Wow. This guy represents millions of voters who don’t understand these nuanced economic concepts. Is he an Obama supporter?
If there’s an area where I’ve misused terminology, do point it out.
Anyway, to reiterate, truly contradictory legal systems (say, an aggressive and a non aggressive one) cannot meaningfully compete. As soon as one agency puts its decisions into practice, the other will attack its stuff and whoever wins this engagement effectively removes the loser’s ability to offer its services on the market, limiting consumer choice. The only outcome of an (efficient) anarchocapitalist system is the limitation of consumer choice of at least some legal systems.
If this kind of anti competitive behavior is possible, there’s no particular reason why other forms of anti competitive behavior won’t result as well.
Let’s take a concrete example since those seem to help. John’s agency (or some group of agencies) convicts Jake’s factory of pollution the atmosphere, causing global warming, and transgressing all over John’s clients. Jake’s agency (or some group of agencies) disagrees and John attacks to end the aggression. Whoever wins this conflict will have forced their particular legal interpretation upon the other.
Now you’re going to throw up various procedural obstacles, like “that never happens in Somalia” or “Al Gore is a false god”. But that’s not the point of the example. Agencies can pillage each others’ clients regardless of what purported legal excuse they come up with. There’s no particular reason why these legal rationales are going to be the same as what you want them to be.
“Anyway, to reiterate, truly contradictory legal systems (say, an aggressive and a non aggressive one) cannot meaningfully compete. As soon as one agency puts its decisions into practice, the other will attack its stuff and whoever wins this engagement effectively removes the loser’s ability to offer its services on the market, limiting consumer choice.”
Unlikely, because the agency is spending resources to attack (with no tax base!), the fact that it is attacking people would cause it to lose business, and the people getting attacked would defend themselves and get help to stop this agression. Reputation is important!
“The only outcome of an (efficient) anarchocapitalist system is the limitation of consumer choice of at least some legal systems.”
Of course, some legal systems would generally be discarded (but not in a process of attacking) because people would generally regard some settlements as just and some as unjust. Of course, two people can solve the dispute any way they wish if both agree to it, and there are incentives to force such an agreement. Just like things people don’t want (or don’t accept in a dispute) won’t be available.
“If this kind of anti competitive behavior is possible, there’s no particular reason why other forms of anti competitive behavior won’t result as well.”
“Let’s take a concrete example since those seem to help. John’s agency (or some group of agencies) convicts Jake’s factory of pollution the atmosphere, causing global warming, and transgressing all over John’s clients. Jake’s agency (or some group of agencies) disagrees and John attacks to end the aggression. Whoever wins this conflict will have forced their particular legal interpretation upon the other.”
Of course in a dispute between two where there is combat the winner wins. Why is this nonexistant in government, cuz doesn’t government threaten armed combat if people don’t comply with their rulings? But remember that John has reputation to consider, as well as people coming to help Jake.
“Now you’re going to throw up various procedural obstacles, like “that never happens in Somalia” or “Al Gore is a false god”. But that’s not the point of the example. Agencies can pillage each others’ clients regardless of what purported legal excuse they come up with.”
Well the fact that its possible does not mean it will be rampant, and I have pointed out several factors that would dissuade people from doing that in practice. Of course there may still be armed combat in an AnCap society, but I wouldn’t necessarily consider things worse because of it.=
On the contrary, if it seized land from the attack and collected profit from it, it could invest this profit in getting better protection for its clients. There are any number of reasons why agencies can profit from attack. In fact, the reputation might cause more customers to buy its protection in fear of being attacked themselves.
Sure you do.
This is logically contradictory. If the world doesn’t necessarily have those characteristics, then it doesn’t necessarily lack them either, now does it? What’s the point of you trying to assert that the world does necessarily lack those characteristics, and at the same time not actually assert that? Are you just trying to trip people up with intentional illogic? If so, what do you gain from that aside from simple amusement?
If someone breaks into my home, tries to kill me, and I end up killing him in response, would you say I engaged in “anticompetitive behavior”? Why or why not?
That charter would 1) only be valid for the signatories, and 2) would mean all of the signatories thereby alienate any/all of their rights when some majority of them decides that they’ve alienated them - which is another way of saying they no longer have any rights at all (i.e. they’ve given up all of their rights) and only have privileges decided upon at any moment by some majority of them.
What do you mean by that? What are you calling a “free society contract”?
That definition is essentially synonymous with “community”. So which of the five Dictionary.com definitions for “community” are you using here?
What’s your definition of “legal system”? Aside from that, and assuming arguendo that conflicting “legal systems” can’t coexist, then it still doesn’t follow that a given “legal system” has to be monopolized. As I see it, this means that there can be a “common law” over a given area, but that multiple independent organizations within that area are employed to settle disputes.
Which state?
Well, I’m going to give this another go.
The one you mentioned in your post before that.
True. I was implying I was talking about the case where a society does lack those characteristics. If you insist such a society does not exist anywhere, we cannot continue. If you acknowledge it exists somewhere, I will talk about those instances.
Yes, if that person is a potential competitor to you. The problem is when there isn’t a moral restraint on killing, and private companies are able to kill if they consider it profitable, and can only be deterred by… other private companies.
The type that Phi was discussing.
#1.
That’s workable if there is something to keep those organizations and their enforcers in check.
I was talking about any given state. They dont profit, they destroy wealth, there is no “when.” the whole shebang goes bankrupt regularly. Do you watch the news?
Since it wont let me edit. Did you get banned?
yes, they keep each other in check. Its called “adulthood.” or, multilateral respect for capability.
Going bankrupt != absence of profit. Lehman and Countrywide were massively profitable for their owners before they blew up.
Are you saying the state doesn’t exploit money out of the hands of the working man? If it does, where is the Jew in Switzerland receiving the money?
On defense from authoritarian neighbors see p. 242 of [Gelderloos: Anarchy works](http://www.digzip.com/files/1QURB6VV/Gelderloos - Anarchy Works.pdf).
Profit.
That’s a problematic notion.
Think of an expert team of thieves that manages to pull a few bankjobs right.
Say that at the cost of $10K in equipments, as well as the cost of all the training, rehearsal and the risk of being caught or killed, they get away with gains of $50M.
And now they disband, after sharing their acquired wealth according to some pre-defined scheme.
Was this operation profitable?
not in the austrian sense of the word, no.
Alright, kid, let me present you first the textbook definition of a profitable op:
Any business operation is said to make a profit if the realized gains by those in charge of making it happen are greater then the costs incurred by them.
Now you present the “austrian sense of the word”. I have a sense that this is going to be funny…
please, tell me what textbook defines a “profitable op” [sic]?
knocking over banks and retail establishments isnt a business. businesses have customers.
by whom?
how are you measuring gains? the austrian definition of “profit” includes immaterial gains such a personal satisfaction aka psychic profit. does your definition of profit explain why someone would spend money on a hobby?
a crime needs victims to occur, right? it doesnt happen without the victims, thats one reason the notion of profit doesnt apply, because of externalized costs.
the austrian sense of the word is antecedent to your participation in the discussion, you acknowledged this when you asked me about what it means to profit.
trolls always find themselves to be funny. maybe youll learn something too.
Generally, but not necessarily. People can start up a fund with their own capital and trade stocks and bonds for your own profit. They run a business with no clients.
A business operation is just an organization dedicated to pursue profits.
So if those thieves have invested capital, and they have a plan on how to make their investment generate returns, and they follow on, they have a business.
In business it is measured in the bottom line.
But I’m not at all arguing that there are “immaterial gains” that justify certain activities that do not return profits, but these activities are generally not called business affairs.
Yeah, that’s where I was hoping to get. I’m glad you’ve said it.
“External costs” do not enter into profit calculation.
I agree with you, they are real, but no one gives a fuck, so long as they are external.
They are in somebody else’s bottom line. Somebody else business becomes less profitable because of you.
There are many ways your business activity can create “external costs” to other people. These costs are a total non-issue regarding your decision to go into business.
The only variables you consider are those concerning your projected bottom line.
So if your (or “the austrian”) definition of profits involves “external cost” computation, it is meaningless.
I can easily return your previous question to you: “does your definition of profit explain why someone would start up criminal activities?”.
If not, why a few people chose a life of crime?
Maybe but that’s entirely irrelevant.