if you want to see an example of trollish behavior examine any of the threads I have started:
Rettoper believes free-market capitalism is best defended by a socialist monopoly. I really don’t get why minarchists think the market fails when it comes to defence and justice. Ultimately the issue is whether we should have competition or monopoly in the production of law. Rothbard, Hoppe, Long and countless other libertarians have already addressed the concerns about “bandit PDAs” and have shown conclusively that anarchism is the system with the most rigorous checks and balances.
Liberal democracies by contrast have lead to war, violent business cycle activity, poverty and a massive growth in the state.
Really? Nobody caught this one?..
"liberal democracies are not police states…
anarchist systems are unsustainable and always have degenerated into statism"
Sure, and liberal democracies ALWAYS paint inside the lines…
Save me democracy!!!
Nobody cares.
Is this your definition of a liberal democracy? Because what you just described is what we have now. Also, is it at all possible for you to post a response thats less then 100 words long? Are you capable of explaining your argument clearly and concisely? If your so confident in your argument, why the lengthy run-around everytime?
The question remains, as a proponent of taxation, what are you doing here arguing against taxation?
Note the length of my response to you. The short length…
Really? A history of the United States shows what dumbed-down patriotism and democracy can do to create war in the world. If these people had to put their money where their mouth is instead of having a portion of their income taken without them ever getting to touch it (which funds war), supporting war would be a lot more difficult to do I would think.
Not to mention, it only takes 50ish percent of people to support a war and they can extort the other 40ish percent to pay for it as well. That alone would lead to more violence than having consumer choices. The “coercive monopoly to protect us from coercive monoplies” argument is the same as saying, “let me beat you up because if I don’t somebody else will.” Also, law and defense are also economic decisions, something a central planning agency can’t determine how much is needed.
But there will be magical checks and balances!
Rettoper believes free-market capitalism is best defended by a socialist monopoly. I really don’t get why minarchists think the market fails when it comes to defence and justice. – fancyshirtman
who says the market fails when it comes to defense?
eventually a hegemon PDA cartel will emerge within an easily defended cultural, industrial, and/or geographic enclave or region and the allure of absolutism will be too great to forestall absolutism
however, your statement that the market acts in the best interest of judgment is not maximal-capitalism — firms that engage in economic calculation based on the subjective value judgments like ‘justice’, ‘equality’, ‘freedom’, et al — will not last long against firms motivated by economic profit.
Ultimately the issue is whether we should have competition or monopoly in the production of law. Rothbard, Hoppe, Long and countless other libertarians have already addressed the concerns about “bandit PDAs” and have shown conclusively that anarchism is the system with the most rigorous checks and balances.-- fancyshirtman
the tenets of economy of scale, the art of war, and specialization of labor debunk hoppe, rothbard, et al. MOreover, empirical evidence supports the logical arguments debunking the reliability and viability of a pacifist ancap society.
Liberal democracies by contrast have lead to war, violent business cycle activity, poverty and a massive growth in the state.-- fancyshirtman
no system is utopian including democracy. however, a geopolitik of free-trading liberal democracies with a severely attenuated role of government in the economy (defense and law ) will more peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable than any short-lived max-cap system.
I have read the arguments by hoppe, rothbard, et al disputing democratic peace – they are easily debunked and fallacious.
For fun, I will start the following thread this afternoon or tonight:
Why is a geopolitik dominated by liberal democracies more peaceful and more impervious to the emergence of abolutism than maximal-capitalism?
Why would it? We have no reason to believe that. Is this the old theory that producers naturally monopolize in a free market? That’s not even true.
Really? A history of the United States shows what dumbed-down patriotism and democracy can do to create war in the world. --eric080
read my posts, I have stated explicitly that liberal democracies are lethal to statists regimes. However, higher order democracies are utterly peaceful to each other. hence a geopolitik dominated by these nation-states will be as peaceful, stable, and free as humanly possible.
note that I could issue the fallacious argument to condemn capitalism:
“99% of capitalist firms fail from corruption, inefficiency, and waste — hence capitalism is a failure” !!!
statists use this argument all of the time while failing to see the overwhelming bounty capitalism provides in the aggregate.
If these people had to put their money where their mouth is instead of having a portion of their income taken without them ever getting to touch it (which funds war), supporting war would be a lot more difficult to do I would think.-- eric080
throughout American history – the entities that fund (tax payer) and supplies weaponry (industry) are free market elements. Moreover, they are critical elements to coercion – if they choose to deny the use of their capital to the government — war would end in a fortnight.
could it be that the market benefits from certain wars ?
could it be that these free market participants recognize the opportunity cost of NOT waging war against predatory external statist threats ?
could it be that these free market participants recognize the critical benefits of economies of scale in weaponry acquistion and development, size of the military force, and centralized control of the military?
Not to mention, it only takes 50ish percent of people to support a war and they can extort the other 40ish percent to pay for it as well. – eric080
as stated above, private companies have the option to deny weaponry to the state within liberal democracies. It is obvious that free market enterprises are not motivated by anything but profit. They have no other choice since their business model is unsustainable without profit. Similarly, private weapons manufacturing firms and defense agencies will be motivated by profit. Hence constant armed conflict on the margins where unprofitable companies manage under utilized resources that are under defended.
The alternative to the state is to assume public ownership of the means of production in the defense industry. This is unsustainable in a competition with liberal democracies since the state cannot efficiently and productively allocated resources, hence liberal democracies will eventually create a technologically more lethal military, thereby defeating the statist regime without firing a shot.
moreover, once the geopolitik is dominated by liberal democracies, war will be of no concern. If the pacifist wing of ancap society wants peace – liberal democracy is the pathway – not anarchy.
The “coercive monopoly to protect us from coercive monoplies” argument is the same as saying, “let me beat you up because if I don’t somebody else will.” – eric080
why wouldn’t this dynamic play out within ancap society – or any other society ?
Also, law and defense are also economic decisions, something a central planning agency can’t determine how much is needed.-- eric080
of course, that is why the private defense and law firms that are most effective at generating a profit will emerge strongest. Note that peace, justice, liberty, et al are not necessarily synonymous with economic profit, hence when these goals conflict – profit will take precedent within ancap society.
I will argue why liberal democracy is a more effective system to forestall abolutism than anarchism and that a geopolitik of liberal democracies are more peaceful than an anarchist geopolitik in a new thread provided it is not overtaken by trolls as has been the case in the past.
Why would it? We have no reason to believe that. Is this the old theory that producers naturally monopolize in a free market? That’s not even true.–emerorNero
monopolies within the defense industry are essential because of the nature of warfare.
-
all things being equal, the larger the force, the more powerful.
-
all things being equal, the more centralized the command, the more powerful the force.
and combine these two tenets, this armed force can more effectively project a larger force on a more focused point on a strategic center of gravity, thereby gaining victory against a decentralized command and control that has a smaller force that of disparate commands that is slow to react to concentrated threats against vital centers of gravity on the battlefield or society.
also, you overlook another critical component of warfare, namely these firms not only have to satisfy consumer and investor demands — unlike non-coercive industries – they must compete (fight) directly with other PDAs AND they will vie with these PDAs for coveted centers of gravity (transportation hubs, water/food supplies, geographic choke points, mineral deposits, energy supplies, et al) that are critical to victory in war.
in sum, it is direct competition with other PDAs for scarce resources and societal/geographic centers of gravity that will determine who gains hegemon status within a particular region. Moreover, from an economic standpoint it is advantageous that a hegemon emerge since constant competition within the PDA industry (warfare) is anathema to prosperity.
Sure, and liberal democracies ALWAYS paint inside the lines…
Save me democracy!!! – sonik
I dont think that many ancaps understand the origin or the rationale for creating liberal democracies.
they are a series of negative rights imposed on society instituted within a constitutional federal repubic (in the case of the USA) that creates a governing framework where ambitious and corrupt statists compete for the levers of power within a restricted and visible arena that can be attenuate by free people when appropriate.
under no circumstances did our founding fathers create liberal democracy to save us. liberal democracy is a cage to imprison statists. anarchy simply releases these rogues to engage in their schemes covertly within a less restricted environment
constitutional federal republicanism is a cage in which polticians and bureaucrats, who represent the greatest threats to the free market and liberty, can weaken and consume themselves in constant competition for limited power while under our constant gaze.
However,the inmates (statists) have found a trap door out of the prison of liberal democracy in the form of economic coercion – we simply need to fill the hole and prevent their escape – not destroy the entire prison and allow all of the inmates to escape and formulate their statist schemes covertly and without any substantive checks and balances within the defense and legal industries of the free market.
the taxes I envision are simply the means to support the brick and mortar of this ‘prison’. I have always advocated the elimination of all government agencies and departments except the department of justice and defense (since statist threats are not ALL from within – the ancap forgets that statist threats can orginate from outside our borders).
Warfare? Who said anything about warfare? We are talking about enforcing contracts and catching burglars. Not wars. PDA’s aren’t going to engage in some sort of civil war for hegemony. They are for-profit neighborhood police and courts. They may have a few people with guns to enforce contracts if agreement can’t be reached in rare cases, but that’s about it.
Warfare? Who said anything about warfare? We are talking about enforcing contracts and catching burglars. Not wars. PDA’s aren’t goint to engage in some sort of civil war for hegemony. – emperorNero
I am not talking about small-scale local crime. I have always been referring to large-scale regional forces that possess battle tanks, stealth bombers, aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, surviellance satellites, et al.
in addition, i am talking about critical societal centers of gravity that these PDAs will compete for control – st. lawrence seaway, northwest passage, arctic oil, ANWR, Bakken oil reserves, mississippi river delta, mahattan island, river rouge industrial center, Mesabi range et al.
only powerful military forces can hold these lucrative and critical ‘gold mines’
it is control of these assets and the profits from them that will drive the competition for regional hegemony.
I am done here, I will start a new thread on the subject tonight provided it is not inundated with trollish posts.
So you are saying in a stateless society private defense agencies would battle over ANWR with stealth bombers? Have you any idea what that would cost? It wouldn’t be anywhere near profitable. War isn’t very lucrative, that’s why only states do it. It’s a huge investment, you need to pay the manpower and guns… how are you going to sell that to your investors? Then you need to garrison the place to defend it. And you still need to mine the resources, which barely breaks even in a lot of cases. Even if it’s likely that you will be able to conquer some resource, before you can earn back your investment someone’s going to steal it from you. The more profitable it is, the more someone will want to take it from you. The last owner would probably rather blow it up than to hand it over intact. And owning resources isn’t really that valuable in a developed economy anyways, it’s all about information and services. Every investor will rather put his money in internet stock than some plot to conquer ANWR. The kind of large-scale force you are talking about wouldn’t be economically feasible, it simply wouldn’t exist. There’s no economically worthwhile purpose for stealth bombers and I don’t think any larger force than a few people with guns has ever existed in a stateless environment.
So you are saying in a stateless society private defense agencies would battle over ANWR with stealth bombers? Have you any idea what that would cost? It wouldn’t be anywhere near profitable. War isn’t very lucrative, that’s why only states do it. It’s a huge investment, you need to pay the manpower and guns… how are you going to sell that to your investors? Then you need to garrison the place to defend it. And you still need to mine the resources, which barely breaks even in a lot of cases. Even if it’s likely that you will be able to conquer some resource, before you can earn back your investment someone’s going to steal it from you. The more profitable it is, the more someone will want to take it from you. The last owner would probably rather blow it up than to hand it over intact. And owning resources isn’t really that valuable in a developed economy anyways, it’s all about information and services. Every investor will rather put his money in internet stock than some plot to conquer ANWR.
I addressed all of this in a previous thread:
The kind of large-scale force you are talking about wouldn’t be economically feasible, it simply wouldn’t exist. There’s no economically worthwhile purpose for stealth bombers and I don’t think any larger force than a few people with guns has ever existed in a stateless environment. --nero
In most cases, the threat of mass destruction without any hope of a successful defense will force the owners of inefficiently managed and under defended resources to submit without firing a shot.
Lastly, the costs of coercion is not that great. The US spends a paltry 4% of GDP on defense in contrast net profit across the entire economy is probably greater than 5% of GDP.
so by your definition, if an operating expense is greater than a mere 4% of operations than it is not cost effective ---- hence your entire argument is debunked since profits (an essential and beneficial component of capitalism) is a greater expense than defense !!!
the bottom line here is that many pacifists ancaps desperately want to believe that their system of choice is peaceful — however, this fantasy is simply not true.
if you really want peace, freedom, stability, and relative prosperity ---- look to an attenuated version of constutional federal republicanism than the one that currently existed.
If an attacker blows up an oil platform, he can’t exploit it either. It’s just not a feasible business model to spend billions on military hardware in the hope of recovering that investment by stealing some natural resource. Anything in the free market is a safer and more profitable investment than that. I will look at your other thread, but it seems pretty long, I wouldn’t know where the important part is.
The US isn’t a resource stealing enterprise, the US military doesn’t make a profit. Profits that are made across the US economy are made with trade and entrepreneurship and farming and whatnot, not stealing resources with the military. Wealth is created in the US despite 4% defense spending, not because of it. (I’m not arguing that we don’t need defense, but economically the military is a money-losing venture.) Holding the net profits of the US economy in contrast to defense spending is a completely meaningless comparison. That’s sort of like saying “I spent 5000 on heroin last year and I earned 50.000 at my job, ergo heroin is worth it.”
Defense is not the operating cost of the united states. No defense agency with a huge military force would break even, they have no income unless they also run a free market business. And in that case the military expenses of that company would merely be a useless expense.
The US isn’t a resource stealing enterprise, the US military doesn’t make a profit. Profits that are made across the US economy are made with trade and entrepreneurship and farming and whatnot, not stealing resources with the military. Wealth is created in the US despite 4% defense spending, not because of it. (I’m not arguing that we don’t need defense, but economically the military is a money-losing venture.) Holding the net profits of the US economy in contrast to defense spending is a completely meaningless comparison. That’s sort of like saying “I spent 5000 on heroin last year and I earned 50.000 at my job, ergo heroin is worth it.” --nero
the point of my post was that a wasteful, inefficient, and non-profit military establishment within a nominal statist framework only requires 4% of GDP to gain and maintain global hegemony.
my point is that the costs of coercion are not great – indeed they are less then the percentage of GDP that profit consumes.
moreover,the carrot of profit and stick of coercion are critical elements motivating the owners of valued resources to more effectively utilize resources since:
in the case of profits, they will increase net worth.
or in the case of coercion, they will lose net worth.
both are essential to an efficient functioning capitalist society.
Defense is not the operating cost of the united states. No defense agency with a huge military force would break even, they have no income unless they also run a free market business. And in that case the military expenses of that company would merely be a useless expense.–nero
wrong, what do you call military expenditures if not an operating cost of the US government ?
moreover, if the military was used to acquire valued resources or to defend valued resources – then it would result in increased resources or protecting existing resources.
by your definition, security, insurance, hedge investing would be useless expenses since they have no income.
If an attacker blows up an oil platform, he can’t exploit it either. It’s just not a feasible business model to spend billions on military hardware in the hope of recovering that investment by stealing some natural resource. I will look at your other thread, but it seems pretty long, I wouldn’t know where the important part is. — nero
who says they are going to ‘blow it up’ ?
who says that 4% or less of societal GDP spent on defense is wasteful or not feasible ?
Indeed, profit consumes over 5% of GDP, is that a wasteful or counter-productive percentage ?
was it wasteful for the colonists to annex native american land by force ? Then why did they do it ? would the indians have been better served by spending more on defense ?
Profit, you know that thing that you get when you make your customers happy. You know, those people you serivce who make value judgemnets on things like “equality”, “justice”, and “freedom”.
Oh woops!
[edit] Amazing that you reference economic calculation above. Do you even understand what your saying?
You.
Yea, unification made russia alot stronger to eh? Forget what capitalism did to make this country powerful, lets just keep focusing on unification and central authority. Shit while we’re at it, lets annex Canada and Mexico, and the rest of the world for infinite wealth right?
What ancap society? Well if your referring to ours, one of my best friends father was killed via vehicular manslaughter over 2 years ago. We’re still waiting for the states lacky’s to legally allow us to persue civil discourse. Turns out we can’t touch the case untill the state is done, and the state has no economic incentive to hurry thier asses up. Thats some real killer justice your liberal democracy presents there!
State: You want justice? Come see us in 4 years, we’ll get to it when we feel like it. Oh it was your family member? Oh so sorry, we don’t care.
If they were walmart, they would have been fired already. But alas, such behavior is expected in the absence of economic calculation.
Oh you mean you came here to pretend to be against Taxation. But then were forced to admit that your actually for taxation. Then you wouldn’t leave and began posting wordy essay responses to every single individual person here. And your calling them trolls eh?
Good one!
P.S. your incapable of posting simple concise responses aren’t you? Logic is very simple, if only you would use it your posts would be less then 500 words each.