Ancaps believe they ‘wield power’ over their property. Fundamentally we are not autocratic outside the borders of our own property therefore illegitimate claims on other individuals property is a mistake.
Ancaps believe they ‘wield power’ over their property. --mahall
false, you only wield power over your property if your can adequately defend it. And you cannot adequately defend it unless you profitably manage it.
Fundamentally we are not autocratic outside the borders of our own property therefore illegitimate claims on other individuals property is a mistake. – mahall
heady principles dont deter statist tanks, bombers, missiles, et al. I agree with you that private property rights should be respected – however, statist by definition do not observe our views regarding private property.
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
false, you only wield power over your property if your can adequately defend it. And you cannot adequately defend it unless you profitably manage it.
[/quote]
There is a rift between authority and aggression. The property owner is the authority, he wields power legitimately.
Why must a property reap a profit for the land owner or else it will be pillaged? Why not simply, it is the land owners responsibility to defend it from individuals who act outside the law?
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
heady principles dont deter statist tanks, bombers, missiles, et al. I agree with you that private property rights should be respected – however, statist by definition do not observe our views regarding private property.
[/quote]
I’m glad we agree that property ought to be respected. However you are bringing up a different argument here. I thought we were narrowing our scope to hypothetical ancap-land?
Also here is a thread I made entitled Nature of Power: Nature of Power - #4 by mahall
Nothing revolutionary but you can see where some of us are coming from and formulate a more direct objection that way.
Why must a property reap a profit for the land owner or else it will be pillaged? Why not simply, it is the land owners responsibility to defend it from individuals who act outside the law? – mahall
within ancap society, if property or any other valued resource is inadequately defended it will be at increased risk of predation.
this paradigm forces unproductive owners to ‘get off their asses’ and become productive or they will see their mismanaged resources plunder by a more efficient and productive individual, investor, or enterprise.
also, there is a paradox that pacifist ancaps keep butting their heads into – namely if coercion isnt a problem in ancap society, then why do you need protection?!
Their answer is that you need protection from low level crime, hence a small amount spent on protection, yet they never adequately explain why ancap society would only have low level crime !?
if low level crime is possible – why not large scale plunder involving the use of tanks, bombers, battleships, et al ?
furthermore, the ancap doesnt understand my assertion that expenditure on defense must be commensurate to the economic value of the property being defended.
if not, then a valued resource is underdefended and at increase risk of loss through coercion.
to disregard this tenet, exposes the ancap to the problem of economic calculation.
for example, the ancap claims that coercion will not be a problem in ancap society, if so, then every valued resource is either not defended (since it would be a waste of capital to defend against a non-existent risk) or it is defended by a minimal amount not corresponding to the value of the resource.
do you see that by providing protection commensurate with the value of the property, it confirms that the level of security provides a deterrent to loss via coercion ? Hence, if an owner DOES NOT provide the required protection, the property is at increased risk of being ‘stolen’.
in sum, the free market solves the economic calculation problem associated with pacifism since it correctly determines the appropriate level of security for a given resource based on that resource’s economic value. Furthermore, if the owner is negligent in leveraging the property to a high level of economic gain, the property is at increased risk of predation. Moreover, a property that changes hands from a negligent inefficient owner to a productive owner, benefits society in the long run.
Rettoper,
I interpret your premise to be that if valued resources within a claimed territory (ancap-land) are to be used stricly for the good of the group (the ad hoc ‘society’). This ostracizes the private owner (Scrooge) with collective claims to his property.
I feel your comparison to American Indians earlier is not a direct comparison to the scenario we are talking about. The Indians practiced a kind of collective ownership and the the white devil came to utilize private ownership. Your scenario, to me, is an example of the opposite to what we are discussing.
I agree with you completely that less defended property is at a greater risk of aggression. I don’t think there is any denying of that. However, I feel that ancap is the best system at defeating criminal incentive. You seem to disagree but I do not follow your logic in that regard.
I also agree that property being utilized and generating profit does benefit the economy regardless of who may own it. Furthermore, if property were not utilized to it’s potential highest utility the power within the market would make it favorable for the owner to change the utilization technique or sell their ownership rights.
I feel your support of gaining land by force for the greater good is a slippery socialist slope. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina
Ancap-land believes that no property-owner has authority over any property/land other than his own. This is a great method to avoid disputes and fosters abundance. The effects of poorly utilized property and transfer of ownership should be left entirely to the market forces and voluntary exchange. Resorting to coercion is not necessary and deteriorates human well being, the use of coercion is a mistake.
Trying to read between the lines of your argument makes me think you support Government or else property rights won’t stand. Am I wrong?
Edit: If anyone else feels I am wrong on a certain point please feel free to point it out. I’m here to learn not fling shit, thanks.
There is no logic. That’s why he comes back every 4 months and says exactly the same things in slightly different words to no effect.
In six of the top 100 box office films of all time am I. Hmm. Maybe Thucydided, Machivelli, Hobbes, et al are influential not on the symbol minded. Yes.
Question not do I the faith of those who follow the dark path. I sense a lot of fear in you. Fear of people. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to su’uffffferrrrinnggggg. Children born not to fear, learned fear is. You must unlearn what you have learned. Fear people do not. Cower do not. Forgive and love all those you fear.
Question not do I the faith of those who follow the dark path. I sense a lot of fear in you. Fear of people. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to su’uffffferrrrinnggggg. Children born not to fear, learned fear is. You must unlearn what you have learned. Fear people do not. Cower do not. Forgive and love all those you fear. — lfod
comical one with the funny ears. you are naive.
have you not heard the screams from alderon ?
how many star systems must die by the hands of the dark side statists while you remain idle on dagobah ?
is it live free or die ? ---- or live free or post on mises.org ?
I want to learn more about this fantasyland called maximal-capitalism
for example, can I put away my light saber and unlock the doors to my home, my pod racer, valuables, and business in your ancap society ?
I interpret your premise to be that if valued resources within a claimed territory (ancap-land) are to be used stricly for the good of the group (the ad hoc ‘society’). This ostracizes the private owner (Scrooge) with collective claims to his property. – mahall
i guess so, in this case the negligent owner of a valued resource is forced to put his capital or resource to productive uses or he will lose them. Indeed, the free market always ‘osracizes’ the inefficient and idle owner by forcing him out of business. the only difference in this case that coercion is the means. The difference is that a productive private citizen or enterprise takes possession of the resource to the benefit of society since the new owner is by definition a more productive manager based on his ability to fund coercive action to take the idle or mismanaged resource.
I feel your comparison to American Indians earlier is not a direct comparison to the scenario we are talking about. The Indians practiced a kind of collective ownership and the the white devil came to utilize private ownership. Your scenario, to me, is an example of the opposite to what we are discussing. --mahall
i see, my point was that the indians did not effectively manage their resources, hence they didnt have the wherewithal to defend. ALso, it would have been impractical and unrealistic for profit driven colonists to purchase indian land when they could take it with impunity using force.
in sum, somebody was going to take the land – russian, english, french, spanish, mexican, – it was preferable from a historical standpoint that a nominally capitalist society take it versus one of these autocratic regimes. Also, it was preferable that the Americans took the land since I am benefitting directly from the act — and if you are an American you are too.
in fact, I am always irked by the hypocrisy of ancap who advocate peaceful exchange, yet many own property and land stolen from the indians. Wouldnt it be principled to find the indian tribe that had the best claim to the land and return it ?
I agree with you completely that less defended property is at a greater risk of aggression. I don’t think there is any denying of that. However, I feel that ancap is the best system at defeating criminal incentive. You seem to disagree but I do not follow your logic in that regard. --mahall
i tend to agree with you . I think if ancaps got off their collective asses and started fighting dirty and utlized coercion against statist regimes the world would be a far better place. Moreover, i agree that ancap system is the best at defending criminal incentive – it would also the best at utilizing force or coercion. so things balance out. indeed, ancap violence may dwarf anything the inefficient statists have demonstrated to date.
I feel your support of gaining land by force for the greater good is a slippery socialist slope. Example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obshchina – mahall
i cant look at this because i will lose everything I wrote above – however, i will respond to it in a later post.
Ancap-land believes that no property-owner has authority over any property/land other than his own. This is a great method to avoid disputes and fosters abundance. The effects of poorly utilized property and transfer of ownership should be left entirely to the market forces and voluntary exchange. Resorting to coercion is not necessary and deteriorates human well being, the use of coercion is a mistake. – mahall
then we dont need security. ancap-land by definition doesnt require security. a million dollar diamond need not be protected since ‘coercion is a mistake’. indeed, 10 tons of weapons grade uranium need not be defend since ‘coercion is a mistake’
a cure for cancer, the saudi oil reserves, the great lakes, the mallacca straits, et al need not be defended since ‘coercion is a mistake’
Trying to read between the lines of your argument makes me think you support Government or else property rights won’t stand. Am I wrong? – mahall
i am on the side of the ancaps, i recognize that government is not a necessary evil – it is an unecessary evil. however, ancap society has no provision to forestall the emergence of absolutism for the reasons I have outlined numerous times to deaf ears on this site.
i believe the best anedote to statism yet known is an absolutely free and unencumbered free market – with a consitutional federal republic to provide for control over a balanced and decentralized political, legal, and military establishment.
IN sum, our founding fathers were close to getting it right — they just missed a few spots that the statist have taken over 200 years to exploit. We can use peaceful means to tweak the system to correct the holes left in 1789
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
i guess so, in this case the negligent owner of a valued resource is forced to put his capital or resource to productive uses or he will lose them. Indeed, the free market always ‘osracizes’ the inefficient and idle owner by forcing him out of business. the only difference in this case that coercion is the means. The difference is that a productive private citizen or enterprise takes possession of the resource to the benefit of society since the new owner is by definition a more productive manager based on his ability to fund coercive action to take the idle or mismanaged resource.
[/quote]
Use that logic with care, it is a slippery slope. Who has the authority to make the value judgement on when property is idle? Or not maximizing utility? Who better than the owner to manage his property until they believe they must sell? The market has a weeding out process, the oil and water will seperate. It is presumptive to tactically remove an owner from his land or property for the greater good. It is a shoot first and ask questions later policy and it doesn’t have trust in market calculation. If you believe capitalism is the best system you can see that coercion is just as unnecessary as the state, since they are essentially the same concept.
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
i see, my point was that the indians did not effectively manage their resources, hence they didnt have the wherewithal to defend. ALso, it would have been impractical and unrealistic for profit driven colonists to purchase indian land when they could take it with impunity using force.
in sum, somebody was going to take the land – russian, english, french, spanish, mexican, – it was preferable from a historical standpoint that a nominally capitalist society take it versus one of these autocratic regimes. Also, it was preferable that the Americans took the land since I am benefitting directly from the act — and if you are an American you are too.
in fact, I am always irked by the hypocrisy of ancap who advocate peaceful exchange, yet many own property and land stolen from the indians. Wouldnt it be principled to find the indian tribe that had the best claim to the land and return it ?
[/quote]
This question is more a question of homesteading. If there were only 7 people on Earth they could hypothetically each claim their own continent. In reality people own relatively small amount of space with scare resources. People in Kansas can hold more land than those from Brooklyn. I feel in North America it was inevitable that property evolved with an influx of new people, this brings along dispute.
How do we determine what land of the Indians was legitmately homesteaded and what was stolen by threat of death? This is a tangent I’d rather not divert to.
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
i tend to agree with you . I think if ancaps got off their collective asses and started fighting dirty and utlized coercion against statist regimes the world would be a far better place. Moreover, i agree that ancap system is the best at defending criminal incentive – it would also the best at utilizing force or coercion. so things balance out. indeed, ancap violence may dwarf anything the inefficient statists have demonstrated to date.
[/quote]
Guerilla self defense is not coercion/initiation of force. I’m glad we agree on the criminal incentive segment. Also, ‘utilizing force’ and ‘utilizing coercion’ are not synonomous. Libertarianism, in the style of Ancap-land, is based on force since it is not pacifist, even though you seem to like labeling it so. It finds legitimacy, through law, in self defense or force. However, do not confuse this with the initiation of force.
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
then we dont need security. ancap-land by definition doesnt require security. a million dollar diamond need not be protected since ‘coercion is a mistake’. indeed, 10 tons of weapons grade uranium need not be defend since ‘coercion is a mistake’
a cure for cancer, the saudi oil reserves, the great lakes, the mallacca straits, et al need not be defended since ‘coercion is a mistake’
[/quote]
You have misrepresented my statement. Coercion is not necessary. It is not necessary to steal diamonds if you want to recieve them. In fact, if society desires such things as natural landmarks, uranium or a cure for cancer, they should respect private property and understand coercion is a mistake. Ancap is not utopia, people will try to steal from other people and use illegitimate violence as a means. It does however defeat the incentive to do so.
The problem of rendering the underdeveloped nations more prosperous cannot be solved by material aid. It is a spiritual and intellectual problem. Prosperity is not simply a matter of capital investment. It is an ideological issue. What the underdeveloped countries need first is the ideology of economic freedom and private enterprise. -Mises
[quoteuser=“Rettoper”]
i am on the side of the ancaps, i recognize that government is not a necessary evil – it is an unecessary evil. however, ancap society has no provision to forestall the emergence of absolutism for the reasons I have outlined numerous times to deaf ears on this site.
i believe the best anedote to statism yet known is an absolutely free and unencumbered free market – with a consitutional federal republic to provide for control over a balanced and decentralized political, legal, and military establishment.
IN sum, our founding fathers were close to getting it right — they just missed a few spots that the statist have taken over 200 years to exploit. We can use peaceful means to tweak the system to correct the holes left in 1789
[/quote]
I didn’t mean to write this to belittle you. I think we would agree on a huge range of things. To try and stay on topic I won’t derail this with a necessity of the state debate. However you have created a double standard for this justification for coercion. I read the argument as being that of a collectivist’s.
The idea of justice refers always to social cooperation. -Mises
Here is a example: Acme company hires a Mossberg armed squad to raid a junkyard for building materials because the resources are deemed idle and Acme justifies their actions for utilitarian purposes. How is this issue solved? Was it lawful, in the honor of profit, to steal building materials? Maybe Acme company could just kill the junkyard owner to avoid legal complications and paying a whole squad. Society is prospering with the factory operating at maximum output right?
Here is some additional relavant material…
[quoteuser=“Robert LeFevre - The Philosophy of Ownership”]
A right exists for a man to acquire any property he wills to possess.
He may be an original claimant; that is, he may be the first to
own an item extracted from the sum total nature has provided. Additionally,
he may be a reclaimant; that is, he may become the owner
of a property which at one time was owned by another and has been
discarded. Also, he may be a secondary or subordinate claimant,
obtaining his right to own a property by the process of exchange
with another property owner. This explains one meaning of the
word right. It is the right to acquire a property. A man’s ability to
own a property will always be subject to variables, depending upon
his capital, his energies, and so on. But his right to acquire a property
is total. That is, he has a right to seek to own anything, provided
in so seeking he keeps in mind that all others with whom he
must deal have the same rights he has as a property owner.
A right is expressed in a second way. Any man may do precisely
as he pleases with what he has totally and honestly acquired. All
rights that a man has relate to his functional ability as a would-be
owner, and his functional ability as an actual owner. As an actual
owner he is totally sovereign over what he owns and his decisions
are final.
Since many properties are large, and many persons may be involved
in the ownership and control of these properties, ownership
is sometimes a complex procedure. Even a simple purchase of a
small property, such as a refrigerator, which occurs through some
type of credit plan, becomes more complex than an outright purchase.
When credit is used, the acquisition of all control over the
property purchased is delayed until the full price has been paid and
total authority and control is passed from the seller, the mortgage
holder, or other intermediary. The concept of property ownership
is a total concept. Until such time as the seller has been fully satisfied,
and all obligations are retired, total ownership of a property
is not transferred.
The final test of absolute ownership is to inquire whether the
owner may RIGHTFULLY DESTROY the item owned. If no other
party has any interest in the property, then the owner may rightfully
decide that if he wants to do so he can destroy the item he owns.
If there is a mortgage holder, lien holder, or other intermediary
maintaining some interest in the property, obviously the “owner” is
not yet the total owner and the question will have to be answered
in the negative. When the owner is the total owner in fact, then the
question can be answered in the affirmative.
[/quote]
Use that logic with care, it is a slippery slope. Who has the authority to make the value judgement on when property is idle? – mahall
private sector market participants
How do we determine what land of the Indians was legitmately homesteaded and what was stolen by threat of death? This is a tangent I’d rather not divert to. – mahall
if you were inclined to issue reparations to the indians, it would be easy to identify the geographic origin of the various tribes. The desendants of these tribes could be given the option to accept monetary compensation or take the land back that was stolen from them.
in sum, ancaps who own property in North America are hypocrites since most of the land was stolen from the indians by coercion. it is no justification to continue to profit from stolen property simply because the remedy is complicated.
of course, my opinion is that no resource is guaranteed unless it can be protected – possession and the ability to hold it is 100% of the law in ancap society.
Libertarianism, in the style of Ancap-land, is based on force since it is not pacifist, even though you seem to like labeling it so. It finds legitimacy, through law, in self defense or force. However, do not confuse this with the initiation of force. – mahall
i disagree, contemporary libertarians have no heart. the last successful and substantive libertarian revolt was over 230 years ago. Since then they have gotten fat, dumb, and happy under statist rule — save the occasional anti-coercion post on mises.org.
You have misrepresented my statement. Coercion is not necessary. It is not necessary to steal diamonds if you want to recieve them.-- mahall
what if the owner doesnt want to sell his resource – or refuses to utilize his resource in a economically productive manner? There must be a provision to allow for the release of scarce and valued resources to the free market from inefficient and negligent owners.
Ancap is not utopia, people will try to steal from other people and use illegitimate violence as a means. It does however defeat the incentive to do so.–mahall
I agree, theft will be present. And the likelihood of coercion will be directly proportional to the value of the resource and inversely proportion to the economic profitably of the owner of the resource. what other formula would drive theft in an ancap society ?
hence, my original assertion is supported. theft will occur, coercion will be the means, profit will be the goal, under utilized and under defended resources will be the target, and profitable and productive firms will be the aggressors --since unprofitable firms will not have the wherewithal to initiate force.
I didn’t mean to write this to belittle you. I think we would agree on a huge range of things. To try and stay on topic I won’t derail this with a necessity of the state debate. However you have created a double standard for this justification for coercion. I read the argument as being that of a collectivist’s.–mahall
no offense taken, as long as you continue to offer substantive, logical, and rational rebuts. I dont mind being challenged - but please dont waste my time with diversions, minutia, ad hominems, or other fallacious arguments that show a complete lack of understanding or originality.
coercion is not collectivist when it is initiated by a private citizen or enterprise for profit.
Acme company hires a Mossberg armed squad to raid a junkyard for building materials because the resources are deemed idle and Acme justifies their actions for utilitarian purposes. How is this issue solved? – mahall
ACME justifies the action in the same manner that a dog justifies licking his balls — he can.
ACME is not acting for utilitarian purposes, it is acting in its self-interest. The issue is solved by the free market – the owners who can best utilize a valued resource will have the wherewithal to defend the resource – in contrast, owners who are inefficient will lose their resources.
reallocation of resources from inefficient to effecient
Maybe Acme company could just kill the junkyard owner to avoid legal complications and paying a whole squad. Society is prospering with the factory operating at maximum output right?-- mahall
that could happen too. however, the goal of the aggressor would be to gain possession of the resource.
mahall,
do you believe that value resources in ancap society require protection ?
and if so, why do valued resources in ancap society need protection ?
and if so, how much protection will be needed ?
are protection costs proportional to the value of the resource ?
In six of the top 100 box office films of all time am I. Hmm. Maybe Thucydided, Machivelli, Hobbes, et al are influential not on the symbol minded. Yes.
Question not do I the faith of those who follow the dark path. I sense a lot of fear in you. Fear of people. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to su’uffffferrrrinnggggg. Children born not to fear, learned fear is. You must unlearn what you have learned. Fear people do not. Cower do not. Forgive and love all those you fear. – live free or die
come out of your cave and answer these challenges:
do you believe that value resources in ancap society require protection ?
and if so, why do valued resources in ancap society need protection ?
and if so, how much protection will be needed ?
are protection costs proportional to the value of the resource ?
Rettroper,
Your argument is correct, but there is reason why AnCaps would not choose aggression as we discussed. According to Bertrand Lemennicier in Chapter 4 of “The Myth of National Defense,”
Imagine there is only one armed person. The temptation for aggressive behavior instead of peaceful conflict resolution for this person would be strong–because he has a comparative advantage.
So any AnCap that would suggest monopoly or government would not be sought in a free society is arguing from ignorance. However, any AnCap that would argue that to do so would be misguided is correct.
In an AnCap society, producers who achieve a comparative advantage can be tempted to use aggressive force in the hope of sustaining it. A common argument, which you have proposed, to support the use of aggressive force is that monopoly or cartel benefits consumers, that it makes more efficient use of resources and, therefore, produces a quality product. Competition is, therefore, seen as a waste of resources and as a means that forces producers to cut corners resulting in inferior products. The goal of sustainability by aggression is as misguided as the arguments for monopoly are fallacious. Substituting aggression for consumer preference fails to consider how demand affects the decision making process in the use of resources and what constitutes a quality product. Negligence of market indicators created by consumer preferences and competition amongst producers to discern and cater to such preferences results in the contrary of monopoly arguments and defeats the monopolist’s goal:
Comparative advantage becomes unsustainable through the use of aggressive force as a replacement for consumer preference.
But we covered all this, didn’t we.
I’d say that is a stretch to call them hypocrites. Besides the point anyway..
This really is a question of what the law will be like in ancap-land.
Why do you speak in a collective manner? Not all libertarians are created equal. This isn’t relavat to the topic we are discussing.
What if a human decides to become overweight (refusing to utilize his labor power in the most economically productive way), will there be a provision to force the man to lose weight? Sure if the job requires hard work and he has shown to be unproductive he will be fired. Coercion is not necessary for the company to aquire the needed resources (physically capable humans) in fueling their labor process .
Speaking of raw materials..
W.H. Hutt’s Theory of Idle Resources was first published in 1939, surely one of the earliest responses to Keynes’s General Theory. Hutt goes for the heart of Keynes’s prescription for recovery, which was to get idle resources moving, whether that is money, capital, or labor. If something isn’t being employed right now, it is being wasted. Hutt responded at length that there is nothing uneconomic or necessarily inefficient about an idle resource. It is the decision of the owner to hold back when faced with a long-term plan, a judgment call concerning risk, a high reservation wage, or a demand for larger cash balances. In addition, there might be legal restrictions that are causing workers to withhold labor and capitalists to curb production. It makes for fascinating reading, and as I went through it, it struck me that both the Keynesian proposition and the response are still very much in play today. -Jeffery Tucker
I think you are missing the variable of Law or organized justice in your forumla of the ancap society. Would you agree?
I think through your ratiocination, you have legalized plunder on utilitarian grounds. This is how socialist claim their system will bring progress but use different words to justify the same conclusion.
I agree 100%!
Yes. To say they don’t would imply a utopia, right?
Property rights is a principle which needs to be protected in order for the free market to operate. Not only must the ideological principle be protected by law, but the property owner should use due dilligence to priviledge themselves with security.
Ask the property owner - value is subjective.
I found it hard to answer this question to be honest. For example, what greater resource to a person than their life. Some people choose not to carry a firearm and some drive fast without a seatbelt. So “protection costs” in this case are not proportional to the ultimate value of life. But if we are speaking of things like diamonds, family heirlooms, etc, I would say people protect them with safes proportional to how valueable they are. While, the junkyard owner may feel a high fence is all that is necessary. Regardless, all property is cherished by law within in ancap-land.
Did I fall into a trap? heh.
I’d say that is a stretch to call them hypocrites. Besides the point anyway..-- mahall
agreed, but this probably goes to the heart of my point that ancaps have no heart for removing statists — today’s ancap is all talk and no walk. If they are the vanguard of the effort to remove statism – our great great grandkids will still be waiting for a truly free market. Moreover, as AE has gain adherents, statism has increased. For example, the most liberal congress and executive in history took the oath in 2008.
Coercion is not necessary for the company to aquire the needed resources (physically capable humans) in fueling their labor process .-mahall
most cases coercion wont be needed for private enterprises to increase production at the expense of inefficient enterprises – however, on the margins of the market – coercion will be the means by which grossly mismanaged resources are redistributed the actions of private investors and entrepreneurs
W.H. Hutt’s Theory of Idle Resources was first published in 1939, surely one of the earliest responses to Keynes’s General Theory. Hutt goes for the heart of Keynes’s prescription for recovery, which was to get idle resources moving, whether that is money, capital, or labor. If something isn’t being employed right now, it is being wasted. Hutt responded at length that there is nothing uneconomic or necessarily inefficient about an idle resource. It is the decision of the owner to hold back when faced with a long-term plan, a judgment call concerning risk, a high reservation wage, or a demand for larger cash balances. In addition, there might be legal restrictions that are causing workers to withhold labor and capitalists to curb production. It makes for fascinating reading, and as I went through it, it struck me that both the Keynesian proposition and the response are still very much in play today. -Jeffery Tucker
I have primarily stated that mismanaged resources will be annexed by a productive actor who covets them. howeverI acknowledged that a resource might be idle for legitimate reasons to protect the value of the resource. For example, allowing a prized quarterhorse to recover from an injury rather than racing would be an example. However, to forestall unecessary and wasteful allocation of resources due to excessive idleness , the threat of coercion is an outstanding motivator to insure that lazy owners become productive so they can provide adequate defense.
in sum, the market would force everyone to be nimble and constantly on guard to utilize resources to their maximum efficiency thereby increasing overall societal health and well being.
I think you are missing the variable of Law or organized justice in your forumla of the ancap society. Would you agree?-- mahall
i dont believe that law and justice are compatible. in contrast, I believe that force and justice are compatible. \
I think you would agree with me that ‘Organized justice’ is an oxymoron. That would be an interesting thread started.
"Is organized law and justice’ an oxymoron ? when self-interest and the law/justice are in conflict, the rational actor will choose self-interest unless forced to comply by coercion.
I think through your ratiocination, you have legalized plunder on utilitarian grounds. This is how socialist claim their system will bring progress but use different words to justify the same conclusion. – mahall
I disagree, coercion is a natural right. If you cant deter it, you cant expect those that are expert at wielding force to submit to weaker individuals and enterprises. It may be wrong from your perspective and mine – but unless we have the means to counter aggression, it is a moot point.
similarly, unlike statist coercion that is not profit-driven, coercion in ancap society will be by private enterprises for economic profit, hence society will be vastly more productive and prosperous.
are protection costs proportional to the value of the resource ? – Rettoper
I found it hard to answer this question to be honest. For example, what greater resource to a person than their life. Some people choose not to carry a firearm and some drive fast without a seatbelt. So “protection costs” in this case are not proportional to the ultimate value of life. But if we are speaking of things like diamonds, family heirlooms, etc, I would say people protect them with safes proportional to how valueable they are. While, the junkyard owner may feel a high fence is all that is necessary. Regardless, all property is cherished by law within in ancap-land. – mahall
I agree with you that protection costs will be proportional to the value of the resource being defended. that is my fundamental point – saudi oil reserves would be heavily defended, similarly the great lakes, chilean lithium reserves, the mallacca straits, the three gorges dam, megan fox’s ass, et al.
so it stands to reason that if the ability to provide security for these resources is negatively impacted due to a misallocation or mismanagement of the resource then the likelihood that the resource will be annexed by coercion is increased.
Otherwise, why would an ancap varying the level of spending in the first place ! and if the level of spending is critical, and the purpose of the spending is to deter coercion, then a change in the level is equally critical and directly influences the likelihood of conflict over the resource.
the ancap is either irrational for varying the amount of capital spent on security for different resources or my propostition that the likelihood of coercion is increased if an inefficient owner cant fund a level of security proportional to the value of the resource is absolutely correct.
hence ancap society will be violent on the margins where resources are being inefficiently managed and that violence will be motivated by economic profit.
end of story.
I’m sure some ancaps have ‘heart’ while others might not. Was there a yesturday’s ancap? Fighting against the state is a great way to land yourself in a cage. I ain’t personally shy about using self defense but other people wan’t no part of violence and they are free to choose that option. States have a tendeny to snowball until they bust. I feel the smart route is to do your homework and be prepared for the uncertain future.
Realistically speaking, a property owner which is seeking profit but rather grossly mismanges their resources, why are noncoercive market forces ineffective? This business will go belly up on it’s own and liquidate. No need to hire a armed task force.
Also, do you believe that a property owner has the right to destroy his property and resources?
Who would arbitrate and declare resources excessively idle? If a sole individual owns 10 well kept milling machines in his basement but doesn’t ever utilize them all, would a judge agree, with you, that the company was lawful in forcefully restraining the individual and removing the equipment from his possesion for the good of the companies self interest? What if the owner valued his Bridgeports as a masterful collection of equipment, much like how people like to collect pick ups or tractors or tools.
Once again, if the owner did not keep his Bridgeport’s maintained and let them rust, has he committed a crime? Deserving the removal of his property from his possesion? I feel property rights gives the owner the right to destroy ones own property. If you disagree, why does the self interest of a company take precedent over that of the individual slob? (reasoning that posistion treads dangerously closes to socialist waters)
That would be indeed. What do you think of this ratiocination? - Each person has a right to defend their property and their life with force. Logically following this, it gives legitimacy to group of individuals to protect this principle/right. Law is just the organization of these individuals to defend themselves with force, also known as justice. As Bastiat says, Law is Justice.