I rest my case.
@Centinel: You are misapplying capital theory (applying concepts that hold within the realm of voluntary exchange but which we have no reason to believe hold outside that realm).
Not true at all. For example, I can have a factory that employs slave labor and outdated equipment (inefficient) but which is hidden in some underground cavern where no one can find it to “predate” upon me or it. So, I can continue living comfortably off my highly inefficient slave labor while no one can profitably seize the (inefficient) source of my wealth from me.
You’re just pulling random assertions out of thin air… or somewhere else.
Clayton -
Hoo boy I love me some reductio ad absurdum. It’s basically saying “if you don’t rape, murder, and steal, you’re not a capitalist”. WTF? – logisticEarth
There is no economic gain in rape and murder. However, theft can result in significant economic gain. See human history, virtually every nation that exists today secured its territory by force.
Pacifism is the rejection of all violence. A voluntary system merely rejects agressive violence. – LogisticEarth
There is no voluntary system if you dont have the will or means to defend your life, liberty and property. No individual, investor, firm or nation-state is under any natural obligation to allow you to waste and mismanage a scarce and valued resource indefinitely without consequences.
Sentinel, you’re forgetting a very important point: Morality and empathy are ends in and of themselves. --logisticEarth
Of course, people are motivated by all types of goals, not all economic. However, within anarcho-capitalist society those individuals and firms that more motivated by economic gain would have the most capital to fund military operations. They would have the most bombers, missiles, nukes, tanks, battleships, et al. In turn, the most efficient capitalists would be able to accumulate the most valued resources which in turn would lead to a more prosperous society since those that were the most effective at generating economic profit would be in possession of the most capital.
A materially “profitable” venture that results in a large deal of moral regret or empathetic pain can, in fact, be unprofitable overall. – Logistic Earth
Of course, not all coercive ventures are beneficial or successful. However, the most efficient capitalist will make the best decisions regarding which under utilized and hence under defended resources should be annexed by force.
Reckless and provocative CMA’s would soon see their capital, hired talent, and reputation dwindle. In contrast, economic profit seeking investors, managers and labor would naturally seek out the most profitable CMA’s.
Real free-market exchange and action is all about psychic profit, not material profit. – LogisticEarth
That is your opinion.
Moreover, the individuals and firms that subordinated material profit for your favored ‘psychic’ profit would not have any profit to speak of in short order. Good luck defending physical resources against profit driven actors with your psychic weaponry.
Thus, rejecting aggression does not exclude you from being a capitalist or an entreprenuer.-- logisticEarth
You can certainly call yourself whatever you like, but if you reject economic gain because the means necessary to acquire that gain is coercive – then you are more a pacifist than a capitalist.
You are misapplying capital theory (applying concepts that hold within the realm of voluntary exchange but which we have no reason to believe hold outside that realm). – clayton
I am not misapplying anything.
I am stating a logical fact.
An actor motivated by economic profit will use coercion to gain a profit if peaceful exchange is not possible or peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force. To do otherwise would be irrational or it would represent the actions of an actor who was more a pacifist than a capitalist.
What specifically about my assertion do you dispute ?
Not true at all. For example, I can have a factory that employs slave labor and outdated equipment (inefficient) but which is hidden in some underground cavern where no one can find it to “predate” upon me or it. – clayton
as I stated in a previous post, profit driven actors would target valued resources that were mismanged – not outdated resources that were mismanaged.
However, if a factory was efficient, then it would have the means to build an underground facility free from serious threat. In contrast, a mismanaged outdated facility that employed unskilled slave labor would hardly be on any reputable CMA’s list of hostile takeovers. Nor would it have the economic wherewithal to fund a secure facility underground.
Of course, if you built an inefficient outdated factory in the middle of the desert or in an otherwise economically useless cave and employed unskilled slave labor – then yes – you wouldnt have anything to worry about except your dwindling capital and retirement accounts.
So, I can continue living comfortably off my highly inefficient slave labor while no one can profitably seize the (inefficient) source of my wealth from me.-- Clayton
By definition, you aren’t going to be living comfortably by in a state of inefficiency — If you believe this you are in the wrong forum – perhaps Marxist.org would be a change that would suit you.
And again, no reputable profitable CMA or its investors is going to target an inefficient factory, barren land or unskilled labor of little economic value.
But yes, if you are inefficient and poor, you are relatively safe from profit driven actors.
In contrast, if you are sitting on a lucrative rare Earth metal deposit or a large natural gas reserve — then all bets are off. No amount of blissful inefficiency is going to protect you from profit driven actors.
I rest my case.-- z1235
No. more like ‘Rest in peace’
While you are temporarily reveling in your pacifist humanitarianism – your life, liberties and private property are being plundered.
Strawmen prove nothing.
This is certainly true but it proves you wrong (the State is not the answer):
The great social discussion cannot proceed otherwise than by means of the thought, will, and action of individuals. Society lives and acts only in individuals; it is nothing more than a certain attitude on their part. Everyone carries a part of society on his shoulders; no one is relieved of his share of responsibility by others. And no one can find a safe way out for himself if society is sweeping towards destruction. Therefore everyone, in his own interests, must thrust himself vigorously into the intellectual battle. None can stand aside with unconcern; the interests of everyone hang on the result. Whether he chooses or not, every man is drawn into the great historical struggle, the decisive battle into which our epoch has plunged us. [Emphasis added]
Mises, Socialism
Clayton -
Centinal you’re just simply redefining terms as you see fit. “Pacifist” is now someone who refuses to steal, rather than someone who rejects violence in all circumstances. “Capitalist” is someone who apparently has some sort of cognitive dissonance. This is absurd.
Just curious. Would you call yourself a capitalist?
Oh, no, this is all very cogent and if you don’t act like Centinel’s presenting serious arguments, then you’re caving and proving that he’s really right all along.
Clayton -
Centinal you’re just simply redefining terms as you see fit. “Pacifist” is now someone who refuses to steal, rather than someone who rejects violence in all circumstances. “Capitalist” is someone who apparently has some sort of cognitive dissonance. This is absurd. – LogisticEarth
Semanitcs.
To avoid misintrepretation I will allow you to define the following actor:
What would you call someone who foregoes economic profit if it requires the use of armed force ?
I certainly would not call that person a maximal-capitalist since they have obviously refused to expand their capital holdings because of some subjective moral conundrum.
Moreover, if the most profitable investment you could make was in a firm that used armed force to acquire capital ---- would you still invest in this firm ?
@ clayton,
Before I respond to your previous post (Mises citation) – Have you read any of my posts because this citation doesnt have anything to do with my argument regarding anarchism and coercion ?
Do you understand my fundamental argument regarding coercion and anarchist society ?
Can you summarize this argument in your own words?
@ z1235
What I call myself is not important. However, what I believe is the most effective economic/political system to create and preserve the most societal wealth, stability, peace and freedom is unfettered capitalism within a Constitutional Federal Republic within a geopoltiical community of all liberal democracies.
Liberal democracies are utterly peaceful to each other.
Note that the only restrictions on freedom in this society are in the coercion and legal industries in which potential statist threats are decentralized, balanced, limited and made transparent.
Hence, Constitutional Federal Republicanism is designed to undermine government power rather than individual rights and responsibilities. IN contrast, autocratic government are designed to enhance state power at the expense of the individual. Moreover, anarchist societies are not designed to do anything – however statist elements can scheme with relative ease because there are no institutionalized mechanisms to intentionally limit, balance, decentralize or make transparent the elements of armed force in society.
In addition, maximal-capitalist society will benefit the most efficient economic actors – not the most non-violent or pacifist actors.
With respect to anarchism, it will be as violent as our present anarchic international community – and the actors, firms, investors that are the most dominant in this environment would be those that were economically motivated – not those motivated by some subjective moral values.
Why?
Because the instruments of armed force are not funded by subjective moral or ideological value judgments.
If you want peace – then you should look to Democratic Peace theory, not anarchism.
Plunder or be plundered.
If society is sweeping toward destruction (dissolution of private property, rampant plundering, etc.) there is no safe way to escape, including joining in the plunder. Not only does joining in the plunder not make you any safer than any other course of action but, in the process, you lose your soul.
Clayton -
Allow me to make that decision for myself. It was kind of important to me. So, indulge me, are you a capitalist?
Until Centinel actually provides the definition he’s using for “coercion”, I’d advise everyone to hammer him on this point.
Yes, capitalism is king. It provides the most prosperity, stability, freedom and peace of any system.
However, with a caveat that Mises and others understood.
That capitalism cannot exist for long without a small measure of government. And that government is a Constitutional Federal Republic that intentionally limits, balances, decentralizes and makes transparent the elements of statist oppression.
To use an analogy, Republicanism is the vaccine of limited government to deter absolutism We put the statists in a central location, give them clearly defined and limited powers, decentralize the elements of armed force in society, institutionalize and define certain rights that are unassailable by these statists,
Essentially, republicanism is a prison in which to hold statists so we can more effectively monitor them and uncover and undermine their schemes.
Without clearly defined and institutionalized practices in place to deter statism (see anarchism) – statists will run amok.
Indeed, our civil and political freedoms have expanded greatly since 1787 – we need only create an Economic Bill of Rights that our founding fathers were negligent in not putting in the Constitution. We need a new and more refined injection of limited government since our germ has mutated resulting in a potentially lethal strain of economic coercion.
But it would be foolish and catastrophic to gut this demonstrably effective system for deterring statism (not perfect ) for a system that is a confirmed failure like anarchism,
@ clayton,
Who said there would be ‘sweeping destruction’ ?!!
Read my posts, I said that those owners and managers of valued resources that did not efficiently maximize the productive capacity of those resources would not have the level of security required to defend these resources.
Under these circumstances, a competitor would use force to annex these resources under the following conditions:
-
peaceful exchange was not possible (the owner won’t sell)
-
peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force to annex the resource (the owner wants too much for the resource)
-
the resource can provide a positive return on investment (the transaction costs of armed force are less than the expected gain from annexing the resources)
Not only does joining in the plunder not make you any safer than any other course of action but, in the process, you lose your soul. --clayton
Since your making economic decisions based on your ‘soul’ — what is the current market value for souls ? Which is a better investment – souls or equality ?
Indeed, trying to base economic decisions on moral issues like feelings is as dangerous as the statist trying to make decisions based on a quest for egalitarianism.
neither consider economic realities. Those that subordinated economic profit for some aesthetic goals will see their capital holdings diminish in short order.
If society is sweeping toward destruction (dissolution of private property, rampant plundering, etc.) there is no safe way to escape, including joining in the plunder. – clayton
No, all an owner has to do is be productive. Maximize the productive capacity of his resources or capital so that he can fund an adequate level of security to deter predation.
The only violence is on the margins of society where inefficient owners and firms operate. – see current geopolitical environment. The bottom line is that the most powerful actors in anarchist society will be those that make the best economic decisions. Ultimately the cream rises to the top in every geographic region and these actors gain hegemon status which leads to absolutism in short order.
Unless you discount the adage that 'power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely"
“Yes” meaning you are a capitalist?
I find it fitting that he would use “king” to describe something he favors.
@Centinel: You’re all over the map. You have no methodology. Go learn methodology. Hand-waving is not a methodology.
1 & 2 are contained in 3 but the point is that 3 is not productive, it is parasitic. Let’s say Steve Jobs robbed a bank and that was the seed money with which he and the Woz started Apple. Could his future “productivity” justify his initial theft? Of course not.
It is true that State-aligned businesses operate very much as you describe - they employ aggressive force through “law” and other means in addition to performing truly productive work. But the aggression suffuses the entire enterprise and wholly delegitimizes it. This is, in fact, precisely the State’s argument: that it builds our roads, maintains our power-lines, operates buses, and so on. But it is not a valid justification for the State’s employment of aggressive force.
It goes without saying that those who under-invest in security are vulnerable to predation - this is as true in state-dominated society as it would be in a stateless society but security is not the organizing principle of society, stateless or otherwise. The organizing principle is the inherent harmoniousness of human action. From this principle of harmony flows the capacity of human beings to form legal systems, to produce specialized security services and engage in monetary calculation without central organization.
You seem to be persistently confusing harmoniousness with naivete. Harmoniousness is precisely the opposite of naivete. The lock on your front door is a part of the harmoniousness of human action. By obstructing free entry with an inexpensive technological device which threatens no one, can take no one’s wallet, can tax no one, etc. you have increased your security. No one had to tell you to do it just like no one has to tell you to eat. Merely by acting on your own, uncoordinated self-interest, you bought and installed the lock - which is the opposite of being naive.
Without feelings (appetites, wants), no one would act. Action is prodded by feeling. When you act, you evince feeling.
Cliches and adages are not a methodology, either.
Clayton -