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.–angurse
Do you think that the US had cheaper alternatives to securing native american lands then aggression ?
Do you think that the US had cheaper alternatives to securing native american lands then aggression ?
Yes, As Jennifer Roback said:
Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly.
angurse,
how do you envision the colonists securing native american land from the appalachains to the pacific without resorting to coercion and before the spanish, english, french, russians, and later the canadians and mexicans taking the land instead ?
how do you envision the colonists securing native american land from the appalachains to the pacific without resorting to coercion and before the spanish, english, french, russians, and later the canadians and mexicans taking the land instead ?
By purchasing it.
you seriously think that native americans would have sold their land?
can you cite a historical equivalent when an indigenous population sold over 2 million sq miles to an outside power ?
I can’t.
you seriously think that native americans would have sold their land?
Try opening a history book - its a historical fact that Native Americans sold their land. As James Springer wrote:
The native often took the initiative in such transactions, for he coveted the white man’s goods as keenly as the settler yearned for more land.
Try opening a history book - its a historical fact that Native Americans sold their land. As James Springer wrote:
The native often took the initiative in such transactions, for he coveted the white man’s goods as keenly as the settler yearned for more land.
Yes, As Jennifer Roback said:
Europeans generally acknowledged that the Indians retained possessory rights to their lands. More important, the English recognized the advantage of being on friendly terms with the Indians. Trade with the Indians, especially the fur trade, was profitable. War was costly.
My response:
It is expected and unconvincing that you would cite obscure anecdotal evidence from marginal sources to support your faith-based view on the efficacy of peaceful exchange in all cases relative to coercion to achieve ends.
Rational and objective realists can point to the overwhelming preponderance of empirical evidence that proves the utility of coercion to achieve desired ends, thereby debunking your skepticism regarding coercion.
Try opening a history book:
Greece, Rome, and the Anglo-Saxon empires all used coercion to achieve ends and dominate the geopolitik.
Indeed, if the efficacy of peaceful means were preferable in all cases then why have some many powerful and successful hegemons used coercion to achieve national goals?
it is preposterous for ancaps to cite empirical evidence to criticize the efficacy of coercion to achieve desired ends when some many powerful actors and states have used this tool to overwhelm less violent competitors.
it is also amusing that pacifists who dont have a societal ‘pot to piss in’ are quick to criticize the primary means by which the most historically successful leaders and societies have chosen to achieve desired ends.
I have this challenge to the pacitist ancaps:
if anachro-capitalism is the most effective system for providing wealth and prosperity AND peace is the most effective means to achieving desired ends
where is anachro-capitalism ?
Just because everybody would get ahead because of a general respect regarding the rules of peaceful social cooperation doesn’t mean that anyone can get ahead at the same speed. There are always possibilities for deviant behavior.
What we deny is that it makes sense to try to justify deviant behavior.
From the fact that you’ve repeatedly spelled it that way, it seems you think that’s how it’s actually spelled. So, fyi, it’s anarcho-capitalism.
We’ve gone over this particular question with you innumerable times. If you’re not satisfied with our answers then fine. But don’t act like we haven’t addressed it.
To actually move the discussion forward, instead of retreading old ground, you could have offered something like, “Some here have claimed that historical absense of any given social order proves nothing, because X, Y, Z. But I contend that is not the case, because A, B, C.”
Are you interested in moving the discussion forward? Or do you want to just repeat the same old lines over and over again?
Do we always have to start at square one with you?
Normally, people read the sources prior to dismissing them as “obscure” “anecdotal” and “marginal.” But we can’t let facts get in the way of our theory, or gasp spend time reading.
grayson,
I am not challenging capitalism’s efficacy, that is unquestioned by both logic and empiricism.
However, I am challenging the ancap notion that noteworthy human goals like capitalism can be attained and preserved in the absence of coercion.
Indeed, the reason why capitalism has been marginalized and bastardized by the state for so long is that too many adherents are mired in pacifist dogma.
To prove my assertion, do ancaps agree with the following quote:
Just because everybody would get ahead because of a general respect regarding the rules of peaceful social cooperation doesn’t mean that anyone can get ahead at the same speed. There are always possibilities for deviant behavior.
What we deny is that it makes sense to try to justify deviant behavior. – AdrianHealey
competition is the means by which mankind has moved from the caves and savannah to the 21st century.
moreover, the most aggressive form of competition is coercion that excites the most creative and innovation developments and changes in the human condition.
The free market forces owners to utilize resources aggressively and effectively in order to gain capital which is necessary to defend the resource. The threat coercion forces all actors in society to refrain from idleness or they will lose their wealth – society as a whole benefits.
The absence of coercion would lead to idleness and sloth since negligent owners of valued resources would not be motivated to generate profits from their property, skill set, and capital.
coercion represents the societal ‘kick in the ass’ that keeps everybody busy and productive.
indeed, coercion will be the means by which the bounties of capitalism are finally brought to the masses.
lol i see retopper is still around peddling statism.
As usual you are overconfident in your assessment. History tends to be cyclic and it’s our time. You can’t stop it. Maybe you haven’t been paying attention to recent electoral politics in the U.S., media, or anywhere else you look because libertarian ideas are presently permeating throughout society. It is only a matter of time.
One thing is certain, principled libertarians are relentless.
Normally, people read the sources prior to dismissing them as “obscure” “anecdotal” and “marginal.” But we can’t let facts get in the way of our theory, or gasp spend time reading. – angurese
Your facts are minitua and anecdotal. Hence a couple irrelevent quotes from marginal authorities of no note.
I read them, I wasnt impressed, I’ve debunked them.
THe challenge remains:
if capitalism is the most effective system for promoting societal health and well being (and based on overwhelming empirical and logical evidence, it is), AND if peaceful exchange and peaceful processess are the most effective at forcing change, then
why hasnt the most effective system emerge by means of the most effective process ?
ponder that, and please no more ridiculous and irrelevent quotes from obscure ‘authorities’ – rather think for yourself and provide your own argument. MOreover, if you use empirical evidence, provide a summation in your own words of the pertinent points.
lol i see retopper is still around peddling statism. – live free or die
typical that you have misrepresented my position.
read previous posts — I have always condemned statism.
In fact I challenge you to find one quote that supports statism, except that they appear to understand the force, hence that is why they have maintaied the upperhand in society for so long.
not surprisingly, you didnt comprehend the meaning of my post.
force is the midwife of every old society pregnant with a new one – karl marx
grayson,
your assertion that the masses havent been informed regarding the efficacy of capitalism is absurd.
capitalism has been present since before the dawn of civilization. moreover, it’s apparent bounties have been common knowledge since the dawn of civilization, YET..
it has not been realized to the extent that it should, WHY…
other less successful systems have had to exert power through coercion which has provided them with the upper hand throughout history.
moreover, the lame argument that eventually the most effective system emerges is immediately debunked since the critical unbalanced inertia that has led to changes and improvements in society have been by coercion. FOr example, classical liberalism didnt become practical until force was used (1776) and it didnt survive without constant application of force against larger statist threats.
force is the antithesis of freedom, but force must be used, if only to defend against other force – Thomas Sowell
Violence begets violence. Advocate Non Aggression do I. That does not a pacifist one make. Misprepresent your position I have not. Consumed with centralized defense you are. Yes. Centralized or decentralized does not a good defense make. Free people choosing to defend is all the defense you require. Faith in the force of free of people have I… and a powerful ally it is.
Rettoper,
You need to drop the outpouring of scornful, derisive color commentary (“absurd”, “lame”, “typical you don’t comprehend…”, etc). Thank you for your cooperation.
Violence begets violence.–lfod
I agree, thereby dispelling the notion that ancap society is peaceful, since (by your definition) coercion begets coercion irrespective of the system under which it is occurs.
Faith in the force of free of people have I… and a powerful ally it is. — lfod
I have faith in the force of freedom as well, and unlike you, I understand that free people will use whatever means available, including coercion, to obtain desired goals.
moreover, I think that adherents of capitalism do not understand that the means are as important as the ends.
In sum, capitalists are playing on an uneven playing field by surrendering the exclusive right of preemptive coercion to the statist.
Until ancaps learn to effectively wield power by studying the likes of thucydided, machivelli, hobbes, et al instead of george lucas – then you will continue to be fringe.