Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible

Economics Political Theory
81

Such people would be well advised not to steal, as idle resources are extremely important and necessary for a health economy. – angurse

i have to respond to this post since you have made some excellent observations.

allowing resources to remain idle can be a profitable course of action. Of course, the substance of my assertion were largely that PROFITABLE enterprises and individuals would ultimately accumulate the capital needed to both defend and coerce valued resources from less profitable competitors.

but yes, you are correct that sometimes allowing resources to remain temporarly idle is preferable to less profitable immediate uses.

however, since you didnt specifically assert otherwise, I assumed your example of an idle forest was simply an example of a negligent and lazy owner as opposed to a profit driven calculating owner reacting correctly to changing market conditions.

This rests on the assumption that wealthier an actor becomes the more likely they are to steal, the opposite is more common.-- angurse

that is an accurate assumption since a wealthy actor has more capital to fund a coercive act. but these occurances will be rare and only viable when coercion is more profitable then peaceful exchange and the transaction costs of coercion are less then the resulting profit from annexing the valued resource.

later, my shift is over.

thanks for the debate, you hit a three at the end by citing the importance of idle resources under certain market conditions.

82

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?

You haven’t responded to my claim.

I said: Peaceful exchange is always possible.

What the actor/enterprise would do is entirely different than what they could do. So please read more carefully before throwing out your “manifestly false” cries.

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?

Furthermore, every purchaser, of anything, at any time, would like to buy on better terms than those presented. Similarly, to call a price “exorbitant” price" is meaningless. “Exorbitant” compared to what? Show the criteria to determine whether a price is “fair” or “exorbitant.” The same can be said for “inefficient.” Show the criteria to determine whether the use is “efficient” or “inefficient.”

But to answer your question, no. Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.

obviously if the resource is utilized in this manner it is not IDLE.

The forest is idle “acres of forests just sitting” - the capital is not. The more liquid the resource (like capital) the more mobile it is.

allowing resources to remain idle can be a profitable course of action. Of course, the substance of my assertion were largely that PROFITABLE enterprises and individuals would ultimately accumulate the capital needed to both defend and coerce valued resources from less profitable competitors.

I haven’t argued against the notion that wealthier firms and individuals have more means at there disposal. Just the likelihood of them coercing and benefit they’ll derive from said actions.

but yes, you are correct that sometimes allowing resources to remain temporarly idle is preferable to less profitable immediate uses.

however, since you didnt specifically assert otherwise, I assumed your example of an idle forest was simply an example of a negligent and lazy owner as opposed to a profit driven calculating owner reacting correctly to changing market conditions.

Why would such an assumption be the default?

that is an accurate assumption since a wealthy actor has more capital to fund a coercive act.

but these occurances will be rare and only viable when coercion is more profitable then peaceful exchange and the transaction costs of coercion are less then the resulting profit from annexing the valued resource.

No that isn’t an accurate assumption. Its a logical misstep. Having more means at your disposal in no way means that you are more likely to use them coercively.

83

You haven’t responded to my claim.

I said: Peaceful exchange is always possible.

What the actor/enterprise would do is entirely different than what they could do. So please read more carefully before throwing out your “manifestly false” cries. --angurse

in a fantasyland world of miscalculating idiots, peaceful exchange is possible if idiots are willing to pay incredibly exorbidant rents, fees, et al for a valued resource when they could take the same resource by force at less costs

But to answer your question, no. Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.-- angurse

if transaction costs of coercion are prohibitive, why would ancap society need PDAs ?

84

The forest is idle “acres of forests just sitting” - the capital is not. The more liquid the resource (like capital) the more mobile it is.–angurse

waste of time,

go back look at my post, i said specifically that the resource cant be leverage in any way for profit.

you are playing games here and not interested in seriously engaging the substance of my posts and assertion — rather you are engaged in disengenious sideshows, semantic diversions, and fallacious evasions.

i am out of here.

85

in a fantasyland world of miscalculating idiots, peaceful exchange is possible if idiots are willing to pay incredibly exorbidant rents, fees, et al for a valued resource when they could take the same resource by force at less costs

Furthermore, every purchaser, of anything, at any time, would like to buy on better terms than those presented. Similarly, to call a price “exorbitant” price" is meaningless. “Exorbitant” compared to what? Show the criteria to determine whether a price is “fair” or “exorbitant.”

if transaction costs of coercion are prohibitive, why would ancap society need PDAs ?

The same reason society need locks. Because not all men are rational, they don’t possess perfect knowledge, and they simply aren’t angels. Maybe they’ll straighten up, I doubt it though.

go back look at my post, i said specifically that the resource cant be leverage in any way for profit.

Yes, the resource being the one under attack - the forest. There is no reason to assume a fantasy land where Ted Turner cannot sell his stuff.

86

“in a fantasyland world of miscalculating idiots, peaceful exchange is possible if idiots are willing to pay incredibly exorbidant rents, fees, et al for a valued resource when they could take the same resource by force at less costs.”

  1. Cost is subjective.

  2. How does this respond to the other argument?

'if transaction costs of coercion are prohibitive, why would ancap society need PDAs?"

Even in a society without coercion, people may get defense because they want to feel secure, or to guard against an uncertain future.

87

Nitpicks from previous article:

“in sum, capitalism is profit, the means by which profit is attain is secondary.”

All human action seeks to profit. This is not exclusive to any political or economic system.

“Of course, peaceful exchange benefits society to a greater extent than a coercion exchange.”

No, peaceful exchange benefits both, while coercive exchange benefits the exploiter at the expense of the exploited.

“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.”

Are you trying to implicate that it is morally right? Coercion isn’t only possible in this circumstance. What do you mean by the word “possible”.

“property is a valued resource that is precious and coveted,”

property doesn’t need to be seen as precious.

“therefore it must be efficiently utilized and defended or it will be annexed to the overall benefit of society.”

  1. Property doesn’t need to be effeciently utilized, it is up to the owner.

  2. Property doesn’t need to be defended by the owner.

  3. “overall benefit to society” how are you determining this, utilitarianism?

88

“a derivative of this physical law applies in the geopolitical arena, namely the application of force is most effective when it is delivered quickly in large numbers on a focused area of the battlefield or some other center of gravity (command center, communications hub, logistic hub, transportation hub, energy supply, food supply, choke point, high ground, political center, et al).”

  1. I see a problem with your strategy. What if there is no “center of gravity”? Also, your definition of “center of gravity” is vague, and makes it sound like there are multiple “centers to gravity”. I want to know exactly what you mean by the metaphor.

  2. I see another problem. There are scenarios where the application of force is more effective when it is done in small numbers, or unfocused, or done later rather then now. Such as assasinations, large numbers could botch the attempt. To what particular problems does your theory apply.

“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’'”

Strawman, what ancap is adverse to is not the concentration of power in one PDA, but the use of coercion, for example, to prevent another PDA from forming, or forcing people to stay within that PDA. Concentration of power is perfectly compatible with ancap, as long as the power was obtained through noncoercive means, and the people in power do not utilize coercion. Also, Lord Action was speaking in terms of political power of the government, not necessarily of power in an ancap society.

“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,”

Actually, they would be at an advantage. Assuming your theory is correct, that force would be most effective if quickly and effeciently concentrated at the center, the ancap organizations would have every incentive to cooperate, mobilize a force in great numbers and quickly, and cooperitively attack the weak point of any aggressor. i should point out that your strategy does not seem to state that a force is at a disadvantage if there are multiple organizations, where did you get the theory. Even if consumers would be better served by one PDA, the possibility of customers refusing service will prompt the PDA to improve its tactics.

"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. "

Why doesn’t a state have these shortcomings? or one PdA?

“while it may be advantageous and productive for most industries to have a decentralized organization and structure covering a large population within a diverse geographic area – in the defense arena, large concentrated forces under a unified command represent the most effective organizational structure to gain and hold power.”

But PDAs can choose to concentrate their forces under a unified command if they choose to. Or cooperatively pay for a unified command.

89

A lot of people say that people are intuitively against libertarianism, but I agree. It’s just that libertarianism isn’t a philosophy

that is being taught at schools, university’s etc so a lot of people don’t know what it is really about. They just

assume things, and after having 15 years education about the virtues of the state, few people will realize that it

could actually work.

But, I think there is hope. I can clearly remember that I actually had a intuition towards libertarianism at school.

Back then I was a social liberal, just as my parents. But when we had to learn Keynesian Economics I remember

that I had trouble with understanding the models because they didn’t really made sense to me at that time (it didn’t changed

my mind about politics though). Later, when I was introduced to Milton Friedman I understood why. Because Keynesian

Economics is bs. So this is a great advantage for AE. The only thing is we have to keep promote the ideas.

90

peaceful exchange is always possible – angurse

what if the owner refuses to sell ?

The same reason society need locks. Because not all men are rational, they don’t possess perfect knowledge, and they simply aren’t angels. Maybe they’ll straighten up, I doubt it though. – angurse

you are correct that many market participants dont possess perfect knowledge and this condition will lead many to successfully and unsuccessly use coercion to gain a profit. This does indeed prove my assertions that coercion is simply a means to an end – in the case of profit driven actors, coercion is used to secure a profit when peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.

on the other points you are manifestly wrong.

it is not irrational for a profit-driven actor to use coercion to annex a valued resource if peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.

what is irrational is pacifists posing as ancaps believing that coercion is only the act of an irrational person. This idealist naviete is one of the reasons why there has been no sustainable pacifist ancap societies.

91

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.

In sum, you advocate corporate charity so negligent owners like our turner can fund defense for idle resources.

seriously dude, this business model would lead to both the charitable organizations and associations AND your hypothetical turner being ripe for predation from a profit driven individual, investors, and enterprises.

resources need to be utilized to their most profitable use or the owner will not be able to provide a commensurate level of defense for that resource.

92

eliotn,

of course cost is subjective.

the substantive of my argument was that in the absence of peaceful exchange or if peaceful exchange was too costly – profit driven individuals, enterprises, and investors will use coercion to secure the resource by force. This is beneficial to society since it will allow for the reallocation of resources from unproductive uses to productive uses.

Even in a society without coercion, people may get defense because they want to feel secure, or to guard against an uncertain future. --eliotn

why would anyone feel insecure in a world without coercion ?

but we all know the pacifist view is unrealistic and fantasy.

coercion is simply a means to an end, it won’t disappear when/if government disappears. in fact, it may be more common since many governments are motivated by stability, equality, and peace – if not economic profit

in contrast, ancap society will be profit driven, hence if coercion can be utilized to gain a profit in the absence of a peaceful exchange – then coercion it is.

93

what if the owner refuses to sell ?

Exchange with someone else. Notice how easy it is:

A: I would like to buy a soda, please.

B: That’ll be $2.00

A: $2.00! What an exorbitant price! I won’t pay.

Mr. A now has two options to procure the soda, find someone else who is willing to sell for cheaper or steal it. In the long run the former is the better idea.

you are correct that many market participants dont possess perfect knowledge and this condition will lead many to successfully and unsuccessly use coercion to gain a profit. This does indeed prove my assertions that coercion is simply a means to an end – in the case of profit driven actors, coercion is used to secure a profit when peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.

Firstly, it isn’t many market participants, it everyone. Nobody posses perfect knowledge. To the point - that doesn’t prove a thing about your assertion. The fact that people are willing and able to use coercion was never contended… by anyone… ever.

it is not irrational for a profit-driven actor to use coercion to annex a valued resource if peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible.

I’ve already explained why it is. “Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.” Please address arguments, you sound like a parrot.

what is irrational is pacifists posing as ancaps believing that coercion is only the act of an irrational person. This idealist naviete is one of the reasons why there has been no sustainable pacifist ancap societies.

If you used words correctly, I’d respond to that. Moving on…

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.

Didn’t I already reply to these questions/baseless accusations? I did! Please return to page 2, carefully read my response and articulate a thoughtful response. Parroting yourself does not an argument make.

resources need to be utilized to their most profitable use or the owner will not be able to provide a commensurate level of defense for that resource.

The “most profitable use” is always unknown.

94

Concentration of power is perfectly compatible with ancap, as long as the power was obtained through noncoercive means, and the people in power do not utilize coercion. Also, Lord Action was speaking in terms of political power of the government, not necessarily of power in an ancap society.–eliotn

But PDAs can choose to concentrate their forces under a unified command if they choose to. Or cooperatively pay for a unified command.–eliotn

Acton was referring to human beings, not systems.

you dont think that concentrating military power is dangerous?

private PDAs that possess tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, et al will likely coalesce to more effectively meet external threats, then society is at increased risk of the emergence of absolutism.

In contrast, if PDAs dont align to meet threats, they can be destroyed in detail by a larger unified force.

nonetheless, it will no take long for ancap society to morph into a geopolitik of monopoly defense establishments within the various global ancap societies.

95

BramElias,

I agree with you that education will lead to a more free society.

I also agree with you that AE is far more effective at generating societal health and well being then socialism and other keynesian schemes.

IN sum, facts are stubborn things, mankind is becoming more free, albeit in fits and starts.

however, if anything is constant over history is the utility of coercion to secure ends/goals in the absence of peaceful negotiation or exchange.

it is probably beneficial that humans are expert and comfortable in the use of coercion since we would have never left the savannah.

96

angures,

your entire post is rife with misrepresentations, misunderstanding, fallacies, and diversions that I will have to address them in detail starting with the following:

my original post:

it is not irrational for a profit-driven actor to use coercion to annex a valued resource if peaceful exchange is too costly or not possible. – Rettoper

your response:

I’ve already explained why it is. “Such activity will rapidly raise transaction costs.” Please address arguments, you sound like a parrot.–angursee

I have covered this elementary tenet numerous times, please go back and read the original thread if you dont understand.

however for your benefit and education I will repeat this simple tenet:

coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, and (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion.

97

coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion.

That isn’t a response to my claim, it is a complete non-sequitur.

The long-term repercussions of the theft is what leads to higher transaction costs. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with whether a firm or individual at time p may find it cheaper to steal. In the future please ask for clarification before going on rants about my “misrepresentations, misunderstanding, fallacies, and diversions” when you yourself cannot grasp an argument presented but choose to respond blindly anyway.

98

coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion. – Rettoper

Your claim that “long-term repercussions of the theft is what leads to higher transaction costs” is irrelevent to the assertion above.

REad the above quote, I clearly acknowledge that there are transaction costs associated with the use of coercion

and the fact that you have cited a specific transaction cost does nothing to refute my assertion.

do you understand the quote above?

dude, I am watching the super bowl and will address YOUR non-sequiturs and strawman after the game.

99

REad the above quote, I clearly acknowledge that there are transaction costs associated with the use of coercion

Acknowledging that there are transaction costs associated with the use of coercion is not a response.

(And I haven’t cited a specific transaction cost - please read more carefully before replying next time)

I never once claimed: “you aren’t acknowledging transaction costs.”

coercion will be used by a profit driven actor to secure a valued resource when (1) the transaction costs are less then the profit gained from annexing the resource, (2) peaceful exchange is not possible, or (3) peaceful exchange is more costly means then using coercion

Nowhere in this do you cover the economic repercussions of increased transaction costs. (That is, after the theft/annexation has taken place.)

So, DUDE, please take the time to request clarification when you need it, nonsensical replies don’t help your case.

100

" the substantive of my argument was that in the absence of peaceful exchange or if peaceful exchange was too costly – profit driven individuals, enterprises, and investors will use coercion to secure the resource by force. This is beneficial to society since it will allow for the reallocation of resources from unproductive uses to productive uses."

Did you answer the question of when coercion is beneficial? You simply said that “if it is too costly”, which really means whenever someone decides to, as costs are subjective to the individual. The way you worded it makes it seem that all coercion is beneficial to society, which is a self-contradiction (what happens when two people use coercion against each other, whose coercion is beneficial to society?) and demonstratably false. Also, how do you define what is unproductive

“why would anyone feel insecure in a world without coercion ?”

I assume that they are uncertain in regards to whether there will be violence in the future. If everyone felt that they would not be coerced in the future, PDAs, as well as other means of self-defense, will not be undertaken.

"coercion is simply a means to an end, it won’t disappear when/if government disappears. "

Agreed.

“in fact, it may be more common since many governments are motivated by stability, equality, and peace – if not economic profit”

Sorry, but this is a red herring. How does a government’s motivation determine that it will use less coercion then PDAs? Also, people within governments don’t always have these ends in mind.

“in contrast, ancap society will be profit driven”

No, everyone acts in order to profit, and instituting a government creates no exception. Note that profit is subjective, and does not mean monetary profit, but that the world will change to a state that is perceived as better by the actor.