Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible

Economics Political Theory
21

if you can site emprical or logical evidence of a smaller decentralized command securing victory against a larger centralized command, all other things being equal, then provide your evidence.

You are a complete idiot. The point is that it is not the case that a centralized command is a given. Assembling an army is a long process. Napoleon took advantage of this by using mobility to defeat his enemies before they could form a centralized command. He did this through decentralizing his command to Field Marshalls.

As another example, WWI was called “inevitable” because once the order to mobilize was given all railroads had to be used at 100% capacity for many days to bring troops across Germany and France to the front. Before they were there, the armies could be beaten.

The entire premise of your argument is idiotic.

22

It is easy to say that while one man’s loss is another’s gain and, therefore, profit/capitalism, it is another to say that both gain as a result of capitalism/cooperation.

23

MaikU,

While all social science has some degree of bias and subjectivity, this list from freedomhouse.com is one source of higher order democracies. However, I would remove South Korea, Israel, Taiwan, and some of the balkan nations from the list for various reasons:

  1. Australia
  2. Austria
  3. Belgium
  4. Canada
  5. Croatia
  6. Czech Republic
  7. Denmark
  8. Estonia
  9. Finland
  10. France
  11. Germany
  12. Greece
  13. Hungary
  14. Ireland
  15. Israel
  16. Italy
  17. Japan
  18. Korea (South)
  19. Latvia
  20. Netherlands
  21. New Zealand
  22. Norway
  23. Poland
  24. Portugal
  25. Slovakia
  26. Slovenia
  27. Spain
  28. Sweden
  29. Switzerland
  30. Trinidad and Tobago
  31. Taiwan
  32. United Kingdom
  33. United States

In sum, it is highly unlikely, though not impossible, that any of these nations would engage in armed conflict with each other.

my assertion that these nations are utterly peaceful is based on substantial empirical and logical arguments ourline in the democratic peace link posted in an earlier post.

24

capitalism does NOT represent the means only the outcome – profit.

False.

“Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital.”

Private ownership of capital is, of course, a means.

25

**Why coercion is an essential and beneficial element of maximal-capitalist society.

In your other thread, you make it sound as if property is a liability to capitalism rather than an asset. Therefore, imminent domain is necessary to help capitalism along. Without property, there would be no desire for profit. Your argument breaks down.

EDIT: I meant eminent domain. oops!

26

You are a complete idiot. --stranger

no need to issue offensive posts if you dont understand the substance of my assertions.

Napoleon took advantage of this by using mobility to defeat his enemies before they could form a centralized command.-- stanger

here you unwittingly confirm my assertion that centralized command is advantageous to a decentralized command – you even emphasized the importance of centralizing forces.

He did this through decentralizing his command to Field Marshalls. --stranger

here you again expose your utter lack of understanding of the substance of my proposition.

You don’t understand that while napoleon divided his army into disparate corps – all of these elements were working together to accomplish a common tactical and strategic objective under napoleon’s sole command, namely to engage the divided enemy force before it could consolidate

you have repeatedly mistaken the means for the ends. for example, temporarily dividing a large army to engage the enemy is not a repudiation of my assertion if the action insured that napoleon’s force still had a numerical advantage.

IN contrast, napoleon would be less likely to divide his forces if the enemy had not divided his force. If he still divided his force in the face of a unified enemy command, all things are not equal. perhaps the enemy force was inferior in training and leadership – history is replete with numerous examples of smaller forces destroying larger poorly armed, trained, and/or led larger forces. hence, not all things being equal

Do you understand these points ? In sum, the reason Napoleon divided his force was because it gave him the opportunity to engage an enemy that was vulnerable – in the case of your example, the enemy force was divided.

your example supports my assertion, even if you cant recognize this.

27

false-angurse

in a capitalist society, the means by which an individual or enterprise obtains a profit is secondary to the end of profit

Private ownership of capital is, of course, a means. – angurse

when a valued resource is annexed by force from an inefficient owner to a productive owner – the property is still in private hands.

28

It’s not property if it can be annexed, for any reason whatsoever. Also, producers don’t decide whether the use of resources is efficient or not, consumers do. Should consumers, then, be allowed to annex commodities by coercion? Again, property would be violated and capitalism would break down. Cooperation, quid pro quo, not competition, coercion, is what drives capitalism.

29

In your other thread, you make it sound as if property is a liability to capitalism rather than an asset.–Kyle

absolute not, property is a valued resource that is precious and coveted, therefore it must be efficiently utilized and defended or it will be annexed to the overall benefit of society.

Therefore, imminent domain is necessary to help capitalism along. Without property, there would be no desire for profit. Your argument breaks down.–Kyle

imminent domain is a scheme that is designed to allow negligent and wasteful owners to hold property indefinitely to the detriment of society. in ancap society, a valued resource, like property, that is being mismanged will not generate a profit commensurate to its real value, hence the owner will not have the means to provide defense commensurate to the value of the resource. this will increase the likelihood that a more efficient and productive owner will use force to annex the property or other valued resource in the absence of a fair peaceful exchange.

in sum, capitalism is profit, the means by which profit is attain is secondary. Of course, peaceful exchange benefits society to a greater extent than a coercion exchange. Nonetheless, coercion is a possibilty in extreme cases where peaceful exchange cannot be negotiated and the opportunity costs of coercion are less than the profit obtained from annexing the valued resource by force.

read the thread, I covered this in detail.

30

in a capitalist society, the means by which an individual or enterprise obtains a profit is secondary to the end of profit

Repeating refuted assertions proves nothing I’m afraid. Try showing why the definition is faulty instead of ignoring it.

when a valued resource is annexed by force from an inefficient owner to a productive owner – the property is still in private hands.

Read your own threads then come up with new arguments.

"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner’s consent. …

31

Rettoper, for one who loves to cry “strawman”, you sure love to make them. Capitalism is based on nonaggression, not profit. As for the supposed superiority of centralized commands, recall that in nearly every case a guerrilla warended in favor of the guerrillas.

32

Isn’t the only way to defeat an anarchist society is to kill everyone and to defeating a statist society, to defeat its military? The latter seems much easier to do than the former.

33

It’s not property if it can be annexed, for any reason whatsoever.-- Lyle

food stuffs, intellectual property, water supplies, labor, airspace, earth orbit, electromagnetic spectrum, et al are all valued resources that can be annexed or taken and held by force.

Also, producers don’t decide whether the use of resources is efficient or not, consumers do.–Lyle

okay, if producers of valued resources are not utilizing their resources to generate consumers then they will not have the capital to provide an adequate defense commensurate with the value of the mismanaged resource.

Should consumers, then, be allowed to annex commodities by coercion?–Lyle

sure, why not?

if they have the means to annex a coveted resource that they feel they can obtain at less cost than a peaceful exchange.

Again, property would be violated and capitalism would break down.–Lyle

that is a fallacy adopted by the majority of pacifists on this site. they are not really capitalists, they are pacifists first and capitalists second. In reality, they are really pacifists who are of the mistaken belief that capitalism or the drive for profit is somehow going to be non-coercive in all cases.

they fail to understand that the in a conflict between peace and profit – profit trumps in capitalist society. It has to or it is unsustainable. YOu cant have an economically sustainable society based on profit being subordinate to pacifism,

Cooperation, quid pro quo, not competition, coercion, is what drives capitalism.-- Lyle

Wrong, It is the preferable and most efficient means of exchange – but not the only means. Coercion will be used in a free society when peaceful exchange is not possible and the opportunity costs of coercion are less than the profit from acquiring the valued resource by force.

34

angurse,

amusingly you are again evading and fumbling since you dont have the wherewithal to refute any of my assertions.

I will issue the challenge again.

do you agree or disagree with the following assertion, it is simple and straightforward, like 2+2=4:

Repeating refuted assertions proves nothing I’m afraid. Try showing why the definition is faulty instead of ignoring it.–Rettoper

35

"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner’s consent. …-- angurse

thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.

how do you enforce your ‘right of exclusive and absolute legal rights’ if the neighborhood PDA breaks down your door and sticks the barrel of a sawed-off Mossberg in your mouth?

36

okay, if producers of valued resources are not utilizing their resources to generate consumers then they will not have the capital to provide an adequate defense commensurate with the value of the mismanaged resource.

What is to say that a producer will continue to efficiently manage resources once an adequate defense commensurate is achieved? Can’t they then maximize profits through inefficient use of resources without a degeneration in consumerism? Monopolies tend toward inefficiency and their ability to generate consumers is protected by force, rather than by the efficient management of resources.

37

amusingly you are again evading and fumbling since you dont have the wherewithal to refute any of my assertions.

Evading what? Fumbling how? Be as specific as possible.

I gave the definitions, which refuted your assertions, so far thats all the wherewithal needed. Perhaps you can actually show why the definitions are incorrect.

do you agree or disagree with the following assertion, it is simple and straightforward, like 2+2=4:

Agree, mathematics have proofs. Something sorely lacking in your own assertions.

thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.

“no need to resort to insults”

how do you enforce your ‘right of exclusive and absolute legal rights’ if the neighborhood PDA breaks down your door and sticks the barrel of a sawed-off Mossberg in your mouth?

Non-sequitur. Difficulties with capitalism don’t change the definition.

Reply More
Rettoper replied on Sat, Feb 5 2011 7:43 PM

"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner’s consent. …-- angurse

thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.

how do you enforce your ‘right of exclusive and absolute legal rights’ if the neighborhood PDA breaks down your door and sticks the barrel of a sawed-off Mossberg in your mouth?

Reply More
Rettoper replied on Sat, Feb 5 2011 7:43 PM

"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner’s consent. …-- angurse

thats funny angurse, your ignorance and naivete is noteworthy.

how do you enforce your ‘right of exclusive and absolute legal rights’ if the neighborhood PDA breaks down your door and sticks the barrel of a sawed-off Mossberg in your mouth?

38

Capitalism is based on nonaggression, not profit. – biotube

Wrong, pacifism is based on nonaggression.

Capitalism is based on privately-owned profit driven enterprises. It makes no distinction or judgment on the means by which private property changes hands from one private entity to another.

by your definition, capitalism is a means, rather than an end. If this is the case than profit, and by defintion economic sustainability is not possible when profit is subordinate to pacifism.

As for the supposed superiority of centralized commands, recall that in nearly every case a guerrilla warended in favor of the guerrillas.-- biotube

tell that to the native americans, malayans, iraqi insurgents, boers, et al.

In sum, some fail, some succeed.

More importantly, when they succeed they morph from guerrilla warfare to large scale conventional warfare. No insurgency morphs overnight from guerrilla warfare to immediate power – there is a process in most of these successful campaigns.

39

if they have the means to annex a coveted resource that they feel they can obtain at less cost than a peaceful exchange.

Stealing can result in annexation at a lower cost than peaceful exchange. How is this good for capitalism and society?

40

capitalism is a means, rather than an end. If this is the case than profit, and by defintion economic sustainability is not possible when profit is subordinate to pacifism.

Profits exist as a result of scarcity. Once enough entrepeneurs enter into a market, the price drops tending to redistribute those profits. Coercion, then, is used to establish a monopoly in order to maintain profits. The side effect is that monopoly results in an inefficient use of resources by creating an artificial scarcity or producing an inferior product than would otherwise be created if other producers were allowed to operate in the market. The commensurate defense that secures this monopoly is often, but need not necessarily be limited to, government. What is described by Rettoper as capitalism is really corporatism. Why is this so? Because of the means by which profits are secured.