Well, you haven’t shown why that setup would be more stable than anarcho-capitalism, where the private defense agencies decide how much to exploit the people based on the same “future dividends”, but chose to make it not a moderate amount, but nothing at all. - what I am saying is that although this would be preferable, it is not possible b/c the PDA’s would have to voluntarily forego on ‘exploitation rates’ and that can’t be relied upon.
Sam, X and Y do the same thing. Even if Y does return the good, you are making the thiefs stronger(in fact you will be making the BETTER thief richer, and the lesser thief poorer), by taking part in that exchange. That is why the exchange is exploitation, the equivalence of the attacker and defender.
Firstly, you didn’t address the second part about defending stuff, and secondly, they aren’t a thief if their actions are in line with customary law. A thief who knew she was a thief wouldn’t be willing to go to court because she would know the court would generally rule in a manner in line with the values of their customers and the other courts in the area. (notice the lack of appeal to Rothbardism. I’m a moral error theorist). That is unless she was willing to reform. So yes, D does in fact describe how and when a firm uses its resources, and that is a how and when which is different than F’s.
The theory of profit maximization is also totally a topic of subjective valuation. Indeed, “subjective valuation” is a pleonasm, as all valuation is necessarily subjective.
Why do you think that’s “the more important thing”? From the “standpoint” of external reality, there is no property. There is only control and lack thereof. But since we’re dealing with human action here, we must take into account human minds and what they may think and believe in.
You answered the question about morality and I responded yet again. Apparently you believe that, once you respond once to a person’s counter-argument, that settles the issue. It doesn’t (necessarily).
You also apparently missed where I posted about the business model of insurance. Assuming that would-be exploiters are a minority of people, they will actually make more money by offering insurance to people than by simply exploiting (i.e. stealing from) them. Let me know if you need more explanation here – I figured you’d know how insurance businesses work, but I could be wrong.
You are being disingenuous. Just because you never claimed something doesn’t mean it can’t be a logical conclusion to an argument that you’ve made. It’s not my fault if you haven’t thought through all of the logical implications of what you’ve argued, and I’ll give you no leeway there.
Now with that said, please explain how “those things don’t make any sense”. They make perfect sense to me so far, so the burden of proof is on you (assuming that you actually want to convince me and aren’t simply trying to shut me up).
How many people stayed in N.O. during/after Katrina? Of those, how many actually looted one or more stores?
How many people left N.O. before/during Katrina?
How does “acting in [one’s] own best interest” necessarily imply stealing whenever he’s given the chance? Note that you’re appealing to an absolute standard of “best interest”, which cannot exist objectively.
You’re also discounting another moral possibility – to not steal to begin with!
You have yet to provide definitive proof of this. You’re simply re-asserting this statement over and over. Tell me, are you treating this as a “war of attrition”? Do you think that if you repeat something long enough, we’ll get tired of fighting back, at which point you can claim “victory” by having “silenced” us?
Who will enforce courts decisions? Other users of violence of course. And the same problem strikes again: robbing has the monetary advantage, exchange has no advantage.
Profit and loss. Consumer Sovereignty still reigns. If the courts start making a series of prejudice judgements, it’s likely consumers will change their subscriptions. Wasn’t this answered earlier?
To me it would seem that running a campaign of robbing would be quite costly, dangerous, and ultimately destined to fail. The risk is too high. Social cooperation ensures a long term revenue.
People are also likely to take further provisions in such an environment, to such a degree that robbing and pillaging is likely to diminish the employer count of said firm. IE People aren’t going to just let someone walk in and rob them at gun point.
Those my opinions though, I encourage you to agree or agree to disagree.
Court decisions aren’t what you think they are. They are a cost saving tool for firms so they don’t always have to go to war in case of a dispute. And conceding to court decisions is a condition of people doing business with you. If you don’t they won’t voluntarily do business with you (yes I understand that you can attempt to force them to do so anyway, but that requires going to war, something which may not be worth it depending on the business and its defenses). If you don’t concede to court decisions, people will never have any incentive to take you to court, courts won’t allow you to take anyone to court, and everyone will simply go to war with you in the event of a dispute. And in fact people who don’t have disputes with you will have extra incentive to steal from you, since you are no longer allowed to use the court system.
But I don’t even have to show that its possible in theory, since that’s how it works in practice.
filc, active defense is also robbing and pillaging. there is no difference between them. If one fails, so does the other. If robbing fails, so does actively defending.
Autolykos, Monetary profit maximisation.
Autolykos, property being something someone can use(physically interact with) with small risk of being stopped from doing so. Anyhow, if you reject effective property, you are in the wrong forum buddy(revleft is that way).
Autolykos, robbing makes more money than insurance, no one can offer more for exchange than when getting robbed.
Autolykos, how does the state incentive to maintain dividends not count as viable society? Or how does it not meet the exploitable defense model.
Why couldn’t that be relied upon? (I already showed why it could be here.)
If I compel you out of my home, and prevent you from robbing me. Thats robbing and pillaging you? Sorry I didn’t know you had a positive right to my stuff, and that I would be in error for defending myself and property.
filc, you are removing effective property from intruder by stopping him. That is robbing. You are taking away his control over his body(or his control over what was originall your property).
I responded like that like 5 times and you ignored it everytime. I seriously recommend that you take a step back from this discussion and go read Man, Economy, and State, Human Action, or Economics for Real People, because you don’t seem to understand the first thing about applied economics, and you don’t seem to care what we have to say about it.
Of course. See the points below. They are significant to me. They also remain unrefuted to me, after many discussions over the last year. Value is subjective, I guess.
It just seems to be the same crap as “democracy could not possibly exist, as ‘empirically’ it’s never fared particularly well” in the age of monarchy…
z1235:
Power (force) is not a good/service that is subject to market forces. It’s simply more powerful then them (pun intended).
Unlike all other goods/services…
1. Theoretically: The more power (force) its provider has, the higher the price the customer pays. It’s quite a peculiar “good/service” that way: A higher “supply” of something resulting in a higher price to the consumer – quite unlike the shoes market.
This doesn’t even begin to make sense.
2. Empirically: Power (force) markets seem to unavoidably converge into territorial monopolies. There is no evidence of a free (non-monopolist) market in power (force) while there are plenty of examples of free markets in all other goods/services through history and across mankind.
Which markets?
filc, you are removing effective property from intruder by stopping him. That is robbing. You are taking away his control over his body(or his control over what was originall your property).
So by taking back what is yours/terminating trespass… you’re robbing? Tell me, how much crack does one have to consume to come to such a conclusion?
He forfeits those rights immediately upon trespassing. He is the aggressor. I am the defendant. If he loses his leg from a gun-shot wound, he is responsible. Not me. He accepted those terms and that risk when he attempted to rob me.
You seem to be confused about aggression and defense.
Filc, responsibility and rights are arbitrary. By the attacker’s ethics he might well be the one with the right to them, and you not be. When looking at effective property however, there is no difference between robbing and defending. Both are about decreasing effective property of target.
You seem to be thinking with the premise that your idea of ethics is the only possible one, or the only correct one. Same with Jon.
Why should monetary profit be maximized to the exclusion of all other possible kinds of profit?
Is that a threat? Please, don’t flatter yourself.
You’re offering a definition of “property” that I do not and will not abide by. What now?
See my first question above. Additionally, are you claiming here that robbing must necessarily make more money than insurance? If so, it rests upon you to prove this currently-bare assertion.
Your attempt to shift the burden of proof to me won’t work. It remains with you. Try again.
But I don’t even have to show that its possible in theory, since that’s how it works in practice.
And you still haven’t addressed my second proposition of defense.
Filc, responsibility and rights are arbitrary.
Pure assertion.
By the attacker’s ethics he might well be the one with the right to them, and you not be. When looking at effective property however, there is no difference between robbing and defending. Both are about decreasing effective property of target.
Who cares? Did the attacker make first use of the property or not? If not, what gives them the opinion that they are entitled to it?
You seem to be thinking with the premise that your idea of ethics is the only possible one, or the only correct one. Same with Jon.
I take a negative approach to ethics, i.e. where the burden of proof should lie. I don’t believe in rights etc. Only that theories proposing aggression collapse into internal contradictions. The article linked describes it.
There is a difference, and it has to do with how property is formed and maintained. You can chose to believe that property is arbitrary but the nihilists in our forum in the past have tried the same tactic unsuccessfully.
You are ignoring the homesteading principle, and other key tenants of private property all together.
Let me ask you this. If a robber is caught red-handed in burglary. His actions are delivered to the local private authorities. The local authorities will behave in a manner that is most likely to please their prescribers(consumers). Do you think it is more likely that they will charge some form of punishment against the robber? Or against the home-owner who defended his home.
Private property is also not arbitrary. That alone is enough to crush your whole premise. Earlier you challenged someone’s beliefs on what property is. I now challenge you to do a review and critique of your own knowledge regarding property.
Autolykos, effective property is the base of property rights. Without the concept of effective property existing, property rights cannot have a meaning. Effective property is the subject of property rights.
No one can offer more to a trade than he can when getting robbed.
So, because you are scared that we will have chaos, you think we should continue to allow people to be robbed and peaceful people to be tased, caged, and killed?