**
Your misunderstanding the simple argument that a lack of historical precedence does not invalidate future possibilites I find somewhat entertaining.
We have gone over that so many times…
I suppose I shall suffice to challenge you with some of your own medicine.
"why hasnt the most effective system (liberal democracies) emerged in North Korea? --Rettoperlike.
I suppose I shall suffice to challenge you with some of your own medicine.
"why hasnt the most effective system (liberal democracies) emerged in North Korea? --nirgrahamUK
I suppose I could divert and cite some vague semantic argument like a few ancaps I know, however your question is easily answered:
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to liberal democracy and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
does that answer your question ?
"why hasnt the most effective system (anarcho-capitalism) emerged in NorthAmerica? --nirgrahamUK
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to anarcho-capitalism and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
Thanks for making it so easy for me to answer you.
"why hasnt the most effective system (anarcho-capitalism) emerged in NorthAmerica? --nirgrahamUK
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to anarcho-capitalism and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
Thanks for making it so easy for me to answer you. – nirgrahamuk
checkmate, you’ve just confirmed my assertion that ancap society is not sustainable or achievable
try reading my posts.
I have stated numerous times that ancap society is not viable as long as it rejects coercion as a means to obtain ends.
moreover, once it is achieved, coercion will be as prevalent within it as statist societies – and likewise it will devolve into territorial monopolies of coercive power.
unknowingly, you have basically stated your support for many of the assertions I have posited on mises.org
thanks – why dont you make me your friend, lol.
ha ha . you so funny !
it is manifestly absurd to support ancap society on the grounds that:
It takes time, nothing happens overnight.–angurse
and,
Similar things could have been said about democratic societies and toasters. 40,000 years of human history doesn’t reveal a thing about possibilities.–angures
Agreed. Now look up the terms “support” and “grounds” and see how nonsensical you are being.
in sum, your defense of ancap society is based on the following “logic”:
ancap society doesnt exist,
liberal democracy doesnt exist,
liberal democracy emerges,
hence ancap society is confirmed since liberal democracy emerges !?
I haven’t defended ancap society on said “logic” - please re-read my previous posts. The example of liberal democracy wasn’t to “confirm” the coming emergence of anarcho-capitalism. There isn’t a single post of mine insinuating such a thing.
"why hasnt the most effective system (capitalism) emerged via the most effective means for change (peace) ?
You are just previously answered question with different terms. Why hasn’t the most effective way to toast (toasters) emerged via the most effective means for toasting (invention).
Takes time.
My challenge to you is what factors determine the how much security is determined by the owner for a given resource?
Thats a question only the owners can answer.
and no, your assertion that liberal democracies and toaster exist, hence ancap society is possible is not an answer.
Just saying no isn’t an asnwer, yet here you are.
Moreover, your statement of the obvious ‘owners decide the level of security’ does not answer the question of how much security per resource.
Why not? Is this another one of those “debunkings” that are nothing more than dismissals due to inconvienience? The amount of security needed would be dynamic, just like all market activity is, to give details on, say, how many daily patrols are needed is akin to asking the Wright brothers what colour uniforms flight attendents will wear.
statists have more effectively leverage armed force/coercion to circumvent the obvious deficiencies statism has relative to liberal democracy and maximal-capitalism in promoting societal health and well-being.
…
checkmate, you’ve just confirmed my assertion that ancap society is not sustainable or achievable
By your logic, you’ve just confirmed the un-achievability/sustainability of liberal democracies. Funny indeed Nir.
angurse,
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended . – Rettoper
if not, ask for clarification.
if so, explain why.
Of course coercion will exist in an ancap society, I just said that.
If individuals or an organisation try to coerce other people in to handing over money, then those people will have many methods of defending themselves and many methods of seeking justice. The difference within a statist society with regards to coercion is that the state legalizes coercion for itself, whilst in an anarchist society coercion would be illegal for everyone.
So by the very fact that coercion will be possible does not necessarily mean that a state is inevitable. ie the possibility of coercion will not ultimately lead to a state.
This is incorrect; there will be more methods of defending ones self from coercive organisations and more methods of seeking justice. The argument that territorial monopolies of coercive power will be prevalent is unfounded and illogical. People can move away from regions where such organisations try to steal from people by the use of force. There are many reasons already discussed that will prevent organisations from trying to steal from people by the threat of force. It is possible however and it could result in violence between different organisations. But that is no argument against removing larger regional territorial monopolies of coercive power.
Basically you are saying that we should keep the state in case we have more “governments” that pop up in its place… illogical. That would be like saying; we should allow the thief to keep stealing our money in case we have more thieves that will come in his place.
If individuals or an organisation try to coerce other people in to handing over money, then those people will have many methods of defending themselves and many methods of seeking justice. --jack roberts.
negligent, inefficient owner’s of valued resources who do not effectively manage their resources will not have the economic wherewithal to fund an adequate level of security commensurate to the economic value of the resource, hence their resource will be at greater risk of predation from profit motivated investors, individuals, and enterprises.
moreover, coercion is a means by which under utilized and inefficiently managed resources are transferred into the possession of efficient and productive owners hence society benefits since a heretofore underutilized poorly managed resource becomes more profitable.
The difference within a statist society with regards to coercion is that the state legalizes coercion for itself, whilst in an anarchist society coercion would be illegal for everyone.-- jack roberts
wrong, your subjective value judgment that coercion ‘would be illegal’ is meaningless and empty if you dont have the means to defend it. For example, a well armed and led PDA that covets your under utilized and hence under defended valued resource is not going to forego increased economic profit simply because you have an aversion to coercive force to achieve ends.
So by the very fact that coercion will be possible does not necessarily mean that a state is inevitable. ie the possibility of coercion will not ultimately lead to a state.-- jack roberts
simple question – with regard to armed force, all other factors being equal, is it more/less effective to possess:
a larger army or a smaller army?
a centralized command and control or a decentralized command and control ?
are interior lines or dispersed forces ?
if you can accurately answer these questions, then you will understand why ancap society will evolve into a series of monopolistic territorial security agencies, albeit private. – - Hence from here, the next step to absolutism is as easy as ceasar’s crossing the rubicon.
This is incorrect; there will be more methods of defending ones self from coercive organisations and more methods of seeking justice. The argument that territorial monopolies of coercive power will be prevalent is unfounded and illogical.–jack roberts
wrong,
all other factors being equal — the most powerful and prosperous security agencies will be those that are largest and most concentrated with a given geographic region for obvious reasons. however, I will explain the obvious for your benefit:
Military history and logic confirms that when all other conditions are equal, the independent variable that determines success in armed conflict is the coordinated application of force at an adversary’s center(s) of gravity before he can react to defend it.
for example, large numbers of combatants (mass) * speed (acceleration) * mechanical advantage (concentration/focus) = victory (force)
The very nature of anarcho-capitalism is anathema to all of these tenets.
1) ancap society is averse to the concentration of power in one location or within one PDA since it increases the likelihood of the emergence of absolutism. Unless the ancap rejects Acton’s notion that ‘power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely’’
2) all these being equal, an alliance of disparate ancap PDA’s would be at a disadvantage trying coordinate strikes on an adversary that possessed a unified command,
3) moreover, an ancap alliance of PDA’s would be at a disadvantage trying to move these disparate entities in a timely manner relative to a unified adversary due to obvious shortcomings in communications which is critical on the battlefield or other contested centers of gravity.
There are many reasons already discussed that will prevent organisations from trying to steal from people by the threat of force. It is possible however and it could result in violence between different organisations. – jack roberts
the only reason an enterprise will exist in ancap society is to make a profit, period. MOreover, individuals and firms who do not engage in economic profit seeking actions will soon see their wealth relative to more profit-driven actors decline. Hence, your misguided and utopian opinion that ancap society will be pacific is illogical, albeit idealistic and well-intentioned.
In sum, when a choice exists between pacifism/status quo and coercion/profit, the most powerful profit driven actors will choose coercion to obtain profit. Moreover, these profit driven firms will eventually accumulate more power and wealth than pacifist driven individuals and enterprises. hence, maximal-capitalism, not your utopian fantasyland of maximal-pacifism.
but then again, I have already debunked your base arguments in the following thread:
please read it before offering arguments that I have already debunked in detail on the thread above.
This is an irrelevant argument to the quoted text above it. To translate in to simpler english:
People are incapable and useless at managing valuable resources so they will be incapable of discerning the adequate level of security that the valuable resource should have, so the resource will be at a greater risk of theft from “profit seeking” organisations.
Theft is a way in which those valuable resources are allocated to owners that will more efficiently make use of them for profit and ultimately for the betterment of society. (end of translation)
It sounds like you are advocating theft, which even in a statist society would be illegal, moreover the state does not operate for profit, it operates to get the least amount of value for money spent that they can reasonably get away with. People are in fact more than capable at discerning the value of resources and more than capable of sourcing adequate security for their resources. Organisations or individuals that steal in an anarchist society will be dealt with as thieves and i think you overlook that aspect.
Your subjective judgement that people are incapable of valuing resources and selecting adequate security is meaningless and empty if you do not have the means to defend it. (This is one just for you and your strange use of the english language)
Well that is the same even in a statist society, people will try to steal other peoples resources and if they are not defended or justice is not sourced after a theft occurs then they will get away with it. It will be exactly the same in an anarchist society and that is not realy an argument to the quoted text above it.
I see you like to ask questions as answers. You like to set the terms of the conversation and seem to be in capable of a rational conversation. I am suspect about your sincerity and motives.
You have not demonstrated how it will end in absolutism. Questions about the effectiveness of security and armed forces are subject to semantics and examples. Your argument is that a centralised, large and interior armed force will take over the region within an anarchist society. But the possibility of a state forming in anarchist society is no reason not to abolish the state and try to exist without it. Surely then the armed force that takes over in anarchist society from your perspective would not be a good thing. In any type of society an armed force that tries to takeover would be unfavourable. But that is no reason to allow a monopoly on coercion (the state) to exist. Like i said the population of a region could pay for a centralised and large and interior armed forces to protect its’ interests in an anarchist society. What makes you think that is not possible in an anarchist society?
Security forces that are operating within an anarchist society would not have a financial incentive to take over the region. They would make more money if willing customers paid for their services. Coercion does not generate profits, it might generate stolen goods. But in an anarchist society everyone and their security organisations would be against an organisation that thought it could start stealing from everyone else. That alone would create the environment where the prospect of taking over by force would not be viable. So without the political ends as a goal, there would be more money in a non-coercive security force than one that is, therefore financial incentive would not exist. The people knowing that society just changed from a statist society would be against any form of a state that starts to form and would deploy their resources to prevent such a force from becoming a state.
But I must agree that there is the possibility that a new state could be formed within an anarchist society against the will of the people. But like i said, the very fact that it is a possibility is no reason to not at least try an anarchist society.
hahaha, of course people that do not engage in business with a goal for profit will see less wealth generated relative to organisations that have a profit driven motive. That is economics 101 and they teach those basics in high school and i can’t believe you actually said that. It is your presumption that i think anarchism will be a pacifist driven society. I am fully aware of the nature of man and that is why i advocate an anarchist society.
Now you have to tell me, when does the choice exist between “pacifism/status quo and coercion/profit”, because to be honest mate, that makes no sense what so ever. It is almost like you are trying to group profit with coercion as if they only exist together. Absolutely ridiculous. If an organisation is ruthless and violent then the market will not do business with them and they will not do well. The only reason the state gets away with coercion is because it is has been going on for such a long time that they have wrote the legal system around it. If an organisation was created in today’s society that started demanding taxation from individuals in the name of “essential services” they would be arrested for theft and fraud. Simple as. Exactly the same would be true in an anarchist society.
I am new and have not read your apparent debunking of my base arguments. So please do point them out specifically, if you don’t mind.
- do you disagree with this statement ?
Yes.
“Is” - a present tense verb. Properly adjusting: “the level of security would be proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended”
To say what it would be is mere speculation. To go further and say it would be proportional to something subjective like value is farsical. Proportionality implies a fixed ratio, which is simply impossible given the dynamicism of the market.
however, I will explain the obvious for your benefit
Rettoper, I said drop the disparaging language.
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended . – Rettoper
do you disagree with this statement ? – Rettoper
Yes – angures
To say what it would be is mere speculation. To go further and say it would be proportional to something subjective like value is farsical. Proportionality implies a fixed ratio, which is simply impossible given the dynamicism of the market. --angurse
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure — your insistence that the owner of a valued resource will not provide a level of security proportional to the economic value of the resource is illogical.
overwhelming empricial and logical evidence supports a direct correlation and causation between the economic value and the level of security. moreover, the fact that anecdotal evidence exists that does not follow this tenet does nothing to rebut this assertion and its overwhelming influence on aggregate human interaction.
for example, your strawman diversion that the level of security is subjective and that the proportion of security is not fixed has nothing to do with the substance of my thesis, much less rebutting it.
In sum, your views represent no practical or substance value – for example, a hypothetical owner of a valued resource requesting your advice on the level of security for his valued resource would likely be met with the following:
" value is subjective, security is subjective, your choice is subjective — hence I cannot determine the correct level of security for your valued resource or even make a determination on whether its economic value should drive the level of security"
this exchange is a perfect example of why ancap dogma remains marginalized and fringe in the meat world.
jack roberts
the level of security is proportional to the economic value of the property or resource being defended . – Rettoper
if not, ask for clarification.
if so, explain why.