+1 z… let’s hear your reply Centinel. Methinks your actions belie your beliefs.
Clayton -
I noticed that you didn’t answer my question. How many people did you beat up (and took their wallets) on the street last week? – z1235
of course, zero.
and of course, you can’t base an ideological framework on the motivations and actions of a single individual or even a group of individuals.
a sound ideological framework is based on all participants in society.
in sum, your logic is seriously flawed.
Is this a serious argument?
This is why no one takes you or your arguments seriously. This, along the lines of wishful thinking and utopianism, has nothing to do with any argument at hand.
Let me remind you of this exchange:
z1235: So if you don’t beat up everyone smaller/weaker than you and take their wallets as you walk down the street, then you can’t call yourself a capitalist and must call yourself a pacifist instead?
Centinel: Exactly.
So which one are you – a capitalist or a pacifist?
This is why no one takes you or your arguments seriously. This, along the lines of wishful thinking and utopianism, has nothing to do with any argument at hand. – filc
“I’m not here to advance the discussion”
Well neither are you friend. 
[Edit] In fact I did add something. I called your argument utopian and non-relevant. A non-sequitur.
I also asked if you took this line of reasonign seriously.
As others have suggested you tend to dodge questions. It raises more questions than answers. For one is this line of reasoning even pertinent?
@ z1235,
I have repeatedly posted the circumstances under which a competitor would use force to annex these resources within ancap society:
-
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)
so for the 2nd time, in answer to your question of whether I am a capitalist or a pacifist that would depend on the circumstances, my immediate and long term goals and the skill set I bring to the table.
If I was a CEO of a corporate military agency (CMA) and saw an opportunity to utilize the billions of dollars in military hardware that was collecting dust in some warehouse and make a decent profit at the same time — then I would take a risk and make an attempt to annex a vital resource like the panama canal, Bakken oil reserves, osaka industrial sector, hoover dam, et al.
SImilarly, I am sure plenty of investors would support the opportunity to make a significant gain on their investment in this CMA.
on the other hand, if these resources were being effectively leveraged and they were making a profit for their owners then presumably they would have the funds needed to provide a strong defense, so I would look elsewhere to find some weakness in society to exploit.
The bottom line is that anarchist society would punish owners of vital resources who did not effectively manage these resources. In most cases, these owners would simply sell these assets. However, in many cases these assets would not be for sale or the owner would ask to much for the resource. In this case, these resources would likely be targeted for prediation by profit seeking opportunistic CMAs.
Which one of these circumstances were not present as you passed by every smaller/weaker person carrying a wallet on the street last week?
Which one of these circumstances were not present as you passed by every smaller/weaker person carrying a wallet on the street last week? – z1235
I don’t have enough firearms, tanks, planes, ships, nukes, satellites, missiles, et al at my disposal to deter retailation from state and local law enforcement legal institutions within our Constitutional Federal Republic that reject the use of coercion to obtain desired ends.
Hence, the expected gain from petty thievery within a liberal democracy does not satisfy condition #3:
- 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)
A) Empirically we know that force has always cost more than voluntary exchange. The only entities that have ever been able to show the contrary are entities which are blessed with ideological approval, like States, and therefore can afford to perpetuate this behavior. However due to a lack of calculation they still run at a perpetual loss. Most countries must pump the money machine to stay afloat. If your argument were true governments would not need to inflate themselves to stay in business.
B) Prices, being a derivative of exchange, are impossible to calculate when an exchange occurs via force. Its true that violent agencies may sell stolen goods after robbery but usually at such a discounted price that it often raises the question of whether or not the effort was worth it. Furthermore if a vast majority of market activity is squelched by violent agencies, ones that you suggest, then the affairs of business accounting becomes less and less accurate. This makes it more and more difficult, even impossible, for theiving guilds and organizations to determine whether or not their activities are actually profitable. Economics simply cannot permit widescale organized crime without extreme economic impoverishment.
Therefore it is logical to assume that such activity will be kept at bay by simple economic factors. We know that general welfare and the standard of living for everyone will drop under such conditions of widespread violence. Every human actor, including the thief himself, then has every incentive to deter such activities from occuring.
This is an interesting point because it shows how violent agencies, such that you mention, have economic incentives to eliminate other competing violent agencies. They must remain a monopoly for their business to work. In the case of the theif he has an incentive to ensure that there exists no other theives in the area. This is why States can only operate succesfully as a monopoly.
If we take your argument as being true than all we’ve shown is a possible avenue for the formation of new states. We did not refute markets or the effectiveness of market anarchy. We have empirical evidence for this argument since all governments globablly seak to be a monopoly provider in force. We have no evidence whatsoever to the contrary.
C) Via Praxeologically we know that voluntary exchange can be said to create more wealth than involuntary exchange. In the case of voluntary exchange both parties stand to gain. Both parties recieved something they wanted more then what they gave up. In the other case only one party stands to gain. On the net we are more impoverished in situations where involuntary exchange occurs. The more frequent this becomes the more disfunctional society as a whole becomes(Again economic calculation).
So, the success of a particular crime syndicate rests on their ability to remove other crime syndicates from immediate competition. Given this we could argue that it is more likely that a crime syndicate will become a legitimate security agency rather then a security agency becoming a crime syndicate. The crime syndicate has financial motivation at becoming legitimate. A legitimate agency already accounting in profits has no incentive to move into an area where profits cannto be easily calculated. You’ll notice that the wealthiest investors do not drop their money in such incalculable risks. Especially when we consider the role of capital and long term investments.
The arguments I present above must be repeated at least once a week here on this forum. I'm sure people have mentioned what I wrote, in different words, at least once a week for the past 3-4 years. Literature has been written about this for hundreds of years. You understand why we may be short or annoyed, if not tired, of giving the same exact arguments over and over ad infinitum. Its maddening to assume that you will just sign up on the forums here and think your are present a bit of information we haven't already heard. As if you had some novel or original new amazing idea. That you will somehow miraculously and brilliantly reveal the erroneous concept of praxeology and the conclusion it ultimatley presents, markets.Then, via your own words, you must agree that what your argument actually presents is the possibility of the formation of new states within market anarchy. The argument is not, OTH, that guilds of theivery will form and run rampent. Such organizations cannot afford to have competition. They can only succeeed via a monopoly, or a State.
This isn’t an argument against the effectiveness of market anarchy.
This is still an assertion. None of your 3 points, points 2 and 3 being highly unlikely, give any more credence to the assertion. The assertion is only standing on its own as speculative. Your logic does not reveal that there would be more or less crime in an anarchist society.
Lets pretend your argument were true, even if not logically thorough. If 10% of capital assets were expropriated inappropriately then thats 30% better than our current scenario where at lest 40% of everyone’s assets across the board are subject to expropriation by the state.
Thats not much of an argument IMHO.
Also if a certain line of assets become targeted by such predation then we introduce an entreprenerial incentive to deter and protect these assets.
As stated in my argument above it’s more likely that a mafia like agency would be become legitimate(Which they did) then a security agency becoming a crime syndicate where future assets and investments and securities cannot be easily calculated.
A) Empirically we know that force has always cost more than voluntary exchange. -filc
What if voluntary exchange is not possible ?
What if the owner of a resource wants more for his resource than the costs of armed force to take the resource.
Emprically, we know that force has been used to take resources when voluntary exchange is not forthcoming for myriad reasons.
In fact, you cant name a society on the face of the Earth that didnt secure their land by force or had to defend it from prediation at least once in its history. So the notion that force is always more costly than voluntary exchange is irrelevant and absurd because many owners won’t sell and many ask a price that is more than the costs of using force and many rational and successful actors have used force throughout history.
B) Prices, being a derivative of exchange, are impossible to calculate when an exchange occurs via force.–filc
Wrong, the costs of military action can be calculated in the same manner as any industrial enterprise.
Capital costs, depreciation, personnel costs, retirement, medical insurance, life insurance, equipment replacement costs, et al. Essentially nothing is different.
Moreover, the gain can be calculated down to the dime based on the expected economic return from the resource that was captured.
Citing a realistic hypothetical – a corporate military agency (CMA) is contracted by a group of oil companies to take the Bakken reserve by force. A consortium of environmentalists own this energy bounty and wont release it to drilling. Other than energy, this region holds no significant economic value, as a result the environmentalists dont have the economic wherewithal to defend the resources.
The CMA takes it in a short and relatively bloodless engagement. The initial criticism for the invasion quickly subsides when tens of thousands of jobs are created, energy prices drop and productivity and profits in the region increase. SOciety as a whole benefits since heretofore under utilized resources are made available to the market.
C) Via Praxeologically we know that voluntary exchange can be said to create more wealth than involuntary exchange.–filc
If all resources are available for voluntary exchange, then maybe yes.
However, not all resources are available for voluntary exchange – see above.
The bottom line that debunks your theoretical nonsense is that myriad actors both private and public throughout history have used force to obtain desired ends. You have to assume that these actors are all irrational or that they are rational. Indeed, the two most powerful and secure nations on Earth have been the most violent – China and USA.
Amusingly, anarchists like yourself constantly challenge the efficacy armed force to obtain desired ends – when in fact it has been used to great effect to deny YOU the fruits of your own labor and private property. Otherwise, why do you pay taxes ? Do you do so voluntarily ? And If not, doesn’t this scheme benefit corrupt and inefficient politicians and their cronies ?
Hence, the Federal government has been very effective at using coercive means to extract wealth from you.
You see it doesnt matter if society as a whole benefits. Actors will use coercion to benefit themselves at the expense of society at large. The naive notion that every exchange must benefit society is absurd. It can benefit one party at the expense of all others. There is no praxelogical tenet that confirms that all transactions must be peaceful or even productive to society.
Yes, peaceful transactions are preferable from a societal standpoint, but not necessary in all cases.
Moreover, not all value resources are used for economic gain. Many are left idle by owners who are not interested in using these resources for economic gain and hence these owners will not have the economic wherewithal to provide an adequate level of security to deter predation.
You understand why I may be short or annoyed, if not tired, of giving you the same exact arguments over and over ad infintum.
In sum, try a new tact and don’t waste my time with failed old arguments. I get tired responding to the same old canned trollish crap.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that these institutions (whether state monopolies or private) – which are there to protect the smaller/weaker – did not exist or would have no chance of knowing about your transgressions. What would your answer be under this assumption?
You don’t have to repeat the scenario.
You missed my argument. You don’t know what those costs are. They’re extremely difficult and/or impossible to measure
Correct.
It is relevant to your argument. Also if it’s absured why did you bring it up? It was your assertion that it was the other way around.
That is the incorrect reason for the predation. We have governments not because they are trying to secure expensive capital assets people are unwilling to give up.
There is no example in history of the exact type of predation your referring to.
You have to know what a price is to be able to make that judgement. Do you know what prices are? Do you know where they originate from? Given that y ou do not how can you make such economic arguments from a state of ignorance?
How does all resources not being available change the praxeological axiom? It does not. I don’t think you understood a word I said. Frankly given how you’ve responded I’m suprised so many people have invested such time with you.
You don’t know what praxeology is. You do not know what prices are. Yet your here making an economic argument.
LOL. Ok you just refuted capitalism. Start writing some books. You just debunked 300 years of economic literature.
Or perhaps you didn’t read past the first line in each point I raised.
The bottom line is that you have to have at least some knowledge of your opponents argument before you can be in a position to judge. You’ve got zero austrian literature under your belt. You don’t understand the most fundamental concepts of which the entire framework is built on.
You are also not interested in learning it, as is apparent. What ground do you hope to cover here?
Rothbard made this quote for you.
They’re accounting and books are crutched off of pre-existing and neighboring markets. They calculate in the same way russia tried to calculate. Because of that they tend to bloat and overspend. Military goods are bloated in price. The incentives and price structure is entirely different.
For you to corretly understand what is going on here you must first know what prices are and where they come from.
Your entire thesis in contigent on price theory explaining the accounting capabilities of a crime syndicate. Not even understanding it you’ve already jumped from A to Z and made a conclusion while missing all the steps in the middle.
Frankly given how you’ve responded I’m suprised so many people have invested such time with you. – filc
And amusingly, you proceed to respond not once, but twice to the same post ??!!!
Don’t worry though, since you don’t have the discipline to follow your own advice, I will do you a favor by no longer responding to any of your trollish posts.
Good luck dude.
Assume, for the sake of argument, that these institutions (whether state monopolies or private) – which are there to protect the smaller/weaker – did not exist or would have no chance of knowing about your transgressions. What would your answer be under this assumption? – z1235
As I have repeatedly stated, it would depend on the circumstances at the time – my financial situation, my moral compass, the potential victim, et al.
Empirically speaking though, I don’t have a history of theft under any circumstances – at least not as an adult.
However, I would welcome the opportunity to join in and profit from the liberation of statist hell holes like North Korea, Cuba, Zimbabwe, Burma, et al.
Does that count ?
Centinel your entire argument rests on fundamental economic theory that you are not interested in learning.
Posting pretty pictures doesn’t refute anything. For lack of a better way of putting you don’t really have an argument at all.