Rettoper self-identifies as a minarchist.
Such an identification would be equal to him identifying as an anarchist though.
Please, please, please. Quit being so dense. When I say a phrase like *“*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.” I"M NOT TRYING TO REBOOT THE ENTIRE ARGUMENT. You latch onto assertions that aren’t what you think they are, and you argue against them. You’ve done this like 5 times now. I’m done.–sam
please, please, please – you presume too much when you claim that all aggressive wars are not profitable or not in the self-interest of those who wage them.
pay attention sam,
cost cutting PDA X is defending a valuable source of lithium with a minimum of company resources — they are trying to increase net profits while by skimping on defense for a valuable customer (battery manufacturer A) possessing a valuable resource.
PDA Z identifies the vulnerability of the lithium resource, invades, and takes this resource for its customers (battery manufacturer B) who funded this venture.
the market correctly rewards an aggressive PDA and its investors by balancing the correct measure of defense for a valuable resource.
It is folly to think that a valuable center of power/gravity/resource will not be taken by force if those defending these valued resources skimp on defense.
In sum, there will be continuous warfare and increasing military expenditures in anarchic society because valued resources must be defended.
Now, I’ll add my own explanation (I’m not trying to hit you with an appeal to false authority fallacy). Empirical evidence is not useful with regard to economics/praxeology. History can be explained differently by different people, and it is impossible to isolate one historical factor from all the others in order to prove the effect of this factor. The laboratory experiment, meanwhile, has no workable equivalent in the social sciences.–lennow
i have not used empirical evidence to argue the myth of anarcho-capitalism in the area of self defense. Specialization of labor dictates that anarchic society will have professional PDAs who will be led by military experts and professionals whose skill at warfare far exceed the masses. Moreover, economies of scale and the desire to reduce costs among the disparate competing PDAs will lead to cartels or monopolies. Nothing will stop these cartels from assuming absolutist power — indeed they would be motivated to eliminate emerging competition to reduce costs and insure that they have a captive customer base. Also, the PDA and its investors/shareholders could use its unmatched power to take valuable societal centers of gravity that would further increase wealth, security, and power.
the alternative would be endless wars among the disparate PDAs to see who emerges with this absolutist power. In sum, anarchic society would be no different that statist geopolitic.
in contrast, liberal democracies are far less likely to wage war against each other for the reasons I outlined in earlier posts.
Besides that little problem, other portions of your argument are also disagreeable. Chief among them is your assertion that what currently exists between states is anarchy. Whether or not this proposition is true depends entirely on what your definition of ‘anarchy’ is. There may be multiple acceptable definitions, but one that I commonly use is the absence of coercion. Going by that definition, we certainly don’t have anarchy between the states, as all the wars you mentioned can attest to.–lennow
the geopolitik is anarchic since there is no global government that has sway over any nation-state. It is irrevelent that the actors in the anarchic society are statist, liberal democracies, or any other system.
Moreover, if you think that anarchy is the absence of coercion than your view is naive and rejected by most of the anarchists on this site.
anarcho-capitalism cannot exist without coercion — the only difference is that the coercion is practiced by private enterprises versus public enterprises.
if your definition was accurate then I could commit any crime in an anarchic society without fear of penalty. Of course, in both liberal democracies and anarchic society I would be punished and through coercion imprisoned or fined or both.
Retropper. How does a monopolist in the industry of private protection economically calculate?
Secondly. It’s been argued over and over but war is not profitable. War is in fact the number one historical culprit for national bankrupcy or currency devaluation. If war created wealth the correspending currency holders purchasing power would rise.
You can argue that war is profitable to someone, but thats like saying theft is profitable to someone.
Please backup your assertion that war is profitable or drop it. It’s empirically and logically been proven false.
However, there are other definitions of anarchy that may be valid as well. I will not accept the popular definition of anarchy, which is something like violent chaos; no one here advocates that. But many people define anarchy as the absence of government. Going by that definition, I suppose there isn’t a ‘government for governments’. But how could there be? What would such a thing look like? Why would anyone want it? This attack, while difficult to refute, does not tell us anything useful or illuminating about anarchy, so it should be discarded. If you have another definition, you are free to provide it, but you must make sure that your definition defines what self-proclaimed anarchists actually advocate; anything else would be a straw man argument.–lennow
anarchy is the absence of government. Private agencies provide defense, arbitration, insurance, et al. MOreover, individuals can choose which PDA, arbitration agency, insurance, et al that they wish to do business with.
My argument is that anarchic society provides no checks, balances, and transparency to deter a hegemon PDA from eventually establishing itself.
In contrast, liberal democracies have myriad checks, balances, and transparency to deter the establishment of absolutism.
I advocate a minarchist form of government (constitutional federal republic) designed to provide a framework to forestall the establishment of an absolutist government.
this government would have no rights on income, commerce, state government — except defense and law. however, these responsibilities would be diluted among diverse and competing entities to prevent the establishment of absolutism.
filc,
if war is unprofitable, then why have so many nations engaged in it?
Was it unprofitable for the USA to take native American land west of the mississippi River ?
undoubtedly, it would have been better for both sides to negiotate a financial transaction similar to the dutch purchase of manhattan — however, if one side is unwilling to surrender a valuable resource and it is incapable or unwilling to defend this valuable resource with a measure of defense and expenditures equivalent to its value – then that resource will be taken by force.
I also take issue with your claim that, empirically, the situation that exists between states is awful. I think that is just an opinion, devoid of and logical or empirical rigor. Actually, we don’t have that many wars anymore, so one could claim that the situation between states is actually good and desirable. If you think about it, most of the atrocities states commit are committed against their own citizens, not other governments. Besides the fact that your value judgment (the situation between states is undesirable) is unscientific and not a valid argument, you also have failed to prove causation – is this ‘anarchy’ the cause of the undesirable situation, or could there be other causes. Could the situation just be a random fluctuation? All these objections and more must be overcome if you take the empirical route. --lennow
true, however I believe that the current state of global affairs could be dramatically improved for the better resulting in increased peace, prosperty, freedom, dynamism, and stability if nation-states were democratized.
never in history have liberal democracies waged war – specifically, those that pay for war, command war, wage war, and benefit from war all have diverse, separate, and competing interests that make war less likely against like minded societies.
in contrast, a globe dominated by anarcho-capitalist nations might be similar to a globe dominated by statist regimes since the actors that wage war benefit directly from the spoils of war.
essentially ancaps fight war for profit – liberal democracies fight war for ideological reasons. profit will never disappear hence ancaps will always be fighting wars for resources/profit/capital while liberal democracies will no longer have any reason to fight if the globe was democratized.
Anarchists oppose the taking of property by force. Do you?
The customers are paying the PDA for something. What is that, rettoper? They’re paying them to break windows, or protect their own windows? Adding window breakage adds a cost that someone will have to pay for.
You haven’t explained how and why would a PDA systematically do something that it wasn’t paid to do.–yuberries
it would be profitable for a PDA to take a societal center of gravity (water, foodstuffs, transportation hub, manufacturing center, minerals, energy resources, et al)
you can bet that the PDA defending these is going to try and invest the minimum of resources needed to defend a valued resource. However, bad planning and competition will lead to situations when these valued resources are not adequately defended and they will be taken by force by a PDA that has the means to defend these valued resources, thereby increasing societal health and well being since valued resources will not be subjected to constant exchange between warring factions or PDAs
The moral motives are relevant in the scope that they’re paid for. They’re paid to uphold certain moral values - private property, NAP. A PDA that doesn’t consider it immoral to violate the NAP or publicly invades people’s private property isn’t going to be popular, because it’s going to be charging more to pay for the window breaking, that other PDA’s don’t do yet are just as capable.–yuberries
liberal democracies are the only ideologues who fight for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness – ancaps fight for profit and to enforce contracts.
moreover, nobody has said anything about “breaking windows” the aggressive PDA is performing a valuable service to society by taking a valuable resource that heretofore was not being exploited effectively for societal benefit.
an example would be an aggressive PDA that took a uranium deposit from a group of luddites or environmentalists who refused to sell this valuable resource at any price. Investors would greedily fund a PDA to take the Uranium and use it to significantly reduce energy costs within an anarchic enclave. the only downside would be the loss to a group of anti-technology zealots and the weak PDA that defended them (weak since it did not have the capital to defend the resource since the resources utility was not being maximized)
What is this, I don’t even…
Are you saying the defensive PDA is going to be sued more and retaliated upon more than the rogue PDA?
…What?–yuberries
simple, nobody is going to come to the defense of a PDA that tried to cut corners by not providing adequate defense for a valued resource.
moreover, valuable resources or strategically important geographic centers of gravity must be defended with the appropriate force or they will be taken by an aggressive PDA that in turn will devote the appropriate measure of defense to this valued resource.
the ideal situation in society is that each resource of valued property is defended by a force equal to the value of the resource being defended. obviously, miscalculating PDAs and/or resource owners will be subject to predation if they skim on defense.
That’s nice, so you mean, if you break enough windows, you can fool people telling them you didn’t break any?
But in a free market, how do you expect to control the flow of information? It will come at full expense, not like in a state where yo can shut up some monopolized judges and it’s all good.–yuberries
you have to give up the “breaking window” kick.
I stated earlier that if a PDA is not defending a valued resource with the appropriate measure of force – it will and should be taken.
by any objective, rational, logical, and independent thinking measure – no competing PDA is going to allow a competitor to skimp on expenses by not investing enough capital into protecting a customer’s assets.
moreover, if an owner of a resource is hoarding or neglecting that resource – or not employing it to the maximum benefit to society – then that resource should and will be taken by force if necessary.
if a large and easily accessible reserve of crude oil is being denied to the marketplace by its owner – and if the resource is not adequately defended — then it will be taken by force to the benefit of society as a whole.
so, if I have to break a $10 window to retrieve $10,000 worth of medical equipment or $10,000 worth of gold – then so be it.
If the large one is breaking windows and charging premiums +150% over what the competitor charges, then it 's not.
You’ve conceded that the non-aggressive PDA is more efficient (cost-cutting means efficient afaik). So it’s no surprise it will eventually become the leader.–yuberries
your obsession with windows is disturbing. Okay, my PDA will breakdown the $50 door to retrieve $100,000 worth of assets.
or a weak PDA is defending the strait of hormuz and doing a poor job of protecting shipping from pirates – a competitor PDA intervenes and takes the straits and provides for far better defense of this valued resource (while benefitting nicely from the added transit fees that customers will gladly pay to protect cargo from pirates)
in sum, the PDA that controls the most valued resources and strategic assets will be the most profitable. Eventually, this PDA or more likely a cartel of PDAs that control vital societal assets will assume absolutist power to minimize emerging competition, petty conflicts, reduce costs, and increase profits, security, and power.
a few broken windows notwithstanding.
Hell yes I am scared of a state, that is why I support a state.–yuberries
the “state” that I support is anathema to absolutism. My “state”(constitutional federal republic) provides checks, balances, decentralization of power, and transparency that deters the establishment of absolutism.
In contrast, ancap society has no equivalent checks, balances, decentralization of power, or transperancy to deter the eventual emergence of absolutism.
My blog post awakened the Retopper!
You mean, your so well understood profit incentives for breaking windows just disappear when you’re talking of a subsidized army?
When you subsidize x, you get less of x?–yuberries
i dont think you understand my argument regarding liberal democracies being far more peaceful than ancap PDAs
within liberal democracies those that fund war (taxpayers/private enterprises), those that allocate funding (legislature), those that command and oversee the military (civilian government), and those that wage war (military) are all disparate and transparent.
in contrast, within ancap society all of these pillars of power can dangerously be held by a few or the “one”
Oh wow, separation of powers, what an amazing idea!
Except that it’s not, the statists will figure out a way to monetize their coercive, monopolized powers, no matter how many cages you jail the beast in.
of course, no human system is perfect protection from the estabishment of absolutism, however the separation of powers in a constitutional federal republic is far less vulnerable to the establishment of absolutism than ancap society that has no such protections.
moreover, liberal democracies are peaceful and free while still enjoying the economic benefits of ancap society. all that is required within the USA is to modify the constitution to eliminate government ability to tax and regulate commerce, income, state’s rights, et al.
while these measure are difficult to realize at best – they are far more practical and realistic than the establishment of an ancap society.
Just like the states do now?
You worst case scenario isn’t that frightening you know.
no single state controls all of the centers of gravity. moreover, if liberal democracy emerges as the dominate system, we will likely see the end of most forms of conflict.
in contrast, ancap society would offer no change from the present anarchic global environment of endless wars and arms escalation.
Yeah so, when Walmart gains POWER, Kmart’s POWER decreases.
Instead of saying POWER, which is misguiding, you might as well say market share.
PDAs directly compete against each other since they defend clients against the actions of other PDAs.
simarily, if walmart security guards blocked the entrance to kmart then as walmart’s power increased then, yes, kmarts customer base would decrease.
however, walmart and kmart do not engage each other directly. their competition is indirect. Moreover, if they form a cartel, raise prices, and reduce service, then competitors can emerge with little risk of walmart and kmart security guardsblocking access to a competitor’s new store.
in contrast, a hegemon PDA would immediately squash any emerging competition. moreover, this hegemon PDA would already control water, foodstuffs, transportation, et al so they wouldnt need to use extreme force to control large segments of the population. They could turn off the water to stifle dissent.
You’re saying they do, but your claim that it would be profitable to do so is unsubstantiated and self contradicting. You’re already said it’s cheaper not to aggress. Then why a company would want to increase costs to do something it’s not paid to do? No answer. There is none, simply because it would be retarded. Much like your whole latest posts
I guess you have never met a payroll or ran your own business. “why would a company want to increase costs?” answer: to increase long term profits.
of course it is “cheaper” to forego risk and expansion if you own a company, however…
companies invest in capital and expand all the time while not realizing immediate profits. they are looking to the long term. your notion that PDAs will not seek to expand and thereby increase market share and subsequent profits is absurd.
in sum, if a PDA can invest in capital (military hardware, training, recruitment, intelligence, et al) and realize a gain by using this investment to take valuable mineral deposits, water supplies, transportation hubs, mountain passes, manufacturing centers, et al – then it will assume the risk like myriad private enterprises do in the free market every day
amusingly, in your bizzaro “world” PDAs would all be timid, stagnant, and engaged in a perpetual “group hug” with each other — never growing, never competing, all the time leaving valuable resources undefended or unchallenged despite the enormous profits to be gained by aggressive “acquisitions”.
And you fail to realize the security market is no different than the shoes market. It’s management over scarse resources and consumer demand. You’re extrapolating that the demand for security will generate aggression, which is completely retarded. Like saying the demand for shoes will generate.. uh.. bad shoes.–yuberries
security is a far different market since supremacy in this market leads to control of all other markets, resources, and commodities.
moroever, by your “logic” if security was the same as “shoes” then why does every nation on the planet have its own military, yet most import products from nations that have a comparative advantage in the products and services that are imported?
Why dont these nations simply pay the USA to defend their borders since the USA has a comparative advantage in military training, equipment, et al ?
ancap society is dangerous, primarily because those that are brainwashed by its efficacy are blinded by the naive assertion that a monopoly in the security market is no more dangerous then a monopoly in the “ladies footwear” market.
these anarchists are dangerously clueless and naive.
Your provisions are a joke, and if you were half honest to poke holes in it (like you’re trying to with ancap) you’d most likely laugh at yourself.
You regard man in ancap to be an evil beast, but suddenly they turn into altruistic angels when they’re “restrained” by some series of ink and paper rules.
And I’m the naive one. Okay.–yuberries
amusingly, you emotionally claim my “provisions” are a joke, yet you make no attempt to prove this by logical, rational, and empirically supported arguments save “if you were half honest to poke holes in it… you’d likely laugh at yourself”
in sum, if you can poke holes in my argument that liberal democracy has myriad provisions to deter absolutism, then feel free to do so.
moreover, you are indeed naive to assume that humans in either system will act differently, indeed, I have always asserted that the individual is always motivated by the same goals irrespective of the system he lives under. the difference between ancaps and liberal democrats is that we understand man’s weaknesses and liberal democracy installs checks and balances to deter the “evil beast” from emerging.
In contrast, ancap society goes blindly and naively forth without a hint of deterrence or transparency to predict and prevent the emergence of absolutism.
Anarchists oppose the taking of property by force. Do you?–liberty student
if anarchists opposed the taking of property by force then why would you need a PDA to defend property ?
of course, anarchists will use coercion to take valued resources with the same vigor of any statist, perhaps more so.
moreover, I support the taking of property or anything else by force if (1) I can use that same resource to benefit mankind to a greater extent than it is currently be used and (2) if it is not adequately defended relative to its strategic value.
in sum, it is absurd to assert that a cost cutting PDA can get away with not investing adequate resources to defend a valued resource and that competing interests in society are going to sit back and covet this valued relatively undefended resource by not taking it by force.
if anarchists opposed the taking of property by force then why would you need a PDA to defend property ?
Anarchists = exponents of anarchism. Not everyone will adhere to the NAP.
of course, anarchists will use coercion to take valued resources with the same vigor of any statist, perhaps more so.
Hunchism.
moreover, I support the taking of property or anything else by force if (1) I can use that same resource to benefit mankind to a greater extent than it is currently be used and
“Benefit” according to whom? How would you even determine this? You’re not even a minarchist. This is purely arbitrary garbage that is used to justify atrocities like eminent domain.
(2) if it is not adequately defended relative to its strategic value.
As above, how would you determine this?
in sum, it is absurd to assert that a cost cutting PDA can get away with not investing adequate resources to defend a valued resource and that competing interests in society are going to sit back and covet this valued relatively undefended resource by not taking it by force.
It is? Do you swim with sharks?
I’ve decided to return to ask you the following:
Do you take the office supplies from the storage closet at work and give them to the local elementary school? If not, is that because the office supplies were adequately defended relative to their strategic value or, perhaps, because the benefit to mankind won’t be to a greater extent than it is currently used?
Grayson,
I have to be more civil with my posts with you on duty.
Note that some very mild ad hominems have popped up in recent posts on both sides, however no offense is taken since we have been going back and forth in this manner since the thread was started.
I have recently read some essays on private security from murphy and hoppe. I was disappointed since their arguments are usually compelling and persuasive. However, they offered nothing new from what I have read on the forums. In fact — sam, yuberries, seiben, et al arguably have offered a more convincing and rational defense of PDAs.
Moreover, hoppe frequently misrepresents democratic peace theory and parrots leftwing conspiracy theories in his anti-democracy diatribes.
jon,
it is not hunchism to assert that if a PDA determines that a valued resource is inadequately defended that PDA will take the resource by force.
several logical facts emerge from this assertion:
(1) all valued resources should be defended by forces equivalent to their relative value.
(2) any resources that are neglected by either lack of utilization or lack of defense will be taken by an aggressive PDA (adequately funded by investors seeking profit) to the benefit of society at large.
“Benefit” according to whom? How would you even determine this? You’re not even a minarchist. This is purely arbitrary garbage that is used to justify atrocities like eminent domain.–jon
“benefit” is determined by the PDA that covets the resource. Again, If a PDA determines that a valued resource is not adequately defended or that an objective has resources that are not being efficiently exploited — then a PDA will attack and take that resource from the failed PDA or the lazy owner.
in sum, resources are scarce – if an owner of a valuable scarce resources is not employing that resource to the benefit of society then the owner should and will lost that resource to a new owner who values the resource more accurately.
the free market always seeks to redistribute resources and assets to the individual or enterprises that values it the most. moreover, the free market makes no judgment on whether the resource changes hands by cooperation or coercion. In the absence of a handshake, the resource will be transferred to the owner who covets it the most, by force if necessary.
I dont see how you can get more logical than this.
As above, how would you determine this?–jon
The value of a resource is determined by the market. If an owner holds a vast oil field, the price of oil increases, and the oil field is defended by the same force as prior to the increase in oil prices, then the likelihood of attack on the oil field increases.
It is? Do you swim with sharks?–jon
it seems that ancaps like yourself who believe that you can hold a valued resource without expending resources to defend it are “swimming with sharks”
in sum, it is amusing (and dangerously naive) for ancaps to discount that (1) the free market can reward coercion as a means to gain wealth, power, security (2) that valued resources need to be constantly defended and the level of defense must be constantly adjusted to reflect market changes, and (3) that no provisions are in place to prevent a hegemon PDA from emerging that establishes absolutist power
That’s a non sequitur. And you did not answer my question.
So you’re not a minarchist. You are a totalitarian socialist. You believe in collective right through violent might.
I didn’t assert anything about PDAs. I stated a basic premise of anarcho-capitalism. That the taking of property by force is unjust and immoral. I asked if you agreed.
You claimed that it is just to take things with force if you are stronger and you can claim a greater good argument. This is, I believe, a form of communism.
Thus, you are not a minarchist at all. You appear to be a communist because you do not respect property rights.
Thank you for explaining yourself more clearly. This helps us understand your positions better than when you claimed to be a minarchist.
Do you take the office supplies from the storage closet at work and give them to the local elementary school? If not, is that because the office supplies were adequately defended relative to their strategic value or, perhaps, because the benefit to mankind won’t be to a greater extent than it is currently used?–muffinburg
no doubt the world is full of “robin hoods” who try to justify outright thievery by redistribution. however, in most cases, the thief pockets the bulk of the proceeds and redistributes a paltry pittance to the “needy”.
nonetheless, If a dominant regional PDA determines that a resource is sitting in a warehouse (medical supplies) , left in disrepair (a canal or road), eroding (fertile farmland), looted, et al and people are left wanting because of a lazy or inefficient owner and his PDA of choice, then yes this resource will be taken and annexed by an aggressive PDA.
the market will insure that every valued resource is defended relative to its value and worth to society. Moreover, if a PDA is inefficient or inattentive to protecting resources under its charge, then they will lose these resources by force to a more aggressive PDA.
in sum, society should welcome the change that puts the most competent PDA in control of the most valued resources. otherwise, these resources would be constantly changing ownership and their benefit to society would be negated by instability.