nvm

[Princeps]

but HOW do they get profit, HOW does that work?

Again. Close the (conquered) area from foreign competition, and force the population to purchase goods of your or your allies manifacture. Strip mine resources. Enslave the population. Move in people from elsewhere if the native population is uncoperative: and let them develop the country. etc.

----'

If the people of the conquered area dont agree with their leaders, you will have to continue funding very high police costs

Not necessarily. You can be more savage and clever than that as I explained in my previous post. If the population absolutely doesn't co-operate (which is unlikely), wipe them out and you free a lot of resources for your own settlers that you can move in afterwards.

 

[flyingchicken]

but HOW do they get profit, HOW does that work? If the people of the conquered area dont agree with their leaders, you will have to continue funding very high police costs(especially since those will have to come from the labour of your supporters, who consequently ask for higher wages than the labour of your would-be slaves is worth) to prevent them from falling into anarchy

You kill them all and exploit their natural resources, I say!

edit: xpost

 

[JerichoHill]

If you like AC so much, move to Somalia. That's the closest thing to an AC society in the world

 

[flyingchicken]

WHY WOULDNT YOU JUST BUILD NEW STUFF IN THE FIRST PLACE, WITHOUT HAVINGTO GO INTO A LONG BLOODY WAR THAT WILL GET YOU ENEMIES FROM THE ENTIRE WORLD, AND LOSE YOU BILLIONS/TRILLIONS OF CASH?

Because, say, if I was analogously Iraq and then I saw analogous Kuwait and possibly analogous Saudi Arabia having analogous oil reserves that will pay for war costs and analogously make me analogously richer and more powerful (internationally, even!) beyond my wildest, most analogous dreams, I would analogously go for it analogously to analogous rabid dog?

Also, stuff doesn't get built out of nothing, and resources aren't unlimited. Hey, that's why have economics, right?

 

[flyingchicken]

But then youre attacking a state. Iraq is a state, not an anarchy(atleast before the war started), so an incorrect example to prove your point. A state with a lot of resources and fails to use them efficiently enough(due to lack of economic liberties) to gain enough wealth to be able to protect itself from its enemies, is not anarchy!

You were asking the capital letter questions in the context of states subverting states, right? And now you say my analogous analogies are incorrect examples to prove my point (I'm not sure if I have one, but I like to say what I do!) with an unorthodox angle of attack?

 

[PiMan]

You know what would happen in the event of anarchy? Order would form, eventually resulting in governments. At first ruled by dictators, then moving on to more civilised forms eventually resulting in some sort of democracy. The process might take thousands of years, but it would get there eventually.

Corporations as described above are just de facto governments. They deal with issues just as governments do, either choosing diplomacy or force.

 

[Greizer85]

@All concerning guerrilla warfare: Use viruses, neutron bombs, and poison gas, in addition to the traditional methods already mentioned. No mess (well a little), no fuss (a bit maybe), problem solved.

@All also: From what I've read here, you're forgetting one important aspect in this debate. The spread of information is faster now than ever before, and getting more and more rapid. So if everyone had internet-sunglasses with headlines of the latest atrocities (down to the goriest detail), it might be somewhat more difficult to control them than medieval peasants. Ofc the previous point I made somewhat alleviates that concern (if there's no one left to complain, there will be no complaints), but at the same time the neighbouring countries might not be so forgiving... Do go on with your 'battle of ideas', xarthaz and Princeps; this is a most interesting thread imo.

 

[Dachs]

the point is, all those toys are expensive as HELL. And yet the use of them gives you no profit. You are able to kill people, but theyre not giving you their labour and trade by doing so. And you lose a lot of clients as the majority of people are against violence and are subject to possible counterattack.

I don't think you understand how war works.

 

[PiMan]

why would i choose to pay taxes if the same goods and services are cheaper on the market?

Because the "corporation" that controls the services that you refuse to pay taxes for has implemented a "militia" (read: police force) that will capture you for not doing as demanded, and depending on how politically advanced this "corporation" is, they might kill you on the spot, imprison you, or merely tax enough of your stuff until they are satisfied.

 

[Greizer85]

the point is, all those toys are expensive as HELL. And yet the use of them gives you no profit. You are able to kill people, but theyre not giving you their labour and trade by doing so. And you lose a lot of clients as the majority of people are against violence and are subject to possible counterattack.

So what? I am a dictator; I want power, not money per se. I just need enough money to stay in power, and that I will get once I annex, exploit and/or re-populate the 'cleansed' territory. The people in my closed 'state' are the only clients I really need, and they have exactly two choices: 1. Buy my stuff. 2. Buy whatever dead people usually buy. Alternatively, most of my population could be involved in arms-manufacture, and selling neutron bombs etc. to far-off foreign countries/companies/whatever. I would certainly not lose clients with a little 'product-testing', on the contrary.

The point is, if one man is clad in iron and trained in the use of a sword, 100 others with no armor or training will easily follow him out of fear, if they are deprived of a method to coordinate their attack against him - which is the first objective of any totalitarian state. You claim that all people would have a sword; that makes it a little bit better for them, and harder for the tyrant(s), yes. But still, most people are not noble enough to risk their lives for the 'greater good', so to speak. If the schools are owned by my company, and your kids go to my shcools, would you even think of rebelling against me, even if you owned an AK-47? Would you give them to the children also? "An armed society is a polite one", said Heinlein. Well, it would certainly be an interesting experiment.

Also, you shouldn't ignore the possibility of new Hitlers arising and deluding the people with their propaganda. Civilized people can very well support the 'righteous' use of violence, as evidenced by the Nazis and the Soviets. People will quickly rationalize oppression of others, if 1. they are not oppressed themselves (in their eyes) 2. they can profit from it themselves 3. it would be hard to do anything about it without taking extreme risks 4. all others are already doing/condoning it, so why must I be a saint? 5. propaganda says it's ok for ideological reasons 6. they dont have to personally participate in it. These are in no particular order. I'm sure there are other reasons, but these are all I can think of for now.

 

[plarq]

Mercenary for the win

 

[Princeps]

the point is, all those toys are expensive as HELL.

Not necessarily. Weapons of hidious destruction can be manifactures quite affordably.

And yet the use of them gives you no profit. You are able to kill people, but theyre not giving you their labour and trade by doing so.

Yes, you can use weapons for profit. You coerce. It's simple. We explained how in great detail now. You're only parroting the same lines despite the limitations of your arguments.

And you lose a lot of clients as the majority of people are against violence and are subject to possible counterattack.

Sigh. How many people are boycotting Israeli goods in the west? Very few. It barely registers in Israeli export figures. War is complex: perceptions can be radically different in different parts of the world. Many might accept the aggression by the private regime in question, believing that it's perhaps justified (they could contrive some kind of a pretext and hire PR people to propagate it). So it's not that simple. If public perception always worked to prevent conflicts, laws wouldn't exist.

Also, in anarcho-capitalism a sort dark market could form. One where the needs of the disreputable would be serviced. If a firm needs labor busters or if a fraudster needs flight service, some could specialize in providing it. A rogue community could allow any sort of fraudster, criminal or a ruffian to live there, thus giving them sanctuary and a base of operation in exchange for payment. It would be extremely conducive of criminality. This rogue community, in turn, could ally with another stronger community in a different part of the world where they care less about the people who this rogue community victimizes.

you cant have power if you run out of money to pay for the guys(mercenaries) that you need for it to be in effect, and that tends to happen when you blitz into pointless wars and find yourself opposed by guerillas.

When has it happened? Rarely. Some regime over-reach, but only rarely when you look at it. Again, organized armies can destroy guerillas. The nazis occupied the entire Europe with minimal resources (NS germany was a poor power). The Mongols occupied tribes of roughly similar fighting capacity. You only need to be savage and cleaver. Nothing else.

So what? They lose profit on trained man and insurance of their lives.

A short term loss. Why do you think companies cannot tolerate short term losses?

Assuming this is even a company and not some private criminal regime.

Word spreads of a company that is trying to force people to pay money

The company might stifle such rumors, they might rob secretly through skimasked militias (if they're so weak that they must), they could hire propagandists to black paint you and spread pictures of the said company giving cookies to little kids. etc. Oh, PR business is a huge industry.

 

[Phlegmak]

...stuff...

I don't see why you bother.

 

[flyingchicken]

If the free market is providing everything people need, i dont think its really possible but perhaps you could demonstrate what incentives they could have to give up their freedom to choose and let someone else choose for them.

Not everyone likes freedom, and would prefer a quiet life at a disadvantage to a constantly political one always trying to take advantage (as anarcho-capitalism would be).

 

[Greizer85]

you cant have power if you run out of money to pay for the guys(mercenaries) that you need for it to be in effect, and that tends to happen when you blitz into pointless wars and find yourself opposed by guerillas.

There are incentives other than money, and some of my 'mercenaries' might be coerced into my service. But really, I'd have all the money I needed (to stay in power) once I would have neutroned/gassed the guerrillas and 'acquired' their property. I could also enslave some of them; I would first gas one large city and then issue an ultimatum for the rest and confiscate their weapons. If even a single man would rebel, I would annihilate the whole city as an example to the rest.

if you start harassing people, people wont want to form school contracts and will send their PDA-s on your ass with you and you go bancrupt.

How would they do that if the territory was controlled totally by me? They have no alternatives; I have banned all other schools, and other services, from my 'turf', so to speak. They can't really vote with their feet either, thanks to my electronically surveilled, thug-guarded "Berlin Wall Mk II" that I have on my borders.

Edit: Sure, it would take some time and effort to carve out this type of totalitarian 'mini-state'. You ofc might argue that it is inherently impossible, because of 'an-cap mentality'. But if it could be created - then there would be little financial incentive for 'lawful' companies to attack it. People would cry wolf if they killed civilians (which would inevitable happen) in the process of liberation, and they might be accused of wanting to exploit the liberated territory themselves (which would most likely be true, since why else would they risk the invasion?). If it were a state comprised of criminals instead of oppressed people, they might even resist invading companies. So these 'rogue' states would remain and would form alliances among themselves. Over time, they would swallow most of the 'lawful' territories (assuming those existed in the first place), since they could use force unscrupulously.

the morals of people living in a completely free society are totally different from totalitarian (ask what u can do for ur country) morals, and turning the former into latter takes decades of softening with first a minimal state, trascending into social democracy, into socialism, into totalitarianism.

We can't really know that for sure since such a society, or more appropriately, mentality, has never actually existed.

so how to convert a free anarchy to a minimal state? If the free market is providing everything people need, i dont think its really possible but perhaps you could demonstrate what incentives they could have to give up their freedom to choose and let someone else choose for them.

If your system worked as advertized, I'm sure it would be very difficult to get people to abandon it. I am of the opinion, like most others here, that economical and ethical do not coincide nearly often enough for such a society to even begin to form. Basically, the mentality would already need to exist in order for it to develop. Hence the accusations about circular logic etc. Perhaps with mass-indoctrination it could be done.

Edit: I didn't really answer your question. It's not that the people would want to give up the system. They would be coerced into doing it; without a central body to prevent exploitation, there would be countless ways of doing it, as demonstrated my myself, Princeps and others.

One more issue: there is the problem of cartels and bought courts. It would be a wise investment for several large companies to collude and put enough money together to buy themselves a special law that would allow them to form a cartel or simply to merge together. Then these would merge with other cartels, and so on. Once there are 10 companies in the world and they are all ruthless oppressors, who do you go to in order to vote with your wallet? No new companies could form since that would be forbidden by the laws issued by these immensely powerful mega-corporations. In the end, there would only be one company ruling over the entire world... I'm sure everyone can see the downsides of that situation. How do you prevent that? Do you suggest, perhaps, that the companies would never get to be powerful enough to affect legislature regarding other companies? I'm not so sure the 'invisible hand' would prevent that. It would be a royal jackpot for a company to be able to outlaw other companies.

 

[PiMan]

And I would kill them with my ak-47 when they come knocking on the door demanding taxes? So what? They lose profit on trained man and insurance of their lives. Word spreads of a company that is trying to force people to pay money, they lose a lot of their current clients who are disgusted with such directions, company is forced to pay huge compensation sums for killing people that are other pda-s' clients, aggressor goes bancrupt.

Of course these "corporations" have organised agreements (read: "laws") with all the gun shops to prevent most people from getting these high powered weapons.
But let's say you still get one of these guns, and you do kill these people. Then this "corporation" says you are wanted for murder, and they aren't so naive next time, they attack in a more appropriate way for capturing a dangerous killer (dead or alive I'm sure they don't mind).


Perhaps the reverse will make you understand what I am talking about. At the moment we have giant corporations known as "governments" that have organised contracts with other giant corporations and with smaller corporations (actual corporations). And also with all the people.
On top of that, most of the people have grown up believing that they don't have a choice to go against the head of the corporations other than to exercise their right to a single vote every few years as to whom should be the next CEO.

So you see, you could still go gun down the tax collectors, but there will still be consequences because the people make there be consequences.
We are living in an inevitable conclusion of the society you think will be the inevitable conclusion of society. We are living in your anarchy.

Inevitable is the wrong word, but it is just used for effect.

 

[flyingchicken]

i havent met many peopel wanting to go back to slavery, how bout you? and thats what the state is, slavery.

That's called hyperbole and lying.

 

[Cutlass]

why would i choose to pay taxes if the same goods and services are cheaper on the market?

What makes you think they would be cheaper?

 

[PiMan]

how about all the PDA-s who have obligations to protect people living in the gassed areas, and the PDA-s who have contract obligations to protect PDA-s? You do realize that there are few people willing to pay for aggression, compared to those willing to pay for defense? You are going against overwhelming forces.

Defence and offence are deeply entwined. The defence companies have organised contracts with other defence companies to stick to their own turf, in the interests of keeping fatalities down. Suddenly, we have nation borders.

no private ownership = no enterprise.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here though. As in, how is it relevant to what I said?

 

[PiMan]

people generally dont want to surrender their freedom

Here is why you are wrong and can't understand that. Most people do want to surrender their freedom to some degree if it makes their life easier and more comfortable.