sam,
Have I ever once said that anybody wouldn’t do something because of morality? No, the entire argument has been how self interest would make it unlikely that PDA’s would start aggressive wars.
if wars are unprofitable, then why have we had so many ?
if armed coercion is unprofitable, then why so many acts of violence by private individuals against the weak?
and by what logic would the utility of force be eliminated in an anarchic society when individuals retain the same genetic makeup and the same goals (water, food, shelter, security, power) ?
No, the entire argument has been how self interest would make it unlikely that PDA’s would start aggressive wars. It not only makes them targets for retaliation, but it would be subject to severe business ostracism. Productive businesses would disassociate with them out of fear that they might be aggressed against in the event of a conflict between them, or that they might become targets of retaliatory force against the aggressors, or that their own reputation would be tarnished due to ties to the aggressive firm. Insurance would never cover them, and their leaders and employees would be subject to personal liability since there’s no such thing as sovereign immunity, and likely high quality employees would be less willing to get involved in such an organization.
hunchism. competing PDAs would be more likely to side with the stronger ascending PDA for security motives. Where is the logic or profit in competing with an aggressive and profitable PDA to protect a timid unprofitable PDA ?
moreover, why would talented, hard charging, and ambitious employees in the PDA industry gravitate toward timid stagnant PDAs ?
using your logic, alexander, ceasar, khan, napoleon, et al would be clamouring to join PDAs that were pacific and timid ??!! I assert the opposite.
And again, let’s deal with high value targets like the strait of Hormuz. Who’s wrath do they have to deal with in order to take over that strait. First they have to deal with the land owner’s PDA which is protecting that strait. Then they also have to deal with the wrath of the PDA’s of people who have contracts to cross that strait in place already. And if that doesn’t work, then they may have to deal with any PDA who the original land owners are willing to transfer rightful property ownership over to them simply out of spite to the douche bags who aggressed against them in the first place. That PDA can do exactly what the original aggressive PDA did with all the same benefits of what the origianl aggressive PDA is getting, except now the original aggressive PDA is severely weakened due to expending resources against the first two set of PDA’s, and this new PDA doesn’t have to pay their employees/stockholders a great deal of money for the risk of becoming outlaws.
and again, you dont understand the nature and application of power. the most aggressive and powerful PDAs will retain control of the most critical centers of power in society (water, foodstuffs, energy, transportation, communications, et al).
from control of these centers of power come increased profits and capital. PDAs that are timid will lose customers and capital.
moreover, it is a dangerous trait of anarchic society that PDAs will ultimately control the levers of power at all levels (food, water, arms, capital, funding command, control, intelligence, et al) essentially they will form self-sustaining conglomerates without any tranparency.
in contrast, within liberal democracies the military does not enjoy this power hence the emergence of absolutism is less a threat.
And it doesn’t flow to enterprises that assume too much risk, e.g. an aggressive PDA.
of course, often an overly aggressive PDA will be crushed. However, all it takes is one hegemon to establish itself and anarchic society is finished.
a hegemon PDA cartel establishes oligarhic or absolutist power in the name of “stability and peace” and we are back to square one.
Again you fail to understand how customary law works.
and again, customary law isnt worth a drop of piss to someone with an M-60. Law is only applicable if it is backed by force, and force will guide justice or the lack thereof in anarchic society.
privatizing everything doesnt eliminate the utility of using armed force to gain security, wealth, and power.
arbitration agencies will rule in their self-interest. more likely they will align with the dominate PDA and form an irresistable cartel thereby increasing the likelihood of emergence of an oligarchic or absolutist power structure.
in contrast, within liberal democracies – the law is separate from the military. there is no separation of legal and military power within anarchic society.
You have yet to support this with a shred of evidence. The mere fact that they will fight against a common enemy exacting a survival level threat (the state/aggressive PDA) != They instantly have all the same interests/won’t compete with each other. There’s a difference between a self enforcing cartel, and a non self enforcing cartel. Cartels fail when ever cooperation will lead to some firms give up market share for another firm in the cartel without receiving a sufficient benefit. Stopping a survival level threat is one such benefit. But what does it gain by not lowering its costs of production and undercutting the other firms in the industry if it can do so? Nothing. You have two market pressures on all these firms going in opposite directions. Those pressures fall to equilibrium somewhere around stopping survival level threats, but competing for customers, on a society wide basis. So yes, some companies agreements will lead to merging, and others will lead to not helping each other, but those aren’t necessarily bad things. A PDA in mexico may not receive enough reduction in risk from helping a PDA in New York fend off a statist Canada. But that will leave resources there to fend off against Mexico.
it stands to reason that the more numerous and smaller the PDAs competing for power, the more likely conflict will be:
(1) frequent, (2) low cost, and (3) low stakes.
in contrast, the fewer and stronger the competing PDAs, the more likely conflict will be:
- seldom, 2) high cost, and (3) high stakes.
too offset the costs associated with armed conflict, PDAs will tend to form cartels that will increase the likelihood of a hegemon emerging.
it is logical that CEOs of the few dominate PDAs that emerge will eventually discuss merger plans to reduce costs associated with armed conflict
the allure of absolutism will be irresistable among these CEOs who will then establish control over society for “well-intentioned and benevolent” motives while eliminating much of their costs since the threat from competing PDAs will be eliminated.
essentially, anarchists are putting their trust in the marketplace to deter ambitious, charismatic, and talented leaders who will emerge as CEOs of the dominate PDAs and arbitration agencies.
Why have a sticker on your house that advertises you have a security system? It’s a deterrent.
why is deterrent necessary ?
specifically, why would a deterence to violent coercion be needed in anarchic society if market forces present in anarchic society eliminated the need for coercion to gain security, wealth, and power?
Anarchist societies aren’t completely peaceful. It just generally lacks institutional aggression. Outliers will come to exist and quickly be put down. And they aren’t Benevolent, they are completely self serving. But the best way to be self serving is to cater to customers demands and to act in a tit for tat manner. That’s not news to you, right?
institutional aggression will be in the form of PDAs as opposed to militaries representing nation-states. it is silly to assume that simply because the armed force is private that it will be less inclined to use force and take power for personal gain.
moreover, “tit for tat” is not the primary motive for war at least not among successful societies – it is to gain security, wealth and power.
if tit for tat was the rule, then we would never have had myriad nation-states destroyed for the slightist of provocations or threats.
power, security, and wealth is the motivation for armed conflict.
No they won’t because those subsidiaries would invite retaliation against the entire firm, not just the subsidiaries. That invitation of retaliation would again lead to costs for the firm going up for all the same reasons described before. Ostracism, Employee costs rising, stockholder evacuation, retaliation, disassociating firms, court rejection etc.
Where is the profit for a peaceful PDA to risk capital and market share by becoming the global policeman ??!! You sound like a neocon, whose PDA will make the world safe for peaceloving PDAs by attacking aggressive PDAs thereby going broke in the process.
I got news for you, investors and customers dont want increased premiums by engaging in wars that have no upside, save tit for tat moralizing.
essentially what you are advocating is for PDAs to engage in “just” wars against aggressive PDAs
Customers and investors will more likely support PDAs that engage in conflicts for tangible valued resources, then investing in moral handwringing PDAs who only engage in costly wars against “bad” aggressive PDAs
Ostracism, Employee costs rising, stockholder evacuation, retaliation, disassociating firms, court rejection etc.
who says employee costs will rise because an aggressive PDA takes control of the headwaters of the Mississippi, Nile, AMazon, et al ??
who says that stockholders will evacuate if an aggressive PDA takes control of the strait of hormuz or mallacca ??!!
who says that an aggressive PDA and its investors will care if a subsidiary leaves the cartel because the PDA increases its net worth by taking control of all communication satellites orbiting the earth. — more likely, they will see more investors and firms seek to join in the profits.
That “versatility” brings loses and reduction in market share, not increase. Should Microsoft diversify into launching computers into the sun?
PDAs can and will take strategic centers of gravity within society and they will leverage these vital and valuable resources for more profit and market share – not less.
moreover, if microsoft had stayed with operating systems and nothing else – they would have likely been bought out by a more aggressive firm .
in contrast, they have expanded their original business plan, thereby increasing market share in the information industry beyond operating systems.
No body writes laws in anarchic society. It’s organic and completely dependent on general customer preferences. The courts are simply there for non violent dispute resolution.If one side is committed to violence, then there’s no point in even going to the court. Other PDA’s will just kill them and take all their resources without any fear of Ostracism, Employee costs rising, stockholder evacuation, retaliation, disassociating firms, court rejection etc.
hunchism. the PDA cartel that is the most powerful may be the one that is the most aggressive. there is no proof that timid peaceful PDAs will be more powerful or profitable. indeed, the PDAs that control the most centers of power would have the most advantages in armed conflict.
Moreover, what is the profit in fighting wars against aggressive PDAs ? Indeed, an aggressive PDA would be justified in taking a valuable strategic resource since it was held by a weaker PDA who did not adequately match defensive measures to the true value of the resource.
essentially, the market would value strategic resources by the effort and expense PDAs invested in either defending or taking these resources. Courts could not fault an aggressive PDA that understood the true value of the resource it took by armed force.
moreover, those PDAs that engaged in wars of retribution would see costs skyrocket and customers exit in droves.
more likely, anarchic society would try to appease aggressive PDAs since this would reduce the costs associated with armed conflict.
In sum, war and diplomacy within anarchic society would mirror that which has existed since the dawn of civilization. namely, aggression and risk taking is not inherently unprofitable, nor does it always invite coalitions against it.
equally likely is that aggressive PDA cartels would form to gain wealth, security, and power while deterring counterattacks from moralizing timid PDAs who did not invest resources or tried to cut costs to defend valued property.
You say that as if there’s even a fraction of a percentage chance that a firm could pull off a coup on an anarchist society without an existing power structure, territorial defense monopoly, and taxation method to take over.
they wouldnt need a power structure other then what they agreed upon before taking power, perhaps they would make arrangements with a dominant arbitration agency to act as their crony legal service – or they could form their own legal system after taking power
with a monopoly of armed force, the dominate PDA could take any territory or resource it wanted. They wouldnt need taxation since they already controlled water, food, transportation, communication, et al resources by virtue of the fact that they had most of the weapons and trained professionals to wield this force.
in sum, the hegemon PDA could take whatever it wanted and assume absolutist power over anarchic society. they could charge nominal taxes, rents, royalties, and fees for any resources or services without threat of a rival.
in many cases, the citizenry might even welcome an initially benevolent hegemon since the uncertainty, conflict, and instabilty associated with myriad competing and fighting PDAs would be eliminated.
Nobody with any sense at all is going to attempt to fund that. And nobody with any sense would have enough money to fund that. When an investor invests in an aggressive firm, they aren’t just putting up that money, they are putting up all of their property, since they are liable to be brought up on charges as being a willing participant in aggressive theft.
entreneurship is risk.
the notion that investors wont assume risk to gain absolute power, wealth, and security is absurd.
the companies that are the most aggressive in the free market are the companies that received the most capital — simarily, the PDAs that are the most aggressive will attract the most investors and capital.
in sum, in business all successful companies seek to expand – indeed, by your “logic” the PDAs whose quarterly report shows the least gain would by the ones that attracted the most capital.
history has shown that to be absurd. the companies (PDAs) that see the greatest increase in revenue and net profit quarter after quarter are the PDAs that emerge dominant.
and those PDAs would be the ones that acquired or controlled by force, mergers, acquistions, et al the most strategically valued resources.
