In the long run both participants will be at a net loss as generally speaking no or little new wealth will be created.
Where did you get these quotes Justin?
Throughout history government did not just randomly spawn on its own. It was imposed on others through force. People are then coerced into it’s idea via patriotism and such.
Rural area’s however ironically tend to contradict your notion that governments will just arbitrarily form. Even in our own country in a rural area’s where commerce concentrates in a small town no government is spawned with it. Only business and cooperating business’s. The only government imposed on these towns is typically county and state. Government is not a tree that naturally grows in nature.
Government is the equvilent to a band of theives. It can only be realized in violation of rights.
On the other hand, saying that governments are a natural occurrence of a large city is akin to the statement that gangs somehow form naturally in dense urban areas. Both are false.
Yet you don’t explain why. You just simply say it’s so. Should we just take your wise all mighty opinion?
Ironically anarchism is the only system where violation of rights has not occurred yet governance is a system where violation of rights must occur to be sustainable. So how is it you call us dangerous when our acts remain morally consistent but your acts are that of criminals. Again check your premise here, you are the one who is immoral. You are the one who condones thievery. Our conscious is clean. Did you read my earlier posts? I think you are scared of the truth and are desperately trying to hold on to your false reality.
Don’t confuse government with the state.
In fact, it is central planning using so-called “scientific” methods that is blatantly unscientific and illogical. Somebody needs to read Hayek’s “The Pretense of Knowledge.”
It’s actually an excerpt from a writing of mine (originally intended to be part of a book, I just extracted the few chapters on egoism to make short essays). I have the whole thing if you’re curious.
I am. Thanks!
You’re presuming wrongly. It’s logistically quite easy for any entity to take a property by force if it’s defended only by another entity with almost six times less resources, especially if the property provides even more resources after being taken. It’s not easy to do so, however, and maintain a good reputation for fair, ethical dealing. Reputational costs are a powerful incentive for peaceful interaction.
Note that resource wars are generally between states, and not private entities.
Any system based on the benefits of human greed will invariably fail or turn into an autocracy of some sort due to its very nature, anyone who thinks otherwise is a fool. The simple fact of the matter is while you can apply the principles of healthy competition to a system, the fact of the matter is it will always be easier to cut your enemy’s throat than to become better than them, so it becomes those who are most ruthless and evil who will become the dominating forces. However, if there were a system based on mutual aid where the greatest benefit comes to yourself by helping others instead of hurting them, then humanity could achieve true greatness. You ignore the possibility of such a system and pretend to be in support of “equality” and “freedom” when in reality the system you are a proponent of accomplishes neither.
Hey April, I suggest you start drinking bottled water.
lolz, i guess you missed a few hundred years of economic science.
what you described is a market economy.
You don’t give the state credit where it’s due. You think it’s dangerous. Is the state dangerous when it keeps a murderer from breaking into my house? How about when it keeps my boss from starving my family?
Or are you claiming that I should pay so others can make a profit (definition of externalities)? Isn’t that theft more than taxes? By denying underproduced public goods you’re depriving people of an economic benefit. Isn’t that theft?
your name should be NonSequitur, son.
nirgraham pointed out that this pretty much describes a capitalist society. Person A has a good that person B wants. Person B has money or a different good that person A wants. They trade. Sounds like they both benefited, yes?
Equality (at least in the common usage of the word) and freedom are mutually exclusive. I opt for the latter.
Is the state dangerous when it decides to redistribute your house to those in need? (After all, that is what you’re advocating, is it not?) What about when it forces you to sell your house because it needs a tract of land for a new interstate highway? What about when it bans you from keeping guns in your house to stop the murderer yourself? What about when it puts you out of a job because of stringent labor regulations? What about when it takes your money to fund the killing of innocents in a faraway land?
What about the boss’ family? What about the consumers who now have to pay higher prices for the good that this company makes? What makes your family more important than all these other people?
Were you dropped on the head as a child? Do you ever question anything the state does? You should pay others to give them a reason to part with their goods and benefit you. And no, you’ve got no right to anything that doesn’t belong to you, so so-called economic “benefits” that aren’t in your possession aren’t yours to begin with ergo are not stolen. Rocket science.
Are you an aspie by chance btw?
We’re also forgetting that while it is physically possible for the state to provide services we would buy anyway*, the state has no incentive to do so.
*maybe not because of the calculation problem
The problem with arguments for the state is they forget that while the state resolves the anarchic relationship between individuals, it creates a new anarchic relationship between the individual and the state because the latter is the judge in its own case. Any grievance with the state, even a democratic one, must be taken up on the state’s terms.
We demonstrate the desirability of a poly-centric legal system by observing that competition between agencies is the one and only sure check on the abuse of power. Since there is a demand for security it is obvious entrepreneurs will try to meet this need. There are numerous modern examples of private courts and private security (See Kinsella) and many historic examples of polycentric free market courts such as the icelandic courts and the law merchant.
Aspies don’t make statements like that. I think people who are lacking knowledge, like to appeal to systems and science in an attempt to sound credible in discussion.
What you don’t seem to understand is that not every field requires competition, and that competition alone is no guarantor of efficiency or innovation or low prices.
I turned on my water this morning and clean water came out. I peed and flushed it and the pee went away. Or that time when my mom got cancer and the state paid to have her cured. Hmm, my house hasn’t been robbed and when the fire alarm goes off, firefighters show up quite promptly.
There’s a serious difference between consumer goods, especially those subject to fads and fashion, and infrastructure items which require far more investment, which are far more crucial to society’s operation, and the construction and maintenance of which are so costly that competition becomes damn near impossible. You don’t just build sewage pipes and then let them magically work forever. A large degree of centralizd maintenance is required, from central pumping and treatment plants to localized repairs and upgrades. Leaving this to a gallimaufry of firms would lead to a patchwork system or series of systems without any real sort of quality control. You average consumer good doesn’t come close to the level of complexity of a sewer system. There have been clear analogues in the past–for example, deregulation of power systems. Any neophyte economist could tell you that there are classes of goods and services which are qualitatively different from one another. By assuming that a sewage system, army, road system, or any other such public good is equivalent to clothing, television sets, or beer, you betray a stunning ignorance of the subtleties of economics. It’s obvious that you would prefer a simple solution to a staggeringly large set of difficult problems.