What praxeological precept(s) confirm anarchism over minarchism in providing for societal economic health AND societal security from external threats?

Economics Political Theory
521

So you’re not a minarchist. You are a totalitarian socialist. You believe in collective right through violent might.–liberty student

because I believe that 2+2=4 doesnt mean that I am a totalitarian socialist or any other ideologue.

the fact that a PDA in an anarchic society seeks to maximize profit, gain market share, increase security is not an ideological argument.

I merely asserted that if a PDA determined that (1) a valued resource is not adequetely defended and (2) if the resource can be taken by force, annexed, and utilized to a net profit – then the PDA will attack and take the resource.

in addition, society will benefit in at least two ways (1) a resource that heretofore was unstable/unreliable because it was inadequately defended is now secure and (2) the resources that were previously not effectively exploited are now being held by a entity that appreciates its value and will exploit it more effectively to the overall benefit of society.

how can stating a logical fact subject me to be labeled anything other than a truth speaker ?

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.–liberty student

if anarcho-capitalism’s foundation is based on morality and value judgments of what is “just” or “unjust” as opposed to what is profitable and efficient than perhaps that is why ancap society has never existed.

however, you are wrong. ancap society would be brutal and warlike if there was profit to be had in brutal and warlike actions.

in sum, ancap society will not do anything unless it is motivated by profit, period. Otherwise your definition of ancap is unsustainable and a fallacy – similar to statism, religious theocracy, et al.

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.

No, it is called reality.

PDA that preys on a poorly defended vital resource to the benefit of its investors and society at large is no more immoral than a lion who preys on a herbivore on the african steppes.

in sum, the weak and inefficient will always condemn violence and coercion since they cannot defend themselves from it. Moreover, it is absurd to assert that ancap society will allow freedom of action for every single skill set possessed by individuals expect those who are expert at wielding coercive force.

specifically, ancap society makes no judgment on the morality of armed force, only on its efficacy of being profitable. otherwise, ancap society has disenfranchised a legitimate, beneficial, and useful tool of societal change — armed force.

perhaps when ancaps learn to appreciate the utility of armed force or coercion as simply another means to achieve an end, then ancap society will be more than a pipe dream.

oops, if armed force or coercion is a means to achieve ancap society then it has discredited itself before it has established itself.

indeed, what a conundrum !

ancaps rejects the utility of armed coercion to achieve beneficial change in society, yet they are not likely to achieve power via coercion since that would discredit them in the eyes of the masses as another power grabbing two-faced ideology.

this along with the specialization of labor, economies of scale that would lead to the likely emergence of a hegemonic PDA that could not be detered from absolutism makes arguments for the efficacy of ancap society a hard sell at best.

522

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.

It is. The rest are pure non sequiturs following from a non-fact.

“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.

Benefit to the PDA, then. No one else. It is merely making its own valuations. You did say benefit to society. I sense you’re goalpost-shifting…

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.

Actually, the free market consists of agents who may or may not (dis)value the use of force in acquiring a good. I’d not trust someone who went about acquiring goods in that manner. I’d certainly not trust them to adhere to contracts. The “will” in your paragraph is purely conjectural.

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.

Says who?

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”

That doesn’t even make sense.

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

Where have we discounted the foregoing? Rather, you’ve constantly discounted these factors with regard to minarchism…

because I believe that 2+2=4 doesnt mean that I am a totalitarian socialist or any other ideologue.

How wonderfully irrelevant. Though you pretty much are.

I merely asserted that if a PDA determined that (1) a valued resource is not adequetely defended and (2) if the resource can be taken by force, annexed, and utilized to a net profit – then the PDA will attack and take the resource.

Indeed, now what if its owners’ preferences and the impact on the firm’s reputation were such that such a profit would not come about at all or would but with very high risks to it?

how can stating a logical fact subject me to be labeled anything other than a truth speaker ?

Because you make assumptions regarding some “society” and benefits flowing to it without considering whether in sum it is on the whole detrimental to social utility (whatever this term may mean…)

perhaps when ancaps learn to appreciate the utility of armed force or coercion as simply another means to achieve an end, then ancap society will be more than a pipe dream.

Non sequitur/not going to happen.

ancaps rejects the utility of armed coercion to achieve beneficial change in society, yet they are not likely to achieve power via coercion since that would discredit them in the eyes of the masses as another power grabbing two-faced ideology.

The same holds for minarchists in search of change via use of force…

this along with the specialization of labor, economies of scale that would lead to the likely emergence of a hegemonic PDA that could not be detered from absolutism makes arguments for the efficacy of ancap society a hard sell at best.

Actually your unproven assertions are the hard sell, at best.

You seem more intent on provoking than anything else. Why?

523

And the PDA that does that will lose customers that disapproves of that crap too, duh. Why you need to be paying for something you don’t agree with?

Impeachment is sub-par to ostracism. Nothing beats an exact revenue loss proportional to the disapproving clientele. With an impeachment, you need a majority and all kinds of crap to get through; then again I don’t know how your statism brand works but point stands that it’s just another poor market imitation.–yuberries

absurd.

the PDAs customers dont care what the PDA does with its investment or premiums so long as the customer is protected and his premiums are low.

you dont care where your retirement fund is invested so long as the return on investment exceeds inflation or other investment options of similar risk.

an aggressive PDA could easily get funding, venture capital, speculative investors et al to fund aggressive offensive actions if these enterprises enabled the PDA to capture lucrative and profitable societal centers of gravity (water supplies, fertile farmland, minerals, energy supplies, transportation hubs, et al) that would bring extrodinary returns to investors (not customers per se)

An economy of scale may or may not apply to defense, and to what degree, you haven’t elaborated enough to say.-yuberries

economy of scale would apply in the defense industry the same as any other industry.

explain why it would not?

The state you preach is practically that exact monopolistic and coercively funded PDA that you so denounce, yet because they’ve promised you they won’t hurt you it means it’s all good. Never mind all the crap you talk about rogue PDA’s, the guys with all the subsidized incentives for breaking windows won’t actually break them, yeah.-- yuberries

your being lazy and not reading my previous posts.

the ancap PDA and the military in a liberal democracy differ greatly.

(1) unlike ancap PDAs – the military in a democracy has no control over funding or how money is allocated (taxpayer via congress)

(2) unlike ancap PDAs - the military does not command itself (civilian leadership with congressional oversight).

(3) unlike ancap PDAs - the military has little control over intelligence gathering (civilian defense agencies, NRO, NSA, NGA, CIA, FBI, et al)

(4) unlike ancap PDAs - the military does not directly benefit from war (“profits” redistributed by civilian leadership)

(5) unlike ancap PDAs – liberal democracies fight wars of ideology versus profit.

(6) unlike ancap PDAs - military power is decentralized by disparate and distrustful air force, Marines, army, navy et al

(7) unlike ancap PDAs - military training, operations, and funding is 100% transparent to civilian leadership.

In sum, liberal democracies are inherently peaceful to like minded democracies – in contrast, any weak asset will be targeted and attacked for a profit by ancap PDAs.

Ah I see, so “cost-cutting” doesn’t mean more efficient, huh, it means less effective? Why would the defensive PDA be less effective at that exact task it focuses on doing, as compared to a rogue PDA who has to spend more on breaking windows? Just because you say so, right?–yuberries

efficient is applicable if it can be translated into a strudy defense that deters potential threats. however, cost cutting is inherently dangerous if the PDA doing the cost cutting does not provided for adequate defense of a valued resource.

lastly, a “rogue” PDA would not be vilified simply because it identified and punished an inefficient PDA who wasted societal resources by not efficiently utilizing scarce defense industry resources to protect its customer’s assets.

more likely the “rouge” PDA would advertise liberally of its exploits at annexing competitor PDAs assets and use this fact to recruit new customers by showing video of its tanks overwhelming a competitor PDAs military.

of course handwringering moralists would be free to sign on with the losing PDA out of pity or moral indignation.

That talk about determining the real value of a resource.. yet another BS coming from you. Tell me, who’s more likely to evaluate that better,

A- the person who owns it and will pay for it’s security, or

B- some retarded PDA overextending it’s duties and charging more from it’s clients to go out and break windows?

of course an efficiently and expertly run PDA that invested in the defense of a valued resource commensurate with its real value would be rewarded with continued control over the asset. MOreover, an overly aggressive PDA would be removed from the marketplace quickly.

however, naive ancaps like yourself presume too much when you assume that all assets will be adequately defended and that all aggressive PDAs will not be expertly managed.

note that the most aggressive and efficiently run PDAs would have brilliant and charismatic CEOs like alexander, ceasar, khan, napoleon, et al.

do you think these leaders would sit back and accept marginal profits and security instead of the risks and rewards associated with a more aggressive “business plan” ?

If the market is a place where information is diffused throughout the world, it is very likely that you’re not the first one who’s thought about robbing place X. It is very very likely owner of place X has himself best evaluated the risks of his property being taken by force. “Strategically vital centers of power”, or places with a greater value still, will most likely be defended better in a free market where the owner is not restrained by what a central planner lets him do or takes away from him.

When you say shit like that, it’s obvious you haven’t compared to your own statism, where folks who need extra protection have to not only bear the burden of double spending for both public and private costs, but have to abide by regulations imposed by the monopolistic bureaucrats.–yuberries

I am always amused by ancap adherents chanting the mantra of the unquestioned efficacy of the free market in all things.

yet, ancaps fail to note that 99% (nay 100%) of all private enterprises ultimately FAIL.

indeed, even a hegemon PDA that establishes absolutist rule will eventually decay and fall. Nonetheless, ancap society will be in constant conflict as competing and disparate PDAs seek to gain market share, wealth, resources, security, et al at the expense of declining PDAs and the resources and customer under their charge.

eventually another hegemonic PDA will re-emerge since no checks, balances, and transparency exists that is present within liberal democracies.

This happens today with a subsidized, monopolized state army. That you take a scenario so common to the statist, and put it in a market environment so boldly, really strikes me as badly thought out.–yuberries

it is not “badly thought out” – it is reality.

you have mistaken the means for the ends.

of course, ancap PDAs will be more efficient, however the ends of both the statist and the ancap are the same – namely security and power.

just because the PDA will be more efficient does not mean that the motivation for war and conflict that has been part and parcel of humanity since the dawn of civilization will disappear overnight simply because potential atagonists are private instead of public entities.

I’m no middle east expert but I think your scenario is very unlikely to be profitable. And if it IS profitable and easy to do, then it’s the middle easterns that are for some reason making huge malinvestments in defense, consistently over time. I’d expect them to correct it or just sell the land for less if they can’t keep it.–yuberries

there you go again.!

presuming that every private entity in the free market is 100% efficient and all knowing, while clueless to the fact that 99.99% of these “flawless” enterprise ultimately miscalculate and fail.

indeed, the security industry will see all but a cartel or monopoly of PDAs fail, then you will have absolutism.

And then- if NO ONE can keep it, well, then no one will keep it! No one will even waste money drilling it. But again, defender’s advantage makes it possible to defend private property in most situations, or at least retaliate enough to make it unproffitable to invade.–yuberries

your fantasyland of peaceful equilibrium is absurd.

every vital center of gravity cannot be defended by a force exactly equal to its value. the market will constantly be probing for weaknesses and targets of opportunity for aggressive and profit seeking PDAs to exploit. Indeed, since profit and relative strength among competing PDAs is of paramount importance, all expertly run PDAs will be looking for weak and vulnerable targets.

this is what an efficiently running market does, it rewards bold and efficient allocation of resources irrespective of whether it is coercive or not, and punishes timid and stagnant enterprises.

And the PDA that does that will lose customers that disapproves of that crap too, duh. Why you need to be paying for something you don’t agree with?

Impeachment is sub-par to ostracism. Nothing beats an exact revenue loss proportional to the disapproving clientele. With an impeachment, you need a majority and all kinds of crap to get through; then again I don’t know how your statism brand works but point stands that it’s just another poor market imitation.–yuberries

again, PDAs that generate a positive return on investment will get the most funding in the form of venture capital, IPOs, bonds, et al

while some investors will look to cautious and safe companies, those investors in the security business will naturally look to PDAs that they think will be around in the next ten years and those are likely to be the PDAs that are growing.

note that companies do not grow by being timid and cautious. the apples, microsofts, IBMs et al had aggressive pro-growth business plans that sought to capture market share rather than maintain it.

As much transparency as the customers want…

The difference being that there’s direct profit incentives and not wishful constitutional restrictions.–yuberries

hence there would be no transparency in an ancap PDA.

moreover, the PDA wouldnt allow competitors to “view the books” since that would represent a dangerous breach of security for a PDA defending valued resources from a competitor PDA.

in sum, by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure – military in a liberal democracy is far more transparent than ancap society PDAs

If there’s demand for such a scheme then the PDA’s themselves can deliver it. The contract between you and the PDA can be written in just as many forms as you can imagine a liberal constitution being made. The more creative and best PDA at satisfying such demands will be in the lead, and the others will have to imitate it to an extent. When someone figures a better scheme yet, maybe they can get big then.

The best solution is much more likely to come from the market than any statist anyway; tens of thousands of entrepreneurs can think way more than some thugs who think they know how to manage a whole country.–yuberries

absurd.

what you are advocating is a government framework to decentralize control of ancap PDAs.

essentially you are claiming that ancap society and private PDAs can and will submit to a quasi- constitutional federal republican form of government that was devised primarily to prevent the establishment of absolutism by subdividing the inherent threat of a hegemon PDA from emerging…

and still be ancap.

either you are ancap and you have no provisions for societal ownership and control over security or you have public ownership and oversight of the pillars of security.

you cant have it both ways.

in sum, if you neuter the PDA then you no longer have a private enterprise in security. your “solution” would be to institute constitutional regulations and reforms on the security industry that would be what I advocate, hence liberal democracy.

it would be equivalent to walmart volutarily submitting to statist regulations to prevent it from becoming a monopoly.

doesn’t change the fact that it’s a subsidized, monopolistic defense agency.–yuberries

it is not monopolistic (state militias, armed citizenry, disparate navy, army, airforce, intelligence, et al ) and the military within a liberal democracy only represents a mere 3-5% of GDP. morevoer, within a geopolitic eventually dominated by liberal democracies, defense expenditures would drop to less than a fraction of 1% of GDP

in contrast, ancap society would never see defense spending drop to those levels since the profitabiility of using armed force would always exist.

524

This is a non sequitur. Do try to stay on topic Rettoper.

I am not talking about PDAs. I am referring to your own statement of ethics.

You believe that collective right combined with might is justice. That was your statement. You clearly do not believe in private property.

We’re not talking about ancap. We’re talking about your ethics. Again, please do stay on topic.

I didn’t reply to your many attempts to deflect and avoid answering for your own ethical system.

Interesting isn’t it? After all your claims about society and minarchism, at the end of the day, you’re just another believer in explicit anti-market thuggery. Even your claims to economic freedom are undone by your inability to articulate a position consistent with private property.

The moral high ground you appear to have ceded to the ancaps, who only seek to defend themselves, not to justify theft and aggression for profit.

525

Now I see what Rettoper means when he says people just try to slander him as being a statist. Liberty student I feel like you’re trying to change the direction of the debate as it has nothing to do with his contention about PDAs becoming absolutists organizations.

526

It is. The rest are pure non sequiturs following from a non-fact.–jon

typical of you to label arguments you cant challenge with logic, facts, or empiricism as non-sequiturs or some other convenient but nonsensical “fallacy”

Benefit to the PDA, then. No one else. It is merely making its own valuations. You did say benefit to society. I sense you’re goalpost-shifting…–jon

you would be better served by challenging my arguments with your typically inane “non sequitur” defense.

for example, it is a service to society when a private enterprise is profitable irrespective of its motives.

note that the act of being profitable is in itself beneficial to society irrespective of whether the PDA is motivated by a conscious effort to “benefit society”

Actually, the free market consists of agents who may or may not (dis)value the use of force in acquiring a good. I’d not trust someone who went about acquiring goods in that manner. I’d certainly not trust them to adhere to contracts. The “will” in your paragraph is purely conjectural.–jon

the PDA wouldnt care what you thought anyway. you probably dont have any capital to invest anyway. Dont worry, an aggressive expertly led PDA would receive funding from myriad sources trying to maximize return on investment. and throughout history plunder from armed aggression has been very profitable to those that weild force effectively.

your handwringing moralizing not withstanding.

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.–rettoper

Says who?-- jon

logic.

if you disagree, please provide a more substantive rebut than simply

“says who”

these kind of responses deviod of any fact, logic, and empiricism are more a testament to the weakness of your positions, or lack thereof.

That doesn’t even make sense.–jon

let me try to simplify my argument for you.

in ancap society every valued resource must be defended or it will be subject to predation. it is absurd to think that these resources can be left untended or undefended and not invite loss.

by that logic, ancap PDAs are led by idiots who while covetous of undefended resources are loath to take them when they have the means to do so or there is no need for PDAs since ancap society is populated by angels.

Where have we discounted the foregoing? Rather, you’ve constantly discounted these factors with regard to minarchism…–jon

there you go again, not reading my previous posts on the decentralization of military assets among liberal democracies.

in contrast, the ancap PDA controls the levers of funding, intelligence, command, control, training, R&D, et al. moreover, they receive directly the benefits or plunder of military successes and all without a hint of transparency that is prevalent among the military in a liberal democracy.

Indeed, now what if its owners’ preferences and the impact on the firm’s reputation were such that such a profit would not come about at all or would but with very high risks to it?-- jon

what do you think jon ?!!

duh, they wouldnt engage in actions that the management deemed was not profitable.

of course, like all private enterprises occasionally the management would miscalculate and aggressive actions would not be profitable. however, the most aggressive and growth orientated PDAs would emerge the most dominate – similar to what occurs in every other market and industry.

Because you make assumptions regarding some “society” and benefits flowing to it without considering whether in sum it is on the whole detrimental to social utility (whatever this term may mean…)–jon

by your logic, aggressive predatory action by PDAs would never occur ?!

I merely stated the obvious – that if a valued resource was not adequately defended, it would be taken.

Non sequitur/not going to happen.-jon

again, many pseudo-ancaps or poser ancaps are of the utopian opinion that (1) armed force is not a tool for positive and beneficial change in society and (2) the ancap society that they envision will not be subject to acts of coercion by armed force, hence ancap society is a moral construct versus a profit driven society.

both of these utopian views are fantasyland stuff.

indeed, true ancaps understand that armed force is simply a means to an end (not subject to moral handwringing) and they will employ it to devastating (and beneficial) effect when the opportunity presents itself.

in sum, ancap society is an unsustainable paradox if the utility of armed force is removed as a tool for change to improve societal health and well being.

essentially, utopian ancaps are discounting and denigrating a skill set that is employed by myriad leaders and their charges throughout history. it would be equivalent for those skilled and trained in the military arts to “outlaw” debate and lawyers simply because they deem intellectual coercion as unethical

The same holds for minarchists in search of change via use of force…–jon

a constitutional federal republic has been very effective at weilding power against statist threats. Indeed, we were formed by coercion and violence against the tories who numbered at least half of colonists.

Actually your unproven assertions are the hard sell, at best.–jon

I’ll add this response to the list of substantive responses from you.

You seem more intent on provoking than anything else. Why?–jon

the truth dude.

why else ?

and why so defensive if your utopian world view of both the “efficacy” and “morality” of ancap society is so secure ?

527

Why do thieves keep stealing? It’s a non-sequitur. Simply because countries partake in war does not automaticaly equate to them doign so because it’s allegedly profitable(which runs counter to logic and empirical/historical evidence). If this were the case our history would have been entirely different. Profit only comes from generating consumer satisfaction and creating new wealth, are you saying war creates consumer satisfaction? War generally murders people and destroys their property, it’s effectively removing wealth from an economy. So it seems to do the opposite of generate profit.

How was it financed? And was it profitable for the native american?

As I said earlier, stealing is profitable to the thief if he is not caught. Unfortunately however for your argument war remains empiricaly as one of the most outstanding historical examples of destruction of capital and a continued leading cause of diluted currencies. War is one of the primary culprits for bank failures and central bank failures, recessions, depressions, hyper-inflations, and ofc business cycles. So to call it profitable is really a remarkable claim. Lets not forget that you continue to make this assertion, but you’ve not yet bothered to provide even one shred of evidence to substantiate your claim.

But then again all of this is besides my orginal point, whic you ignored, perhaps by accident. How does a monopolist in the business of providing security economically calculate? How do consumers influence the agencies actions and keep them responsible?

Currently if a loved one is murderd in your family your looking at 1-5 years of “justice” provided by the state. If I had the option to switch providers I would have done so 3 years ago.

528

The PDA could easily get funding to fund aggressive offensive actions to steal property? Really? How so?

Is this how works?.. The “We Steal It” PDA approaches investors and says, “We steal property. Invest with us, we will provide you an excellent return on investment. Of course, we promise not to steal the property that YOU own, or steal from people that YOU trade with”.

Please, do explain how aggressive thieves “easily get funding”.

529

No My friend, unless I am mis-understanding, he is directly addressing your logic, and you are sidestepping the point.

Here is a nice site that will update you on things like non-sequitur.

http://www.csun.edu/~dgw61315/fallacies.html

530

P.S. - Rettoper, where do the investors get the money to invest in the “We Steal It” PDA? Do the investors own water supplies, fertile farmland, minerals, energy supplies, transportation hubs, etc? Opps, those are the targets of theft…

531

typical of you to label arguments you cant challenge with logic, facts, or empiricism as non-sequiturs or some other convenient but nonsensical “fallacy”

You’re the one who started the whole declaration of arguments as fallacies tactic, don’t get mad when I point out your actual fallacies. I’m a fan of the Socratic method, if you’ve not noticed.

you would be better served by challenging my arguments with your typically inane “non sequitur” defense.

Well it doesn’t follow… I’m not addressing arguments that do not follow from a false premise.

for example, it is a service to society when a private enterprise is profitable irrespective of its motives.

Nope, this is sheer nonsense and only holds when the actions involved are voluntary for all parties involved.

the PDA wouldnt care what you thought anyway.

I can’t tell if this is a weak attempt at ad hominem or whether it’s some sort of stupid argument to the effect that a PDA can afford not to care what its customers value…

these kind of responses deviod of any fact, logic, and empiricism are more a testament to the weakness of your positions, or lack thereof.

I don’t care. Provide an argument - not an assertion - and I’ll care to rebut it.

let me try to simplify my argument for you.

Try injecting some logic into it, it’d be a better use of your time than this sort of sophistry.

in ancap society every valued resource must be defended or it will be subject to predation. it is absurd to think that these resources can be left untended or undefended and not invite loss.

That depends on a) how prevalent predators are and b) whether non-coercive measures of defence will out perform coercive ones. You’re not a diviner so do not pretend to know which will or will not be superior or how a particular society is constituted.

by that logic, ancap PDAs are led by idiots who while covetous of undefended resources are loath to take them when they have the means to do so or there is no need for PDAs since ancap society is populated by angels.

Purely personal evaluation of the preferences of others. You’re injecting your personal preferences into (what you think is) economic analysis.

there you go again, not reading my previous posts on the decentralization of military assets among liberal democracies.

Sorry, I can’t be bothered reading voluminous rants extending over several pages, I’ve way better uses of my time.

in contrast, the ancap PDA controls the levers of funding, intelligence, command, control, training, R&D, et al. moreover, they receive directly the benefits or plunder of military successes and all without a hint of transparency that is prevalent among the military in a liberal democracy.

They control the extent of their own operations. Don’t know what this has to do with anything. The latter again does not follow from the former, is untrue (they directly incur the costs, both immediate and future) of their “successes” and as for transparency, you wish to tell me a private firm competing on multiple markets subject to shareholder pressure is less transparent than states with track records of lying and covering things up (the UK as a prominent example)? Come off it.

of course, like all private enterprises occasionally the management would miscalculate and aggressive actions would not be profitable. however, the most aggressive and growth orientated PDAs would emerge the most dominate – similar to what occurs in every other market and industry.

According to whom? Again you have some utterly simplistic view of how the market functions, merely thinking aggressive policies alone suffice for market success, to the exclusion of cooperation with other firms and delivering a superior value proposition to clients (the ultimate role of the firm should it wish to succeed.) Growth orientation requires sensitivity to consumer preferences. There are few consumers out there willing to deal with aggressive firms that employ violence, especially once they become aware of it. This is especially because they risk being victims of its aggression (the same holds for other firms in the market, they too have no reason to trust an aggressive PDA for any length of time.) Chloe basically (partially) outlined what I am getting at in his previous post.

by your logic, aggressive predatory action by PDAs would never occur ?!

They could. Is it likely? I’ve seen no argument (especially from you) that it is.

both of these utopian views are fantasyland stuff.

Cut out the long rant, dunno who you’re referring to, you’ve certainly not provided any real evidence to substantiate your claims, but I don’t really care since I’m not one of these supposed “poser” anarchists, whatever the fuck that means.

in sum, ancap society is an unsustainable paradox if the utility of armed force is removed as a tool for change to improve societal health and well being.

Sheer garbage with no argumentative substance behind it.

essentially, utopian ancaps are discounting and denigrating a skill set that is employed by myriad leaders and their charges throughout history. it would be equivalent for those skilled and trained in the military arts to “outlaw” debate and lawyers simply because they deem intellectual coercion as unethical

Hey, either provide arguments against the NAP or shut up quite frankly. So far you just rant, rant rant rant and try overwhelm your opponents by exhaustion because you do nothing but rant. I could reduce your posts to one-line assertions to save myself time, and in fact I do that now even. If you could provide an argument regarding intellectual “coercion”, do so (none would exist, Nozick tried this ridiculous line of reasoning, it’s rubbish since entering a debate is voluntary.)

a constitutional federal republic has been very effective at weilding power against statist threats. Indeed, we were formed by coercion and violence against the tories who numbered at least half of colonists.

Yes, the US today is a shining example of how a constitutional federal republic has limited statist encroachments.

I’ll add this response to the list of substantive responses from you.

/care. Add that too.

and why so defensive if your utopian world view of both the “efficacy” and “morality” of ancap society is so secure ?

You came here to debate (purportedly.) Don’t be surprised when people actually take up a held position on the host forum…

532

He is a statist, no one needs to slander him. His own claim is that he should use might to take property if he feels he has a better use for it than the current owner. That is statism. A party which claims that violating property rights is legitimized by the collective good and access to overwhelming force.

I am not changing the direction of the debate. Rettoper hasn’t been able to articulate a logical argument against PDAs that I have seen. What he has done is made many false statements about ancap, and I merely asked him to clarify his system of ethics relative to the ethics of ancaps.

When he did so, he exposed the working of a statist mind that doesn’t believe in justice, private property, markets or liberty (necessary at the minimum for the pretense of minarchism) but rather in brutish violence and thuggery to satisfy his own delusions of superior planning.

533

liberty student,

I am not talking about PDAs. I am referring to your own statement of ethics.

beware of ideologues bearing “morality” especially those based on profit and efficiency.

make no mistake ancap society is not based on morality or the absence of coercion, only freedom.

and that freedom means the freedom to gain wealth and power via coercion and armed force.

as for ethics, that argument is entirely subjective. although I appreciate liberal democracy for dramatically improving civil and political rights since 1776, including the irradication of slavery, monarchism, communism, fascism, and currently islamic extremism.

no doubt we have not reduced economic coercion from the central government, however I believe that circumstances and the dynamism of liberal democracy will lead to a dramatic reduction in the government’s ability to tax and regulate private individuals and enterprises.

You believe that collective right combined with might is justice. That was your statement. You clearly do not believe in private property.

i cherish private property, so much so that I understand that man is flawed and inherently prone to despotism. As a result, I advocate the establishment of a constitutional federal republic that is a vaccine against the emergence of full blown absolutism.

in contrast, ancap society has no such checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency of the levers of power and coercion. indeed, they could all be in the hands of a single PDA cartel or monopoly.

We’re not talking about ancap. We’re talking about your ethics. Again, please do stay on topic.

I didn’t reply to your many attempts to deflect and avoid answering for your own ethical system.

it is neither ethical or unethical to seeeks to prevent it from happening on a grand scale (absolutism). moreover, I believe that ancap society is an invitation for statist to regain power that they would otherwise be denied within a liberal democracy.

Interesting isn’t it? After all your claims about society and minarchism, at the end of the day, you’re just another believer in explicit anti-market thuggery. Even your claims to economic freedom are undone by your inability to articulate a position consistent with private property.

I dont advocate thuggery, I just accept that it is a component of human actions, namely individuals will coerce others to gain base needs, security, wealth, and power. Moreover, I understand that private property rights and free markets are the optimum system for obtaining material wealth.

however, in order to protect private property and labor – society must isolate and subdivide the inevitable coercive elements (statists and his machinations) in a transparent and huddled formation (washington dc) from which we can observe, monitor, and check their endless schemes. Moreover, we need to establish competing and disparate branches of government in which these statists distract themselves in fruitless competitions for power while we go about the business of creating wealth and improving societal health and well being.

lastly, those who advocate liberal democracy understand that it is utterly peaceful and averse to war against like minded societies. indeed, if the world was dominated by liberal democracies peace, prosperity, freedom, stability, and postive dynamism would reign.

The moral high ground you appear to have ceded to the ancaps, who only seek to defend themselves, not to justify theft and aggression for profit.

it is utopian and unrealistic if you think that your vision of ancap society will not be subject to endless acts of aggression.

in reality, human nature and the desire for security and power dictates that valued resources within ancap society that are not adequately defended commensurate to the value of the resource will be subject to predation by force.

the market dictates as much, hence a valued resource must be defended by a force equal to its value or it will be taken by a PDA that correctly values its worth.

if your version of ancap society rejects this tenet, then you are arguing the efficacy of ancap society on subjective and illogical moral argument versus logic and empiricism.

you would be equally flawed to base the efficacy of your society on religious “moral” grounds, hence your bastardized version of ancap society is simply a hobbling framework of subjective “moral” grandstanding rubbish.

534

P.S. - Rettoper, where do the investors get the money to invest in the “We Steal It” PDA? Do the investors own water supplies, fertile farmland, minerals, energy supplies, transportation hubs, etc? Opps, those are the targets of theft…–chloe

it is not a "we steal it " PDA – it is a “we value the resource correctly” PDA.

Moreover, the aggressor PDA employs resources to take and defend the valued resource equal to its true value. IN contrast, a substandard PDA misallocates security industry resources by not providing adequate attention to defend an important customer’s valued property and resources.

your argument against a poorly managed and miscalculating PDA smacks of statism and crony capitalism while rejecting the beneficial machinations of the free market to allocate scarce resources to those enterprises that are most efficient.

535

pentahedron,

amusingly, the argument for the efficacy of anarchism has become a moral argument. this is disturbingly similar to that offered by marxists and socialists who cant defend the efficacy of their system of choice by logic and empiricism.

in sum, moral arguments are the “go to” of utterly bankrupt ideologues.

also, thanks for pointing out some contradiction in these arguments. I hope you have a thick skin as you have noted many ancaps get defensive when their system of choice is challenged

536

Please do yourself a favour and educate yourself on the subjective theory of value. You really have no idea what you’re talking about. You should do more research on the topic of anarchism before engaging in debate on it, it’d help you seem less clueless. Almost nothing in what I said was “moral”, rather it concerned the injection of your own preferences into “economic” analysis.

Anyway have fun, I’ve invested enough time on this for now.

537

Rettoper,

You did not address my two posts at all. Your response makes no sense in light of my question to you.

You said it would be easy for the thieving PDA to obtain investor funding. Now, re-read my posts and address my points. I asked you where the investable funds would come from. Please explain why it would be easy to obtain funds from investors for such endeavors (the theft of factors of production).

538

jon,

in sum, your entire argument is based primarily on a rejection of the free market.

for example, you are defending the “right” of a poorly led malinvesting PDA to skimp on defense of valued resources because in your opinion it is immoral to attack a weakly defended property.

essentially, you are advocating forces (subjective morality) other than the free market to allocate scarce resources. hence what is the difference between you and the statist ?

hence, an aggressive PDA cant use its superior strength to increase its wealth and profitability while an inferior PDA is protected from investing appropriate resources and capital into the defense of a valued resource because moral arguments trump profit and market machinations.

which proves that handwringing moralists dont understand the free market or that anarchism is not favorable to the free market since it invalidates or seeks to denigrate the utility of armed forced in forcing beneficial change in society.

if anarchists reject the utility of armed force to achieve beneficial change or correctly value scarce resource then they reject the free market…or,

if anarchists accept the utility of armed force as a means to positive change then they are not anarchists since they advocate coercion to achieve desired ends.

either way anarchists are debunked and their arguments are discredited as absurd and utopian since armed force is a viable and legitimate means to achieve desired ends in many cases.

in reality, true knowlegable anarchists acknowledge the utility of armed force and coercion to achieve ends even if a few ancap posers dont.

539

You said it would be easy for the thieving PDA to obtain investor funding. Now, re-read my posts and address my points. I asked you where the investable funds would come from. Please explain why it would be easy to obtain funds from investors for such endeavors (the theft of factors of production).–choloe

IPOs, venture capitalists, operating funds, bonds, et al

investors seek a return on investment. there is no shortage of speculators willing to fund high gain high risk ventures that would represent aggressive action by a PDA.

moreover, if anyone was “thieving” it would be a malinvesting PDA that skimped on defense that resulted in a customer losing his property to an aggressive PDA.

the aggressive PDA would keep the other PDAs honest by forcing them to invest in appropriate defense of valued resources.

In sum, the weaker PDAs couldnt siphon money off from defense to pad personal bank accounts without suffering a loss of customers and agency resources.

540

I am not changing the direction of the debate. Rettoper hasn’t been able to articulate a logical argument against PDAs that I have seen. What he has done is made many false statements about ancap, and I merely asked him to clarify his system of ethics relative to the ethics of ancaps.

When he did so, he exposed the working of a statist mind that doesn’t believe in justice, private property, markets or liberty (necessary at the minimum for the pretense of minarchism) but rather in brutish violence and thuggery to satisfy his own delusions of superior planning.–liberty student

so you are defending ancap society on “moral” grounds.

very amusing.

and checkmate too.

I am not a statist because I acknowledge the utility of armed coercion in order to change society for the better.

I am a truth speaker.

by your logic:

rettoper claims that armed force is a legitimate means to achieve an end.

rettoper claims that armed force will be used in ancap society if (1) a resource is not adequately defended relative to its value (2) a profit can be realized by attacking and annexing a valued resource that is inadequately defended and (3) the free market insures that a valued property is defended by a force that is commensurate to the value of the property being defended.

rettoper is a statist ?!

note that if a PDA had the means to take a poorly defended asset that would earn the PDAs customers and investors a handsome return, then it is my assertion that the PDA that DID NOT take the resource would be acting counter to the machinations of the free market and its actions would be unethical since it was placing subjective value judgments ahead of shareholder profits and customer security.

likewise, a PDA that did not adequately defend a vital resource would be neglecting its stated responsibility to defend customer assets, moreover it is absurd to claim that more powerful PDAs should not attack a weaker PDAs assets simply on subjective moral grounds (most likely moralizing from the CEOs siphoning PDA resources from defense to personal bank accounts)

indeed the whole point of this argument is to highlight the extreme contradictions from a few supposed ancaps who are suddenly arguing for morality usurping profits and free market machinations as the motivation for advocating anarchism.

ancap “logic” for you.

morality over profit. doesnt that sound familar (communism maybe ?)