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libert...hapter_29.html

The problem is power corrupts.
If the state was abolished, and I was the head of a PDA and I have the guns, what's stopping me from taking over everything and recreating the state????

You say people can escape from my PDA to other PDA's. Well, hell, I get all the guys with guns, wipe out all the other PDA's within a fifty mile range, and I rebuild a state. What stops me???

The whole point of the free market is competition. And Defence is one sector in which the government can actually outcompete private providers.

When you refer to PDA's dominating, there was such a system. it's called FEUDAL EUROPE. Barons rule their plot of land with absolute authority and the state lost its legal monopoly of violence. What happened later you realize; one guy got big and we went back to the point where a state has the legal monopoly of violence.

An.cap can only work if everyone is extremely smart, free, independant, strong, and moral. This way, everyone goes for hard work and disdains robbing through force. However, it only takes one bad piece of pork to mess up the soup.

Also, when laws are abolished and set by private terror, that is the worst. Private terror and government interference will both destroy free markets. Adam smith had a whole chapter of his book devoted to the collusion of merchants. When private defence agencies can set the rules, they will become states in themselves; and not the good kind.

 

[flyingchicken]

teeninvestor vs xarthaz : clash of the titans!

An.cap can only work if everyone is extremely smart, free, independant, strong, and moral. This way, everyone goes for hard work and disdains robbing through force. However, it only takes one bad piece of pork to mess up the soup.

IMO, a good revision would be: [Utopian ideology] can only work if [everyone thinks the same and that thinking doesn't involve taking advantage of anyone else]. However [that's not happening ever until we microchip everyone or go ahead with genetic engineering homo homo sapiens].

 

[Bast]

I assume this is the sort of government that FREAK Ron Paul wants. The type where private companies will have the LIBERTY to do whatever they want to the environment. No thanks!

 

[flyingchicken]

what mechanism would cause people to accept terror and not do anything about it

The kind that gets them killed, that's what.

 

[Teeninvestor]

due to an-cap mentality being present among people, wouldnt be possible, similarly to how tyranny is not possible to achieve in present countries with a long democratic tradition.

People will do anything to survive. A guy with a big stick can easily beat out any mentality from them.

how can they mess up the soup if no one supports them. and if people do support them and dont oppose it, then how is it messing up?

Simple. You have the guns, people support you or get shot.

this is a big statement, and id like to hear the deeper reasoning for it. Since empiric evidence(D. Friedmans book, forgot its name) shows that government services tend to be twice expensive as equivelant private sector ones.

That is true for most organizations. However, a government army is more efficient due to scale. If private sector armies were more effective than government forces, why don't we all hire mercenaries????

Why couldnt the soviets just murder all their own population that demonstrated against the regime in the late 1980s? Because it wouldve destroyed any support they still had. Similarly to you, if you use your PDA to attempt to destroy other such organisations they either suffer huge financial losses for the money they have to pay for the families of the soldiers of the PDA and due to the clients of a PDA not wanting violence, they would lose contracts with them, which would only leave them the option of attempting to run a totalitarian state, which again, would only work if people support, and due to an-cap mentality being present among people, wouldnt be possible, similarly to how tyranny is not possible to achieve in present countries with a long democratic tradition

YOu way overestimate the resistance of the common people. In real life, people put up with whatever the state gives them because if they don't they will be shot.

You seem to think that all people are independant, strong and free-willing. That may be present among certain people(such as the ones discussing the board), but I can tell you it is not prevalent in the majority. The majority of human beings will surrender to a guy with a big gun anything he has(that will probably include me). Why? Because there's not much he can do about it. He can
a) get shot
b) give it up.

Most people choose a)

Why couldnt the soviets just murder all their own population that demonstrated against the regime in the late 1980s? Because it wouldve destroyed any support they still had. Similarly to you, if you use your PDA to attempt to destroy other such organisations they either suffer huge financial losses for the money they have to pay for the families of the soldiers of the PDA and due to the clients of a PDA not wanting violence, they would lose contracts with them, which would only leave them the option of attempting to run a totalitarian state, which again, would only work if people support, and due to an-cap mentality being present among people, wouldnt be possible, similarly to how tyranny is not possible to achieve in present countries with a long democratic tradition.

That is due to the fact the Soviet elite itself with conflicting. There were reform elements, hardliners, etc... If the soviet elite was dominated by one man, he could have crushed the demonstrations with a single finger.

Anyways, people's first instinct is survival. Power abhors a vaccum. Very soon, a guy with big guns will take over and dominate.
Think of it this way- All forms of government are in a free market. PDA's and organized governments. Now let me ask you, which way is more efficient, an organized government or a private defence agency???? An organized government will outcompete PDA's in a heartbeat. As people realize an organized government will allow them to destroy other PDA's, they will return to statehood in order to one-up their neighbors. Their neighbors will then
a) get destroyed or
b) do the same thing.

Anyways, anarchism doesn't work because power abhors a vaccum.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Totilatarian state needs taxation

And they will get it. Guns= taxes. If a guy points a gun at you and says I will shoot you or give me money, will you not give him the money????? Realize they will use other incentives to treat people better+ propanganda to make them pay taxes.

Why would they want to destroy other countries

Simple. Why did the US invade panama, iraq, afghanistan, Vietnam, China, Mexico, Honduras, Cuba, Haiti, and other countries???? To gain their wealth obviously. A bit of propanganda+ greed will suffice for war. The fastest way of getting wealth (unfortunately) is to take it from someone else.And a motivated citizens' army will defeat mercenaries, every time. It's been proven in warfare.

theyre not on a free market since one government coercively forces its rule and eliminates competition, and will continue to eliminate until the general populace becomes educated enough to force govts to become minarchist and legalise private courts & pdas before completely dissipating. im not convinced further reasoning on this argument will be necessary on your part

I'm not a statist. In fact, I dislike government heavily. But it is exactly the coercive part of government that makes it so powerful and why it will be powerful than PDA's.

Listen, I appreciate anarcho-capitalism and I've read about it too, but it's just not practical(as of now). People will NOT rise up against the government until they're on the brink of survival, because one individual can't overwhelm the state. Maybe in the future, where there is genetic engineering, you can use it to create strong independant people to form anarcho-capitalism(or any other utopian idelogy).

 

[Traitorfish]

Listen, I appreciate anarcho-capitalism and I've read about it too, but it's just not practical(as of now). People will NOT rise up against the government until they're on the brink of survival, because one individual can't overwhelm the state. Maybe in the future, where there is genetic engineering, you can use it to create strong independant people to form anarcho-capitalism(or any other utopian idelogy).

Although, somehow, I can't help but feel that if genetic engineering is used to create "superior" humans, it will not be in the favour of anarchism. Quite the opposite, if anything...

 

[Kerozine]

Genetic engineering? How the hell..

 

[cubsfan6506]

What's with all this talke of Public display of affection.

 

[Teeninvestor]

Anyways, I see Xarthaz's theory. The point of his theory was that "An-cap" mentality was institute on the people(who will be armed) and they will resist taxation heavily.
Also, you made the point that people will look to other PDA's to protect them.

Well, a PDA that taxes(and makes soldiers a special class, give them more money, etc...) will be much more efficient than one that does. And also, people are gullible. A bit of benefits(say, a PDA expropriates a rich guy & gives 1000 bucks to everyone else) will be enough for them to assume power. It's not all terror- people are easily fooled(or have no choice).

Also, market competition dictates that the superior method will win out, so all other PDA's will start to adopt this method, and there goes AN-cap.

But the most likely decision- a foreign army comes in. How goes the resistance??? and please don't give me the stuff about people resisting. The enemy comes in, kills everyone & takes your land, factories, etc.. How do you resist?

Especially, since if that would be terrorist government(that is PDA) came through existance through the slow evolutionary path to an-cap i described, it would lose its contractual income and other PDA-s would gain through the clients that the original PDA deceived and thus the increasing power of other PDAs would leave little resources for the original PDA to fulfill its task. Not to mention co-operation of other PDA-s with vital infrastructural companies will leave the original PDA lacking gasoline, food, etc and would force them to wage a guerrilla war, which, again, isnt possible without the support of people.

What if all PDA's collude??? what if they collude to form a government, because its the way they get money???? Private corporations are just as likely to seek governmetn aid as welfare recipients, because they benefit them. A small government should exist, self-financed(through savings), once the market is developed enough.

 

[Teeninvestor]

rich people a lot of capital & are thus able to get good protection, which would mean that any socialist PDA-s would suffer losses trying to get money, thus wouldnt be profitable and wreck their reputation.

I understand your scepticism for PDA-s being more efficient, as there have been very few actual cases of a society using their functions taxation removes incentive to produce profit aka be efficient because profit doesnt depend on how well the job is done when taxing. profit just depends on how much the bully wants to ask the people. and a taxing institution doesnt receive market feedback on their decisions, has no possibility for monetary calculations due to lack of free market in the area

K. Let's try to analyze this in a market perspective.

You are one PDA. What benefits you better, expropriating money from the rich, or "Free contracts". Obviously expropriation is better.

For other PDA's you can either get more customers/follow similar. Similar is obviously also better in this case.
There goes an.cap

Also, have you ever considered a genocidal foreign army, as in fall of the roman empire.