if my example above is not capitalist , what system is it ?
War. Or Irrational egoism.
Indeed. Watch it, Rettoper. I just banned Stranger (who is an ancap by the way) for insulting you, but I won’t hesitate from banning you too if you continue in this manner. Clean up your act now, or you’re out.
in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource in a profitable manner since the means to fund a security regime comes from profitably utilizing the resource – REttoper
your response:
Not so. Funding can and does come from many alternate sources, as I already said:
One’s source of wealth need not (and typically doesn’t) be derived from the land they occupy. For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it. Likewise, one actively exploiting one’s land doesn’t ensure adequate capital for defense.
my response to the easily identified shortcomings in your argument:
funding can only come from profitable enterprises. it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner’s resources are idle – or he wouldn’t have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited.
however, in the absence of profitable operations somewhere else within the turner corporation, turner would be unable to defend this idle land (provided a more more powerful actor coveted it) since he could not fund a security regime to defend it.
Lastly, owners like turner cannot long afford to allow valued resources to remain idle since they will begin to see their economic strength relative to more profit driven actors wane thereby increasing the likelihood that he will eventually lose his valued resources due to predation in the absence of a voluntary exchange.
War. Or Irrational egoism.-- angurse
are you asserting that using coercion to obtain a profit when peaceful exchange is not possible is irrational ?
i stand corrected.
although no offense was taken from stranger’s insults.
I hope he will be reinstated.
are you asserting that using coercion to obtain a profit when peaceful exchange is not possible is irrational ?
Currently, yes. There are almost always cheaper means than aggression. But there are always outliers. For instance, if your goal (profit) was simply to rape a woman, then peaceful exchange simply isn’t a possibility, so rape would be rational.
I agree. It is more likely the US will lose in war because of the costs associated with coercion than by the hands of the guerrilla forces it opposes. In the long term, the guerrilla forces win as a consequence of the unsustainability of a concentration of force.–Lyle
the method that the US currently utilizes to fight guerrilla forces is not economical. However, the political goal of US actions abroad are not based on economic gain — it is primarily based on promotion of representative governance and the peace, stability, and freedom that results from this outcome.
as a result, the concentration of force is not directed at defeating guerrilla forces – it is directed at protecting lives and property of indigoneous populations until they can form institutions that are amenable to representative governance.
the USA could utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight if we had the political will to do so. INdeed, if the US was a private ancap enterprise it could have used any number of lethal means and weapons to destroy the taliban, baathists, al qaeda, et al in short order with little cost and risk. however, it is fortunate from a humanitarian perspective that the US is a liberal democracy, hence we place human life (both ours and theirs) above economic costs when waging war.
Currently, yes. There are almost always cheaper means than aggression. But there are always outliers. For instance, if your goal (profit) was simply to rape a woman, then peaceful exchange simply isn’t a possibility, so rape would be rational. – angurse
in the last 500 posts, when I use the term profit – I was refering to ECONOMIC PROFIT.
obviously a harmless misunderstanding.
moreover, rape is irrational if the rapist seeks economic gain from the ‘exchange’
no that we have cleared up the semantic impasse.
I ask you again:
you still think that it is irrational for a ECONOMIC PROFIT driven actor to use coercion to obtain ECONOMIC PROFIT when peaceful exchange is not possible?
the method that the US currently utilizes to fight guerrilla forces is not economical. […] the USA could utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight if…the US was a private ancap enterprise.
So in fact, the very nature of anarcho-capitalism is either NOT anathema to all of your tenets or that your tenets are wrong.
funding can only come from profitable enterprises.
A-ha! You’ve changed your stance from: in order to fund a security regime to protect a valued resource from predation, an owner must utilize that resource to: funding can only come from profitable enterprises. Two very different ideas. Very good.
it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner’s resources are idle – or he wouldn’t have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited.
A quick glance at my example will show just the opposite in fact:
For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it.
Capital is a resource.
however, in the absence of profitable operations somewhere else within the turner corporation, turner would be unable to defend this idle land (provided a more more powerful actor coveted it) since he could not fund a security regime to defend it.
The profitable operations within the Turner corporation aren’t a necessity either, as funding (and any form of assistance) can come from outside sources. Loans, fraternal organizations, mutual aid associations, special interest groups, and even rival defense organization whom don’t want their competitors to gain more power. Plenty of options.
Lastly, owners like turner cannot long afford to allow valued resources to remain idle since they will begin to see their economic strength relative to more profit driven actors wane thereby increasing the likelihood that he will eventually lose his valued resources due to predation in the absence of a voluntary exchange.
This rests on the assumption that wealthier an actor becomes the more likely they are to steal, the opposite is more common. Such people would be well advised not to steal, as idle resources are extremely important and necessary for a health economy.
i dont follow your argument.
successful and efficient ancap PDAs are profit driven hence they will use the most economical means to destroy an insurgency irrespective of the innocent civilian life lost.
the hypothetical ancap “USA” that I was referring to had nothing in common with the current USA except that the ancap “USA” was the global hegemon.
in contrast, the real USA is a liberal democracy, hence we fight economically wasteful wars against insurgents in order to achieve objectives (primarily political, as opposed to economic) while reducing friendly, civilian, and often enemy casualties.
in sum, your criticism of past guerrilla campaigns are based on the execution of these campaigns by liberal democracies that are not profit driven. IN contrast, guerrilla movements would be destroy in short order by an ancap hegemon similar in strength to the USA.
Rettoper,
Enjoyed the convo. It explores the possibilities that can exist within an ancap society. I, however, disagree that AnCap can properly be labeled as pacifist. AnCaps do believe in self-defense. They limit force to defense simply because they don’t find aggression (the initiation of force) to be productive in the long term. This is hardly pacifist, but stands to good reason.
it is painfully obvious that you have conveniently ignored that not all of ted turner’s resources are idle – or he wouldn’t have the wherewithal to defend the few idle resources he possesses like the forest land you cited. – Rettoper
your response:
A quick glance at my example will show just the opposite in fact:
For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it.
Capital is a resource.
if the resource is idle, how is turner going to fund a security for the idle resource ?
note that IDLE means that the value of the property is not leverage at all – it is sitting idle in every respect.
so i ask you – how does turner provide defense for an idle resource ?
If the nature of AnCap is anathema to all your tenets for success, how can AnCap produce a private enterprise for the US to “utterly destroy any insurgency in a fortnight”?
Either AnCap is not anathema or your tenets are wrong.
Lyle,
thanks for the exchange. I enjoyed the discussion with someone who understood the substance of my assertions. To often, my arguments are misunderstood or misrepresented on this site.
yes, I agree with you that ancaps might be vigorous in defense, however that still does not explain the inefficiency associated with rejecting coercion to gain a profit or valued resource in the absence of voluntary exchange.
that is why these pacifist ancaps will never gain and hold power.
In contrast, realist ancaps that understand force will be more likely to gain and hold power. Although your arguments regarding monopolies and economic calculation seem to support the assertion that a hegemon PDA will not be able to hold power indefinitely.
in the last 500 posts, when I use the term profit – I was refering to ECONOMIC PROFIT.
You need to seriously bone up on your Austrian Economics buddy.
then he ignores the Austrian School insight that people, even in business, act to maximize their “psychic” rather than monetary profit, and that such psychic profit may include all sorts of values, none of which is more or less arbitrary than another.
Assuming you mean entrepreneurial profit:
you still think that it is irrational for a ECONOMIC PROFIT driven actor to use coercion to obtain ECONOMIC PROFIT when peaceful exchange is not possible?
Quite. Peaceful exchange is always possible.
The profitable operations within the Turner corporation aren’t a necessity either, as funding (and any form of assistance) can come from outside sources. Loans, fraternal organizations, mutual aid associations, special interest groups, and even rival defense organization whom don’t want their competitors to gain more power. Plenty of options.–angurse
how are these generous enterprises going to continue to fund ted turner if they are giving their capital away?
is handing money over to an individual so he can defend idle resources a profitable business model?
your sounding like a keynesian or socialist angurse giving away resources to unprofitable enterprises.
how is turner going to fund a security for the idle resource ?
By liquidating, trading, or converting the capital.
how are these generous enterprises going to continue to fund ted turner if they are giving their capital away?
Who said they had to continue? To answer your question though, by their subscribers and customers of course.
is handing money over to an individual so he can defend idle resources a profitable business model?
Depends. If their rival is quelled, and therefore become less of a threat, definitely.
your sounding like a keynesian or socialist angurse giving away resources to unprofitable enterprises.
Pro-bono work happens daily. Its good publicity. Look at the long-term.
then he ignores the Austrian School insight that people, even in business, act to maximize their “psychic” rather than monetary profit, and that such psychic profit may include all sorts of values, none of which is more or less arbitrary than another. --angurse
psychic profit is fine, but how is it going to pay for defense ?
Quite. Peaceful exchange is always possible.–angurse
manifestly false.
would a profitable actor or enterprise pay for an underdefended and underutilized valued resource of a negligent inefficient actor asking an exorbidant price for the resource when the profitable actor or enterprise could take the valued resource using coercion at lesser cost?
By liquidating, trading, or converting the capital. – angurse
seriously angurse, I dont have time for this.
obviously if the resource is utilized in this manner it is not IDLE.
see my earlier post on this – it was obvious where you were going with your argument and I specifically stated that the resource couldnt be used for ANY economic profit or gain.
in sum, read my responses and I will entertain your questions, comments at the end of the thread.