Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible

Economics Political Theory
101

angruse,

you have left the tracks completely,

the fact that there are transaction costs is not a rebut of the following statement:

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

Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.

In sum, your assertion simply supports my thesis or does nothing to refute it, namely that ancap society would devolve into larger hegemonic firms thereby increasing the threat of absolutism.

102

The way you worded it makes it seem that all coercion is beneficial to society, which is a self-contradiction - eliotn

you are correct not all coercion is beneficial to society. but eventually the accumulated coercive and peaceful exchange within the overall ancap economy will allow valued resources to be reallocated to their most efficient economic use.

(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-- eliotn

coercion is simply a means to redistribute valued resources, the individual or enterprises that is the most productive will generally win this competition thereby allowing for the reallocation of valued resources to its most economically productive owner.

an unproductive use is demonstrated when an inefficient or negligent owner cannot provide adequate defense because he has not utilized the valued resource productively. Hence coercion is a useful tool to reallocate resources from unproductive uses to productive uses when peaceful exchange is not possible

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. – eliotn

I base this assertion on the empirical evidence that confirms that liberal democracies are inherently peaceful toward other liberal democracies:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM

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. – eliotn

True, everyone has different goals. However within ancap society those individuals and enterprises that are economically profit driven would accumulate the most valued resources, wealth, and material power – all required to build and maintain powerful security agencies.

In contrast, those actors who were not motivated to accumulate material wealth and profit would not have the capital to fund aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, nuclear weaponry, et al.

In sum, aesthetically motivated actors would not be able to fund powerful PDAs relative to more economically profit driven actors hence that would eventually impact their ability to defend and hold these valued resources.

103

Rettoper,

I’ll admit I didn’t read every post in this thread but you essentially see a legitimation of coercion to maximize output efficiently?

Do you disregard social justice in this premise for the sake of argument? If so, your recap is false, in my opinion, because the primary tenet of libertarianism is focused on justice for the individual against coercive exchange (the reason why the state has been eliminated).

The hypothetical contemporary world of ancap is a property-based society. The largest companies deliver the most satisfaction, they are the ones which provide individuals with the goods on their praxeological lists. A coercive exchange is not mutually beneficial therefore neglecting the essence of libertarianism. In markets, competition is very ambitious and the companies which respect property and adhere to libertarian justice will be the most succesful, most effective AND most efficient. As Angurse has mentioned the transaction costs are signifcantly higher in coercive exchange; not to mention the effect on reputability and public mindfulness on incorruptibility.

104

Not so. The transactions costs for specific companies - namely ones that are more likely to annex your property, would increase. As people would want much more to do business with them due to the increased risk.

Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.

Also, this analysis is completely nonsensical. 1. It isn’t the cost of security that would increase, the cost of doing business would increase. 2. There isn’t any increased competition, that simply isn’t the effect of transaction costs. 3. If your analysis were correct it would logically lead to decreased competition, you are conflating increased transaction costs with the nation-wide effects of taxes and regulation. 4. Increased competition lowers a firms market share it doesn’t increase it. Learn basic economics.

105

Do you disregard social justice in this premise for the sake of argument? If so, your recap is false, in my opinion, because the primary tenet of libertarianism is focused on justice for the individual against coercive exchange (the reason why the state has been eliminated). – mahall

liberty and freedom, while natural rights, are not guaranteed.

it is the responsibility of the individual citizen or enterprise to secure and protect their own liberty.

moreover, it is despotic to hold another person responsible for insuring and protecting another citizen’s ‘rights’.

in ancap society, private individuals and enterprises would have to enforce and protect their own freedom and it could only be guaranteed by force.

follow this exchange from a contributor who did not understand this truth to better understand my position:

"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. … – angursee

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? – Rettoper

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

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? Yes, it is a difficulty. Nonetheless, I still challenged you to respond on how you enforce your ‘rights’ under these circumstances – and that challenge remains unanswered. --Rettoper

Defending rights has nothing to do with capitalism qua capitalism. However, to respond to your non-sequitur challenge… angurse

I’m SOL in such circumstance, as would be pretty much anyone in such situation. – angurse

Of course, this skeptic came around to admitting the obvious. However, he confirms his lack of understanding with his last statement – 'pretty much anyone in such situation’ – wrong – an individual or enterprise that was well armed (due to productive profit seeking actions) would largely be immune from predation.

106

The hypothetical contemporary world of ancap is a property-based society. The largest companies deliver the most satisfaction, they are the ones which provide individuals with the goods on their praxeological lists. A coercive exchange is not mutually beneficial therefore neglecting the essence of libertarianism. In markets, competition is very ambitious and the companies which respect property and adhere to libertarian justice will be the most succesful, most effective AND most efficient. As Angurse has mentioned the transaction costs are signifcantly higher in coercive exchange; not to mention the effect on reputability and public mindfulness on incorruptibility. – mahall

Not true, Ancap society is based on capitalism which is only sustainable by profitable activities. Moreover, when property or resources change hands through coercion they are still in private hands.

Lastly, ancap society would reward profitable enterprises and individuals – not necessarily those that respected property rights at the expense of increased profits.

history is replete with examples of the societies that wielded power productively being the most powerful, secure, and prosperous – if not the most feared and respected.

individuals and enterprises that expertly accumulated and wielded valued resources would attract the most investors, talent, wealth, capital, and power irrespective of the manner in which they obtained this power.

107

Of course, this skeptic came around to admitting the obvious. However, he confirms his lack of understanding with his last statement – 'pretty much anyone in such situation’ – wrong – an individual or enterprise that was well armed (due to productive profit seeking actions) would largely be immune from predation.

What are you talking about? Re-read your own premise.

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?

Any individual, even one who “was well armed (due to his profit seeking actions)” is still completely SOL with a Mossberg in his mouth. He has obviously lost the struggle at that point. Enterprises don’t have mouths though so it doesn’t apply there at all.

108

Not so. The transactions costs for specific companies - namely ones that are more likely to annex your property, would increase. As people would want much more to do business with them due to the increased risk. – angurse

this comment doesnt make sense. A targeted company would have to spend more money on defense, if it was small relative to the predator PDA then its bottom line would suffer and it would be at increased risk of failure. Moreover, it is absurd to think that a company at risk of predation would attract investors since these new owners would be at increased risk of losing their investment. In contrast, productive and profitable individuals, investors, and enterprises that would likely see an increase in investment capital from profit seeking investors irrespective of whether the productive firm used coercion or peaceful exchange to increase profits.

IN sum, profit seeking investors would never invest in unprofitable companies simply because they are ‘peaceful and nice’. Of course, idealist pacifist would invest in ‘nice’ firms and see their investment decline due to predation among other factors.

Take a look at the geopolitik – respect for private property at the expense of profit doesnt guarantee anything, except that you have abrogated an important method for gaining wealth, security, and power and at the same time given your profit seeking rival a critical upper hand in future competition.

See Warren Buffet for a refutation of your naive assertion: http://money.cnn.com/2007/04/17/news/companies/pluggedin_gunther_darfur.fortune/index.htm

Also, this analysis is completely nonsensical. It isn’t the cost of security that would increase, the cost of doing business would increase. --angurse

WOW are you serious dude !

by your definition, the cost a firm spends on security is not part of the cost of doing business ?!

If your analysis were correct it would logically lead to decreased competition - angurse

my analysis does lead to decreased competition, as I stated earlier:

Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.–Rettoper

Increased competition lowers a firms market share it doesn’t increase it. Learn basic economics. --angurse

This is getting tedious. Across the entire market, competition weeds out the less productive enterprises eventually leading to a market of nimble large and stable firms (PDAs) exactly as I stated above.

In sum, through lack or understanding or evasion, you cherry-picked your analysis by focusing on an individual hypothetical (unproductive) firm that loses market share due to unproductive business practices – but the industry as a whole would see these weaker firms fail due to acquisitions, predation, and mergers with larger more productive firms.

109

Any individual, even one who “was well armed (due to his profit seeking actions)” is still completely SOL with a Mossberg in his mouth. He has obviously lost the struggle at that point. Enterprises don’t have mouths though so it doesn’t apply there at all. -angurse

you seriously dont understand the idea that a ‘mossberg in the mouth’ implies that your security regime had failed and should not be taken literally ?

IN sum, the inefficient and unproductive actor didnt lose the ‘struggle’ at the moment the mossberg was inserted into his pie-hole – it was lost when the defeated actor was unable or unwilling to effectively manage his coveted resource(s) at an economically profitable level. Hence, he did not have the resources to fund an adequate security regime.

if you need clarification or dont understand the difference between literal and figurative, please ask.

110

[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
liberty and freedom, while natural rights, are not guaranteed.

it is the responsibility of the individual citizen or enterprise to secure and protect their own liberty.

moreover, it is despotic to hold another person responsible for insuring and protecting another citizen’s ‘rights’.

in ancap society, private individuals and enterprises would have to enforce and protect their own freedom and it could only be guaranteed by force.
[/quote]

The individual is free to choose if or how to defend themselves and their property. I don’t think we were debating this.

[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
Not true, Ancap society is based on capitalism which is only sustainable by profitable activities. Moreover, when property or resources change hands through coercion they are still in private hands.
[/quote]

In ancap there is no such property besides that of ‘private hands’ ownership, no argument there. My posistion is that using Mossbergs offensively as a means of exchange is much more costly than voluntarism.

Your description reminds me of eminent domain, do you agree?

[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
Lastly, ancap society would reward profitable enterprises and individuals – not necessarily those that respected property rights at the expense of increased profits.
[/quote]

You have described the actions of a crime syndicate and then declared the capitalist society would approve of their profit seeking, coercion based, venture. I don’t think that is a sound argument. An anti-statist (voluntary) society would not approve of statist (involuntary) means.

By the way, every society is based on individual self interest (greed) and profit.

[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
history is replete with examples of the societies that wielded power productively being the most powerful, secure, and prosperous – if not the most feared and respected.
[/quote]

Sure, history certainly is ripe with coercion, doesn’t mean the future has to be.

[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
individuals and enterprises that expertly accumulated and wielded valued resources would attract the most investors, talent, wealth, capital, and power irrespective of the manner in which they obtained this power.
[/quote]

‘Ancap power’ is a different breed of power then which you have just described. Just out of curiosity, how attracted would capitalist individuals be to enterprises which wrecklessly pollute riverways and refuse to pay compensation?

111

A targeted company would have to spend more money on defense, if it was small relative to the predator PDA then its bottom line would suffer and it would be at increased risk of failure. Moreover, it is absurd to think that a company at risk of predation would attract investors since these new owners would be at increased risk of losing their investment. In contrast, productive and profitable individuals, investors, and enterprises that would likely see an increase in investment capital from profit seeking investors irrespective of whether the productive firm used coercion or peaceful exchange to increase profits.

Nowhere have I postured a scenario where a company is “targeting” another. Your are refuting arguments that haven’t been brought up. Please stick to my argument.

IN sum, profit seeking investors would never invest in unprofitable companies simply because they are ‘peaceful and nice’. Of course, idealist pacifist would invest in ‘nice’ firms and see their investment decline due to predation among other factors.

Never have I said profit seeking investors would invest in “nice” firms.

Take a look at the geopolitik – respect for private property at the expense of profit doesnt guarantee anything, except that you have abrogated an important method for gaining wealth, security, and power and at the same time given your profit seeking rival a critical upper hand in future competition.

The “geopolitik” doesn’t exist within a capitalist framework, so that is a moot point.

by your definition, the cost a firm spends on security is not part of the cost of doing business ?!

Quote me.

my analysis does lead to decreased competition, as I stated earlier:

Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition.–Rettoper

Read the last line.

Across the entire market, competition weeds out the less productive enterprises eventually leading to a market of nimble large and stable firms (PDAs) exactly as I stated above.

That isn’t anything close to:

Indeed, as the cost of security increased due to increases in violence, the PDA industry would likely see a consolidation of PDAs to a few larger firms since the smaller firms would not be able to absorb the higher costs associated with increased competition

Competition leads to continual changes in the market, “nimble and stable” today bankrupt tomorrow.

So please, get back to my point about transaction costs.

Not so. The transactions costs for specific companies - namely ones that are more likely to annex your property, would increase. As people would want much more to do business with them due to the increased risk.

Would people be more or less likely to do business with risky companies?

you seriously dont understand the idea that a ‘mossberg in the mouth’ implies that your security regime had failed and should not be taken literally ?

Of course not, specific scenarios require specific answers. If you meant vague generalities you should have said so. (i.e. by presenting it as such)

you seriously dont understand the idea that a ‘mossberg in the mouth’ implies that your security regime had failed and should not be taken literally ?

All security regimes have fallen/are currently falling/will fall. Such a point isn’t exclusive to any system, so its meaningless.

112

angurse,

I will try and make it easy for you and go very slow since it is apparent that you either dont understand my thesis or you are unable to rebut it with substantive debate so you have resorted to off-topic, vague and diversionary fallacious retorts.

  1. do you believe that coercion exists ?

  2. if yes, do you believe that all actors that resort to coercion to achieve economic ends are irrational ?

I am trying to make it easy for you, so we will resolve these simple points before moving forward.

113
  1. if yes, do you believe that all actors that resort to coercion to achieve economic ends are irrational ?

Yes. In a capitalist environment there are always cheaper alternatives.

Note: I’m using coercion as a synonym for aggression, I’m not against defensive measures.

114

Angurse,

I would disagree. Action is always rational.

115

"I base this assertion on the empirical evidence that confirms that liberal democracies are inherently peaceful toward other liberal democracies:

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/MIRACLE.HTM"

This only answers part of my question, of whether such a government will be hostile to certain other governmental organizations through war. What I want to know includes whether people within government employ coercion against people in areas that are not liberal, or whether such an organization employs coercion against residents, known as citizens.

“coercion is simply a means to redistribute valued resources, the individual or enterprises that is the most productive will generally win this competition thereby allowing for the reallocation of valued resources to its most economically productiveowner.”

If you accept this argument, you must accept that all existing governments are economically productive. All successful crime is economically productive. This is contradictiory with my definition of economic productivity, which is the test of whether a firm is satisfying consumers without coercion.

“an unproductive use is demonstrated when an inefficient or negligent owner cannot provide adequate defense because he has not utilized the valued resource productively.”

Non-sequitor. How someone defends a resource has no correlation on how they are using it productively. To show my point, firms that

“Hence coercion is a useful tool to reallocate resources from unproductive uses to productive uses when peaceful exchange is not possible”

This argument justifies all coercive exchanges in all situations. If a peaceful exchange was possible in the scenario, it would have been done beforehand, as both actors would have voluntarily accepted it. You can cite scenarios where someone used coercion in an instance where it would have been possible to do the exact exchange, except both actors didn’t know it, but I could counter by making the exchange more favorable for the coercer.

Hence, the need to define what you mean by “when peaceful exchange is not possible”, as some other arguments indicate that this is contradictiory to when you say coercive exchange is economically productive.

"True, everyone has different goals. However within ancap society those individuals and enterprises that are economically profit driven would accumulate the most valued resources, wealth, and material power – all required to build and maintain powerful security agencies.

In contrast, those actors who were not motivated to accumulate material wealth and profit would not have the capital to fund aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, nuclear weaponry, et al."

  1. I see a non sequitor. Motivation to acquire material wealth does not imply material wealth. People may be motivated to gain material wealth, but choose inappropriate ends to their means. On the other hand, people who are unmotivated to gain material wealth may receive an inheritance or gift.

Also, the fact that PDAs are profit driven is actually a boon, as it motivates them to provide effective defense. Coercion is unprofitable as people will stop using their service and rival PDAs will be on their case.

116

I would disagree. Action is always rational.

Makes the term rational a bit too pleonastic for my casual tastes, loosen your Misesian terminological standards a bit.

117

I’ve got it on the mind since I’m reading HA for the first time. Would you agree that ‘illogical’ or ‘unreasonable’ would be the better desciptive word for a resort to coercive exchange? I hear what you are saying but action, by defintion, is rational.

118

I’ve got it on the mind since I’m reading HA for the first time. Would you agree that ‘illogical’ or ‘unreasonable’ would be the better desciptive word for a resort to coercive exchange? I hear what you are saying but action, by defintion, is rational.

By Mises’ definition Action is always rational, but that definitely is not the traditional usage. I like the terms “purposeful” or “purposive” instead or when being technical “Misesian Rationality.” Besides irrational, I can’t really think of a fitting term for “employs the wrong means for the end sought.” Unwise perhaps.

119

How about mistaken? Also emphasis should be placed on the nature of the mistake, it seems people often have in mind mistakes of a technical nature

120

angurse take note — eliotn offers an example of rational, informed, and substantive rebuts:

What I want to know includes whether people within government employ coercion against people in areas that are not liberal, or whether such an organization employs coercion against residents, known as citizens.-- eloitn

all government is coercive – liberal democracies employ a more subtle and less violent form of coercion.

If you accept this argument, you must accept that all existing governments are economically productive. All successful crime is economically productive. --eloitn

government is not economically productive since wealth is redistributed from profitable enterprises and individuals to politically connected enterprises and individuals. Politicians and their cronies in the private and public sector are motivated by the rules of politics, not economics.

How someone defends a resource has no correlation on how they are using it productively. To show my point, firms that…This argument justifies all coercive exchanges in all situations. If a peaceful exchange was possible in the scenario, it would have been done beforehand, as both actors would have voluntarily accepted it. You can cite scenarios where someone used coercion in an instance where it would have been possible to do the exact exchange, except both actors didn’t know it, but I could counter by making the exchange more favorable for the coercer. – eliotn

all exchanges whether peaceful or coercive represent subjective value judgments on the value of the resource being traded and coerced – and the means by which the resource changes hands.

Hence, coercion is justified in all cases it is used when the actor believes that he is using the most effective means to achieve his goal. In fact, all forms of coercion can be considered pre-emptive and self-defense because of the inherent nature of mankind toward violence.

the need to define what you mean by “when peaceful exchange is not possible”, as some other arguments indicate that this is contradictiory to when you say coercive exchange is economically productive. --eliotn

peaceful exchange is not possible when an actor decides it isnt. the market will eventually determine whether coercive acts are economically successful as it does with peaceful exchanges.

Motivation to acquire material wealth does not imply material wealth. People may be motivated to gain material wealth, but choose inappropriate ends to their means. On the other hand, people who are unmotivated to gain material wealth may receive an inheritance or gift.. – eliotn

I disagree, call me crazy or an idealist – but I am going to go out on a limb and assert that economically motivated actors will accumulate more economic wealth then actors who are not motivated by economic ends.

of course, we are dealing with human beings, never an exact science, and I am sure you could cite anecdotal evidence of a non-economically motivated actor becoming rich.

Also, the fact that PDAs are profit driven is actually a boon, as it motivates them to provide effective defense. Coercion is unprofitable as people will stop using their service and rival PDAs will be on their case.-- eliotn

we says a PDA must provide defense? It is possible that private militaries possessing tanks, bombers, aircraft carriers, et al will be funded by plunder, mergers, acquistions, hostile takeovers, and profit driven investors to secure lucrative centers of gravity like, water/food stuffs, geographic choke points, energy reserves, transportation hubs, earth orbits, mineral deposits, industrial centers, et al.

moreover, a successful and aggressive offensive minded PDA would attract more investors, talent, and resources. IN contrast, I think PDA that provided security to individual citizens would be equivalent to local police and of no consequence to PDA that projected power on a global scale.