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. – clayton
If resources can be transferred from inefficient to productive capitalists then society will be much more dynamic and richer. It doesnt matter how the transfer occurs so long as the transaction costs are less than the expected gain from the acquistion. Moreover, the proof that they were mismanaging scarce resources was confirmed when the inefficient managers and owners lose this resource-- either through bankruptcy or prediation either way the resource is taken against their will. You must understand that it doesnt matter how an inefficient owner loses his mismanaged resources – what is important is that the free market allows for the transfer of resources from inefficient to efficient.
A society that allows inefficient managers and owners of scarce resources to retain this resources for aesthetic motives thereby denying its use to the marketplace is a society that will soon collapse when in competition with more dynamic economic-centric societies.
btw, where is your methodology ?!
But the aggression suffuses the entire enterprise and wholly delegitimizes it. --clayton
every single society on Earth has gained power by aggression. Yet precious few are considered illegitimate. Indeed, the only ideologues who reject the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends are anarchists who coincidently have never had a societal pot to piss in throughout human history.
INdeed, it is amusing when anarchists discount the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends - when this is precisely the mechanism by which these same clueless anarchists are denied their desired ends.
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. – Clayton
Well it may not be a valid justification, but it sure pays the bills and keeps you anarchists in your place. However statists use these schemes to maintain power despite the obvious economic waste and opportunity costs. IN contrast, capitalists in a society without government will be operating under economic realities, hence any armed force used will be motivated by and executed by entreprenuers making sound economic decisions
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. – clayton
I am always amused by the anarchist fantasy that removing government and magically the same actors will instanteously become 'inherently harmonious’
Not true, as I have stated specialization of labor, economies of scale, and a desire by industry leaders to reduce the costs and risks associated with competition and this will lead to territorial cartels of armed force.
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. – clayton
Your ‘lock’ is irrelevant if the following conditions exist inside the house:
-
the house will be plundered if a profit seeking actor or firm believes that acquiring the property can deliver a net profit relative to the transaction costs.
-
the house is not available for peaceful exchange.
-
the costs of voluntary exchange are greater than the costs associated with using force.
Finally, I can prove that your position is irrational and faith-based from the perspective of a true capitalist.
Answer this question:
If you could realize a significant profit by investing in a firm that specializes in taking resources by force, would you invest in this firm ?
