Wait. Retopper?
You misunderstand what calculation is. Of course the State and its military apparatus use the administrative tools created in the market: book-keeping, management, inventory, etc. However, the similarity ends there. Unlike the State, a private business can make profits, suffer losses and go bankrupt. Even though it’s silly to speak of the State as “making a profit”, I’ll grant you that for the sake of argument. But what the State cannot do is suffer losses or go bankrupt.
Calculation is the result of the possibility of both profit and loss (and, ultimately, bankruptcy). If you can only realize profits but not losses, then you cannot calculate. If you cannot go bankrupt, you cannot calculate. You’re flying blind. And it’s bad enough when the State does this but when it regiments the market through inflation, regulation, taxation, cartelization and monopolization, the problem is magnified millions of times over.
The warmongering State is unable to calculate precisely because of its definitional power to seize whatever it requires. When you can seize whatever you require, you cannot calculate.
Clayton -
The very definition of a chicken-hawk.
Clayton -
Maybe be we can try this from the opposite direction. Give us an example in which you would you coerce a woman into having sex with you?
Unlike the State, a private business can make profits, suffer losses and go bankrupt. – clayton
Go back and read the posts, the substance of my contribution on this thread is based on corporate military agencies (see private).
Hence, private military agencies will use armed force under the following conditions:
-
peaceful exchange is not possible.
-
peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force
-
expected profits from acquiring valued resources are greater than the transaction costs of using armed force.
Public/private is just a terminology of convenience… there is no property of “publicness” or “privateness” of any organization except as a matter of convention. The US government can be thought of as a private entity in the exact image of your imperialistic Corporate Military Agencies. But that doesn’t change the fact that both the US gov’t and your hypothetical CMA’s take what they require through seizure and thereby lose the ability to suffer losses, go bankrupt and, therefore, calculate.
Prices, profit, loss. These are all required in order for economic calculation to exist. Any form of aggressive force wipes out profit & loss and does damage to prices. A total planned economy wipes out all three. Fascism - what you are really espousing - is the most delicate balance between aggressive force and the economic reality of calculation but, in the long run, fascism also kills calculation and the economy.
Clayton -
But that doesn’t change the fact that both the US gov’t and your hypothetical CMA’s take what they require through seizure and thereby lose the ability to suffer losses, go bankrupt and, therefore, calculate. – clayton
Unlike government that has the power to tax and print money – a corporate military agency in anarchist society must fund its enterprise with real wealth, otherwise it won’t be able to pay its bills, compensate shareholders, and meet payroll.
It doesnt matter whether it acquires its wealth by coercive means or not – its creditors and shareholders will still require a return on investment. Moreover, no vendor is going to sell to a CMA that can’t pay its bills backed by real assets.
Indeed, governments are subject to the power of the free market since continued taxation will force the productive class to pack up and head for more hospitable shores. In addition, a government that debases its currency will see an exodus of lenders and investors from that nation. So while the politicians and bureaucrats may not be able to calculate economic costs and returns when they tax and print – the consequences of reckless behavior is still felt.
And of course private firms can calculate the exact costs of using armed force — fuel, equipment depreciation and maintenance, life and medical insurance for personnel, training for personnel, et al. And or course then can accurately judge how much the asset or resource they take will provide. You take an oil field, you can predict with some degree of accuracy what the return of this bounty would be based on the price of oil and the amount of oil that can be extracted.
Nothings different because the means of acquiring the asset or the equipment and personnel used to acquire the asset is changed from peaceful to coercive.
Your thinking too hard dude.
Well, duh. This follows from the principle of cause-and-effect… which are implicitly assuming in every statement you’ve made in this thread. Economic calculation is not the same thing as “if you continue on a reckless course of action, you’re going to feel the consequences.” This crude and rudimentary sort of “gut check” is what Mises identifies with primitive forms of production such as basic agriculture or hunting in his article on Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.
No one denies that a vague sense of the general outcome of things is impossible. The generals going to war usually can correctly estimate whether they are likely to win or lose. The Prince can, in fact, calculate how much he is spending on his military campaigns and he can assess the expected returns of his campaigns in the form of taxes or other economic gains. But the point remains that none of this rises much above the level of a gut-check… 90% art, 10% science.
But the idea that Princes go to war primarily to seize new assets is mistaken on two counts.
First, it is based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of real power (undeputized power). All power is private. The Prince is not powerful because he is Prince. He is Prince because he is powerful. Do you see the distinction? The Royals are powerful whether or not they are sitting on a throne and the same is true of the powerful merchants that are largely hidden behind the scenes in modern politics. The Prince’s aim is not to enrich the Crown but to empower himself and, possibly, to empower his family. The Crown can be taken from the Prince but his power cannot be taken from him.
Second, most wars whose aims have been primarily economic have been a net loss. The history of Europe is replete with aggressive, expansionist monarchs launching - and usually winning - foolish wars to annex new territories, only to have those territories drain the royal coffers with costly rebellions and insurrections and an increased burden in maintaining the frontiers.
The Habsburgs - arguably the most powerful royal family ever - are said to have lived by the saying, “Let others wage war, you - happy Austria - marry!” They married and thereby conquered. This strategy of peaceful political unionism was vastly more successful than the policy of expansionist warfare pursued by many of the other royal houses of Europe. It turns out that shooting, burning down and blowing up the territory you’re aiming to annex significantly diminishes its capital value. Who would have thought?
Clayton -
@ clayton,
Name the economic input or output that you claim can’t be calculated by a CMA that uses armed force to secure a valued resource?
The Prince can, in fact, calculate how much he is spending on his military campaigns and he can assess the expected returns of his campaigns in the form of taxes or other economic gains. But the point remains that none of this rises much above the level of a gut-check… 90% art, 10% science.–clayton
What is your ‘science’ or methodology that gave you the “90% art, 10% science” figure ? Sounds like a ‘gut check’ to me.
But the idea that Princes go to war primarily to seize new assets is mistaken on two counts. --clayton
The history of Europe is replete with aggressive, expansionist monarchs launching - and usually winning - foolish wars to annex new territories - clayton
You contradicted yourself in the same post – how the hell am I supposed to respond to this nonsense ? Forgive me, but you seem to make crap up as you go.
All power is private. The Prince is not powerful because he is Prince. He is Prince because he is powerful. Do you see the distinction?–clayton
Yeah, I see you don’t know what your talking about.
The only reason a Prince gains power is because he is born into the monarchy . He was destined to be King before he was born by circumstances and institutions that he had nothing to do with.
Second, most wars whose aims have been primarily economic have been a net loss. – clayton
Hey clayton, can you name any wars for economic profit that have been successful ?
And if anarchists could fight a war that would allow them to become independent of statist control, would that be a profitable war ?
THe inputs and outputs are exchange ratios(Prices). If you understood the least bit of what I said before you would understand that your argument ncessarily involves a massive distortion of price ratios ultimately deterring the growth of anything your advocating.
The end result can only be a state. However since you do not know what prices are, do not understand exchange ratios, and are not willing to understand or learn economic calculation your entire argument is ultimately superfluous. Your scenario is not economically possible unless your arguing the formation of a new state.
If that is the case its a different argument entirely. The point is you do not understand your own argument and you are not willing to learn economics enough so that you do understand it.
We do not need to name specific inputs or outputs. The point is that exchange ratios are being distorted. There exists a natural drive for crime syndicates to protect their existing population from other crime syndicates. In other words, this is the formation of a state.
This argument is not an argument against the effectiveness of market anarchy. One of the problems here is you need to correctly identify what your argument actually is. You won’t be able to do that unless you start reading up on the concepts discussed here.
We’re not even at a point where I am trying to say your wrong. We’re at a point where I am asking you to formulate a coherent argument.
TLDR. Inputs and Outputs are sidestepping the point and ultimately irrelevant. You dissmiss the importance of accounting in capital goods and in general economic calculation.
Are you retopper? lol…
No contradiction at all. If you succeed in purchasing a business that is losing money, your initial “success” results in a loss. Like all non-Austrians, you completely neglect the two most important factors in economic theory: time and uncertainty.
groan
“a Prince” and “the Prince” are different concepts. The former is the English word denoting “the son of a King”; the latter is used in its more general sense (from the Latin) to refer to the potentate or monarch whether his dominion is hereditary, by conquest or some other form.
Clayton -
I’m just wondering if Retopper has read von Mises’ Socialism.
While it may not lead him to anarchism, which is fine - it ought to show that we are doing nothing more than living well within the liberal tradition. I also wonder if he knows that Schumpter, Hayek, von Mises, and Lachmann all knew there were very real conflicts with Democracy and Capitalism.
Once again, it is no reason to lead someone de facto against Democracy and a priori towards anarcho-capitalism. It should show someone though what the real engine of liberalism/ civilization is, that we are well within the liberal tration, as well as to show someone there is no reason to ultimately care about govt as “things in themselves”
Frankly, if a civ has not been undermined in an awful way by left wing academics or having little custom of federalizers - I can see why someone ma think of Democracy as a pretty safe bet for helping maintain order in “the way things work” - if a market system is already firmly in place.
Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but Murphy does a good job here:
@ vive la insurrection,
I advocate a free market system in all industries except armed force.
In an anarcho-capitalist system specialization of labor and economies of scale among other factors lead to territorial monopolies of armed force. Moreover, there are no mechanisms in place to decentralize, balance, limit and make transparent the elements of armed force.
In contrast, liberal democracies have institutionalized practices that deter, limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society.
In addition, the absurd notion that anarchist society would be peaceful is easily debunked by the following tenets:
- Armed force will be used in peaceful exchange is not possible
- Armed force will be used if peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force, and
- Annexation of resources will generate a positive return on investment.
Moreover, the use of armed force will result in at least two beneficial outcomes:
- The threat of armed force will force negligent owners of valued resources to improve productive capacity.
- Armed force is an effective means to liberate heretofore underutlilized and mismanaged resources to the market
In addition, the absurd notion that anarchist society would be peaceful is easily debunked by the following tenets:
- Armed force will be used in peaceful exchange is not possible
- Armed force will be used if peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of armed force, and
- Annexation of resources will generate a positive return on investment.
The same exact evidence can be used against the existence of a peaceful state.
The first one is empirically problamatic. The other two points have already logically been debunked countless times by countless people. Retopper is just ignoring the points. There is no other word for it other than stubborn. This isn’t about having an intillectual debate where sides are considered.
The same exact evidence can be used against the existence of a peaceful state. – Wheylous
Exactly, there is no inherently peaceful state since coercion is an effective means to force change and gain power.
Otherwise, why has it been used in so many levels of society among so many actors ?
Are all of these people and enterprises irrational ?
INdeed, statists using coercive means have subjugated the very anarchists on this forum who amusingly criticize the utility of coercion to secure desired ends and gain relative power.
@ Murphy http://mises.org/daily/1855
Murphy thesis is lacking and unconvincing in the least.
Paradoxically, Murphy continually cites anecdotal empirical evidence to support his theories supporting anarchism viability while conveniently missing the overwhelming empirical elephant in the room that anarchist society has never existed in any sturdy form at any time in history.
Also, Murphy misrepresents liberal democracy which is specifically designed to limit, balance, decentralize and make transparent the elements of armed force in society with this misrepresentation
“citizens put aside their petty differences and agree to support a single, monopoly agency, which then has the power to crush all challengers to its authority. “ – Murphy
This is manifestly absurd.
Citizens in liberal democracy created government to intentionally limit, balance, deter, decentralize, and make transparent the elements of authority. Indeed, the capitalist system has best flourished under liberal democracy than any other system. Of course, statists have found a way to gain power by economic means, hence we need an Economic Bill of Rights to complement our already sturdy political and civil Bill of Rights. But to gut the most effective tool to forestall absolutism and replace it with a demonstrably failed system is for the faith-based fringe.
Also, unlike most products and services, armed force is territorial. It is most effective when it is used in proximity to both client and competitor. Hence, normal market mechanisms don’t apply in the same degree. And this proximity lends itself to territorial monopolies of armed force.
Moreover, Murphy is clueless to the fact that military agencies in anarcho-capitalist societies would not be motivated by peaceful outcomes as he repeatedly asserts – like all other successful anarchist enterprises, the bottom line would be economic profit, not some aesthetic goal advocated by faith-based moralists.
“Nonetheless, if the contract theory of government is correct, the vast majority of individuals can agree that they should settle these issues not through force, but rather through an orderly procedure (such as is provided by periodic elections).” – Murphy
In murphy’s fantasyland, this may be true – but the fact is that armed force is an oft used and highly effective means to settle issues favorable to those who decide to employ force. Hence, if a military firm believes that they can realize a net gain on investment they will use armed force to realize that gain when peaceful exchange is not possible or more costly that the use of armed force.
why would we expect such virtuous people, as consumers, to patronize defense agencies that routinely used force against weak opponents? – Murphy
consumers and investors of military agencies that secure inadequately defended resources that result in a net gain on investment will be rewarded. Of course, handwringing moralists like Murphy can invest their capital in the ‘nice firms’ – however, he will soon see his investment squandered and lost relative to more economic profit seeking actors in society. Indeed, the profit motivated firms will see their capital and power increase relative to firms that subordinate profits to some subjective moral value judgment that can’t be identified on any balance sheet or income statement.
Moreover, those military firms that base their actions on economic profit will far exceed and outperform Murphy’s favored firms that base their actions on peace, justice, fair play or other highly subjective value judgments. Indeed, the military industry is no place for self-aggrandizing humanitarians hell bent on martrydom.
IT is contradictory that supposed maximal-capitalists like Murphy regard economic profit as the means for a healthy and productive society in all economic endeavors except the military industry which is supposed to subordinate economic profit for peaceful coexistence. Moreover, this illogic makes one question why in this fantasy society security would even be necessary.
Murphy’s faith-based illogic is easily exposed by asking him the question of how much security should a given firm invest in ? Logically if this level decreases naturally the likelihood that this resource will be attacked increases – otherwise it would be impossible to calculate the appropriate level of security within anarchist society or even if it was necessary.
Expanding on this simple premise, the level of security is heavily dependent on the economic profitability of the firm. If a firm is unprofitable relative to a competitor, it is more likely that the unprofitable firm will be subject to predation. because it will not be able to fund an appropriate level of security equivalent to the value of its holdings/capital/resources et al.
Hence, economic considerations are the primary driver for determining the amount of violence in an anarchist society. INdeed, if anarchist society has security – AND no anarchist disputes that it doesnt – then the relative level of security is critical to protection from predation, violence, and hence the profitability of the firm is directly correlated to whether that firm is annexed by force or not.
And Murphy exposes himself as a quasi-statist by offering this:
Why wouldn’t the vast bulk of reasonable customers patronize defense agencies that had interlocking arbitration agreements, and submitted their legitimate disputes to reputable, disinterested arbitrators? – Murphy
Does Murphy realize that these ‘interlocking arbitration agreements’ are the fast track to territorial monopolies of armed force and in turn absolutism?
Also, does Murphy understand that his society based on non-coercive means would protect the inefficient,wasteful and corrupt status quo at the expense of societal dynamism that armed insurrections oft times promote (see American Revolution, collapse of global communism, et al).
To illustrate, if an environmentalist consortuim acquired the Bakken reserve by peaceful means and deny this energy bounty to society, it is likely that a profit seeking military firm would take this valuable resource by force if it was not available for peaceful exchange. Indeed, virtually all of society would welcome this release of heretofore mismanaged resources that resulted in lower energy prices, increased jobs, and increased manufacturing output and productivity.
Or course a few handwringing isolationists would protest – but when has economic considerations surrendered to this pacifist rabble ?
Indeed, a truly dynamic and productive society does allow for change by coercive means if necessary – and many times this is the only immediate and effective means to force beneficial change. Who would doubt that removing the current dictatorships in Cuba, North Korea, Zimbabwe, et al by force would be detrimental to society ? Of course, faith-based pacifists and anarchists would – but history has confirmed that they are inconsequential.
The same reasoning demonstrates that the free market could adequately fund programs to “contain” rogue agencies. – Murphy
Here murphy makes the unsupported assumption that firms that were violent must necessarily be ‘rogue’ and unprofitable?!! However, what if a firm was violent and profitable ? Would this be considered a rogue industry if it generate generous returns to investors and clients ?
Why is it that everything violent is unproductive in Murphy’s fantasyland ? Indeed, if coercion was so destructive and damaging to those who initiated it – why have the most influential societies been the most effective and virulent at using violence to obtain desired ends ?
Indeed, if violence is a bane to those who wield it – why is Murphy himself slave to statists who wield coercive means against his interests? Or does he pay taxes voluntarily and kowtow to statists using coercive means by choice ?!!
And when has society ever been driven by what is productive and peaceful to the vast majority of citizens ? INdeed, society is driven by what is productive and profitable to the few – not the many. That is why the most effective system (capitalism) and the least costly means (peaceful voluntary exchange) have been the least practiced.
Society is ruled by those that most aggressively pursue their own self-interest, not those whose self-interest most benefit society. – Centinel
Remember, these would be admittedly criminal organizations; unlike the city government of New York, there would be no ideological support for these gangs. – Murphy
Again if Murphy’s illogical holds true beyond his faith-based mind – why do coercive entities like statist governments hold sway over most of the globe ? Indeed, by his own definition our current government is a criminal enterprise, yet Murphy kowtows to its every unfair and coercive law.
Of course, it is theoretically possible that a rogue agency could overcome these obstacles, either through intimidation or division of the spoils, and take over enough banks, power companies, grocery stores, etc. that only full-scale military assault would conquer it. – Murphy
Murphy admits it. His bizarre rationalization for supporting a short-lived anarchist society is that the absolutist would have to start from scratch !!! INdeed, this is what always happens under short-lived anarchist experiments – absolutism emerges in every instance.
In contrast, under even a limited government, the machinery of mass subjugation is ready and waiting to be seized. – Murphy
Is murphy clueless ? Liberal democracy is precisely built on the premise of putting the ‘machinery of mass subjugation’ in a decentralized, limited, balanced and transparent prison from which the free citizenry can monitor and attenuate as needed. Indeed, as I stated, civil and political liberties have expanded under liberal democracy for the last 230 years. Moreover, this system is gradually expanding in size and scope(albeit in fits and starts) across the globe as citizens see its effectiveness at generating peace, prosperity, stability and freedom.
Indeed, I am a capitalist first and foremost, and I realize that COnstitutional Federal REpublicanism is the vaccine which prevents the lethality of the germ statism. Our founding fathers, Mises, Hayek, et al recognized that a injection of non-lethal government into society forces statist elements to coalesce in a central location both figuratively and literally in a greatly attenuated form that free citizens can better monitor and check. Of course, we need another injection of vaccine to replace the one administered in 1776 and 1787 because the germ has mutated to become an economic parasite. Hence, an Economic Bill of Rights is at hand.
But lets not kill the patient by removing all protections against the germ of statism that anarchism represents.
Representative sample from tl;dr post:
So, armored transport and bodyguard agencies are just figments of our collective imagination, I guess.
Clayton -