In sum, you haven’t answered the question. Oh well.
In sum, you haven’t answered the question. Oh well.-- mufinburg
I personally wouldnt steal from work since there is marginal upside and extreme downside.
however, if the “closet” contained base needs (food, water, et al) that I didnt have obviously I would plunder it.
also, if the “closet” contained hegemon powers, then I would plunder it for security, power, and later use these to attain wealth for me and my family.
moreover, if the “closet” contained megan fox as my personal servant, hell yes I would plunder it.
other than a nice piece of ass and absolutist power, I dont see myself stealing from my employers “closet”
in sum, if the price is right virtually every individual will plunder to satisfy ends (water, food, shelter, security, power, wealth, greater freedom, et al).
of course, ancaps would never steal from the closet since they are pure and angelic.
lastly, competition among PDAs would not be considered thievery. it would be a legitimate armed struggle among military professionals seeking to gain power and security relative to each other.
armed conflict and even predation of an inferior PDA must be considered the normal and beneficial machinations of the free market to allocate resources and capital to the most efficient enterprises, in this case PDAs.
if you refute this, then your reject the free market and the very purpose of PDAs, namely to defend the interests of the PDA (customers, investors, shareholders, property, capital, et al ) against coercion from other PDAs.
otherwise, why have PDAs at all if they arent going to come into conflict with one another?
and if they are going to come into conflict, why should a dominant PDA not coerce and take market share and assets away from a potential competitor when the opportunity presents itself?
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. --jon
thanks jon,
I’ll add this latest post of yours to the “List” of substantive, logical, and empirically supported contributions from you.
I think this makes 15 or 16 on just this thread alone.
jon,
including your last post, you now have 15 substantive, logical, and emprically supported on-topic posts in a row !!!
congrats and enjoy:
Hey if there’s nothing substantive in them, feel free to ignore them. How many long, tedious rants have you engaged in with made up fallacies, rehashed arguments etc.? 50? 100? In a row?–jon
It’s quite funny watching Rettoper on his crusade against certain “fallacies” and posters as his rants get longer and all the more vituperative. It’s like arguing in an infinite loop.**–jon
The sheer limits of argumentative dishonesty…**–jon
Yes, you’re perfectly right.**–jon
No, considering none of it made much sense to begin with.**–jon
You seem to confuse long rants for “quality posts”. That said, the logic in your post was hardly evident in -any- way, so, you’d best explain.
Edit: misread.**–jonAre you just plain stupid, a hypocrite or a troll? Because that is -exactly- how you use the made up term…**–jon
Define ad hominem. A question isn’t one. Please learn what the hell you’re talking about.**–jon
Please stop accusing people of the very things you do and limit the incorrect imputation of fallacies. Thanks.**–jon
Right, pointing out your hypocrisy and misuse of fallacies is “personal insults” and “emotional invective” whereas your long rants repeating pretty much the same tripe over and over are “serious arguments”. I see. And you’re not a troll. Right.**–jon
It’d be hypocritical if I engaged in them too albeit I don’t. You seem to have a problem with the definition of words. Need I bring up your entire posting history replete with accusations of others relying on so-called “hunchism” (i.e. a word thrown to dislodge any claim that didn’t bode well for your own arguments)?**–jon
Stop posting and it too will stop, since it mostly emanates from you.**–jon
Nope, it’s not ad hominem (he’s not disregarding your arguments for reasons pertaining to your person.) It’s a legitimate question considering the content of your posts. You’re free not to answer it, though I think you have.
Hunchism/pure assertionism.**–jonThe fail does not abate. ;D*–jon*
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.–jon
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.
You’re ability to ignore a point is astounding. Pay attention Rettoper, I never once said all aggressive wars are unprofitable to those who wage them.
Citing wars which haven’t happened under the conditions I’m claiming wars are unlikely to happen under, does not a refutation make.
And because I’ve already responded to every single one of the other claims in the rest of that post, I’m not going to do it again.
You’re ability to ignore a point is astounding. Pay attention Rettoper, I never once said all aggressive wars are unprofitable to those who wage them.
Citing wars which haven’t happened under the conditions I’m claiming wars are unlikely to happen under, does not a refutation make.
And because I’ve already responded to every single one of the other claims in the rest of that post, I’m not going to do it again.–sam
refute this:
a PDA will attack and annex a valued resource if it is not adequately defended and taking the resource will earn the PDA a profit.
this is the substance of my argument.
why is this “unlikely” in your opinion ?
Why would the owner of the valued resource leave it undefended? Wouldn’t the owner of the valued resource be in a better position to provide for its defense than an organization who didn’t own that resource, because the owner by virtue of owning the resource would have more wealth and hence be able to purchase more arms?
I asked where the investors would obtain the funds, not where the PDA would obtain the funds.
I suggested the investors would have funds to invest because they own factors of production, the very factors of production that would be the target of theft by the PDA’s business model.
I ask again: Why would investors provide funds that would be used to steal their own property?
I am not defending ancap. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a libertarian critic who doesn’t believe in property rights and instead endorses violence and thuggery. That is your moral system.
First of all, that is a statist justification. Second of all, don’t backtrack. You didn’t just acknowledge, you endorsed this statist justification.
I don’t think you are, but thanks to me, this discussion just got a lot more honest by exposing your contradictions and evasions to some much needed sunlight.
You claimed aggression was a legitimate means. Aggression is a violation of property rights. Therefore, he who endorses violating property rights, is a statist. That’s not a very controversial statement.
Don’t run from your earlier comment, address it rettoper. No one is impressed by your attempts to reword your position into something different.
quote “Rettoper” - 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.
Who are they? Can you name them?
Anarcho-capitalism is a system of social organization predicated on libertarian ethics. This has always been a moral issue, that a few less skilled debaters have tried to argue outcomes with you doesn’t change that fact.
All systems desire profit, even communism. Morality is just a justification for thuggery when it comes to communism, just as you justify aggression and thuggery through a greater good argument. In that regard, you are no different than a communist.
You should clarify your position on property rights, because what you have articulated so far is that you don’t believe you have a right to self-ownership and that a bigger thug is morally justified to enslave you with violence if he can claim a greater good.
Much bigger problems in your bailiwick than PDAs amigo. Even your claim to minarchism looks completely hollow and ridiculous given your ethical claims.
@chloe, @Jon,
You might want to rethink trying to reason with someone until you determine that they are capable of reason at all.
And thus far, rettoper has managed to capture much attention and waste much time by running everyone in circles. He’s not a libertarian, he is not interested in making logically sound arguments. He’s just here to waste his time (which I am happy about, it keeps him from robbing and killing people whose property he covets) but sadly, he is wasting the time of highly productive people like yourself.
There are debates where one can sharpen their wits. This is not one. This is a debate that destroys productivity and enables someone with a very dangerous social attitude.
I think this makes 15 or 16 on just this thread alone.
A pity you can’t do anything but rant when you do try to meet challenges posed to you. You’re of the impression that you’re owed “substantive” responses as opposed to substantiate your own stupid assertions. Disabuse yourself of the notion. I’ll agree with LS, from your responses you seem to simply go in circles, repeating the same idiotic, tired assertions. Not worth much time.
Lol baseless story/ficticious/fantasy/fairy tale assertions don’t need refuting. They’re self defeating. Refute this! An elephant fly’s over a river!
This and
This
a PDA will attack and annex a valued resource if it is not adequately defended and taking the resource will earn the PDA a profit.
this is the substance of my argument.
why is this “unlikely” in your opinion ?
Again, I’ve already said it would. The argument isn’t would it do that if it was profitable, the argument is, would it be profitable on society wide scale (read: become an institution in the society which can do this with impunity).
I do not deny that there may be pirates who can run amok and evade retribution, but they won’t be able to dominate for reasons given beforehand.
Do not take this as an invitation to start the argument from scratch.
Why would the owner of the valued resource leave it undefended? Wouldn’t the owner of the valued resource be in a better position to provide for its defense than an organization who didn’t own that resource, because the owner by virtue of owning the resource would have more wealth and hence be able to purchase more arms?–mises pieces
99.9% of private enterprises ulitmately fail through obsolence, competition, poor management.
most owners invest appropriate force to defend valued resources, however aggressive and opportunistic PDAs will always be on the lookout for financially struggling, weak and poorly led PDAs and the property under their charge.
moreover, your statement is not logical, it is a strawman:
PDA X protects resource A.
PDA Y covets resource A.
PDA X is stronger than PDA Y simply because it owns resource A ?!!
Nothing in my assertion states or predicts that a PDA that controls a resource is guaranteed to be stronger than a competitor PDA. that covets the same resource.
By your logic, since iraq controlled the oil fields vast oil fields, they were stronger then the USA.
I asked where the investors would obtain the funds, not where the PDA would obtain the funds.–chloe
Do you need a lesson in ECO 101 ?
The investors obtained the funds through employment pay checks, entrepreneurship, previous investments, savings, gambling, borrowing from family, garage sales, lemonade stands, et al
I suggested the investors would have funds to invest because they own factors of production, the very factors of production that would be the target of theft by the PDA’s business model.–chloe
An investor would obviously not fund the predation of his own property
are you serious with this strawman argument ???
I ask again: Why would investors provide funds that would be used to steal their own property? --chloe
are you kidding ?!
of course, an investor wouldnt fund the predation of his own property. However, he might fund the predation of the property and resources of his competitor, especially if the resource was lightly defended.
liberty student,
I am not defending ancap. I am pointing out the hypocrisy of a libertarian critic who doesn’t believe in property rights and instead endorses violence and thuggery. That is your moral system
it is not my moral system. it is mankind’s moral system, in addition, it is supported by the free market. Namely, a property or resource that is not adequately defended will be taken.
property rights are irrelevant if you cant defend your property. Moreover, if your property is so valuable to you then you should invest appropriate funds to defend it.
You can whine about this fact, but your opinion is a subjective value judgment and irrelevant.
First of all, that is a statist justification. Second of all, don’t backtrack. You didn’t just acknowledge, you endorsed this statist justification.
armed force is not an exclusively statist activity. i have stated repeatedly that a PDA in an anarchic society would annex a valued property by force if that action was profitable, irrespective of the judgment of a few of societies moral handwringers.
Indeed, the free market dictates that undefended or poorly defended valued resources will be subject to predation to insure that the PDA that correctly judges the resources real worth will hold it and exploit it’s wealth to the overall benefit of society.
In sum, a resource whose wealth is being squandered by a timid or shortsighted PDA and property owner will ultimately being taken by a forward thinking and aggressive PDA who then puts the resource to better use.
You claimed aggression was a legitimate means. Aggression is a violation of property rights. Therefore, he who endorses violating property rights, is a statist. That’s not a very controversial statement.
just because grandstanding moralists reject armed force doesnt discount the efficacy of aggression. Moreover, weaklings hide behind moral arguments when they are incapable of successfully defending scarce resources.
Why should skilled warriors not use the skill set they were born with to obtain security, power, and wealth ? It is despotic to impose restrictions on someone simply because you dont like the manner in which they satisfy ends.
essentially, it is you that is the statist. I dont place restrictions on any action. Indeed, I understand the threats posed by aggressors and I take steps to counter these threats, while hand wringing moralists offer no deterrence save whining and complaining.
Don’t run from your earlier comment, address it rettoper. No one is impressed by your attempts to reword your position into something different.
I dont see how I can make it any plainer. I would not begrudge an aggressive PDA from annexing by force a inadequately defending resource from another poorly managed PDA. The free market dictates that inefficiency will be punished and efficiency and growth will be rewarded to the benefit of society. MOreover, the aggressive PDA understands and appreciates the value of the resource and will insure that it is protected and its wealth exploited to maximum effect to the overall benefit of society.
importantly, naive and hypocrite moralists will always be subject to predation and servitude since they discount the efficacy of armed force to achieve ends. Perhaps that is why there is no ancap society in existance today.
lastly, moralizing ancaps who discount armed force do not understand its utility in forcing needed change for the good of society. Indeed, the American Revolution was a violent and coercive act that nonetheless led to the asendency of liberal democracies. IN turn, liberal democracies have been the driving force toward greater peace, stability, prosperity, and freedom than had existed previously.
Indeed, democracies are highly likely to wage war against each other for the reasons I outlined in previous posts.
Who are they? Can you name them?
YOu. You are citing subjective moral arguments without substance or relevance to the fact that a PDA will attack and annex a poorly defended resource.
This assertion does not make a value judgment on whether this kind of action is moral or not. However, I assert that it will occur often within a free market framework and often it will result in an improvement in societal allocation of resources
Anarcho-capitalism is a system of social organization predicated on libertarian ethics. This has always been a moral issue, that a few less skilled debaters have tried to argue outcomes with you doesn’t change that fact.
absurd. Ancap society doesnt give a rats ass about morals or ethics. It is based on freedom, including the freedom of warriors to use their skill set to achieve desired ends. What you are advocating is not anarchism, it is a form of moral utopia that is unrealizable and a fantasyland that rejects the utility of armed force.
moreover, any system that discounts the utility of armed force to achieve positive change is bankrupt and would be subject to predation in short order by more realistic and practical societies. hence native american was inferior to anglo-saxon since they didnt have the wherewithal to deter predation. your utopia would join them on the ash heap of history.
in sum, any system that doesnt have the will or the means to defend itself from predation is the real immoral system since its citizenry suffer from its shortcomings.
All systems desire profit, even communism. Morality is just a justification for thuggery when it comes to communism, just as you justify aggression and thuggery through a greater good argument. In that regard, you are no different than a communist.
those naive moralists that reject the utlity of armed force to achieve positive change will be victims of it.
You should clarify your position on property rights, because what you have articulated so far is that you don’t believe you have a right to self-ownership and that a bigger thug is morally justified to enslave you with violence if he can claim a greater good.
Much bigger problems in your bailiwick than PDAs amigo. Even your claim to minarchism looks completely hollow and ridiculous given your ethical claims.
You sound like the leftists that I debunk. They claim the “right” to health care, food stamps, a job, retirement, et al – yet they do not accept the fact that they should earn these “rights”. they bellow that they are entitled to them without sacrifice or effort.
Simarily, you bellow that you are entitled to your property rights, yet you are not prepared to defend this right. It should just be guaranteed based on empty self-serving moral rhetoric.
No, you are not entitled to private property, if you cant defend it.
history, the freemarket, and human nature confirms this.
Retropper you are clearly conflating “Might makes Right” with “Capitalism”. This is somewhat of a fascistic position to take.
Retropper you are clearly conflating “Might makes Right” with “Capitalism”. This is somewhat of a fascistic position to take.–filc
subjective value judgments aside.
the fact is that armed force will exist in ancap society. weak and inefficiently led PDAs will be removed by force from the marketplace.
by your logic, the removal from the marketplace of malinvestment represented by poorly managed PDAs and their customers is “fascist”
no, it is reality and the efficient machinations and allocation of resources in an free market system .
Ahh yes because your satirical posts are so much more full of substantial information, or is it the lack thereof?
Again, I’ve already said it would. The argument isn’t would it do that if it was profitable, the argument is, would it be profitable on society wide scale (read: become an institution in the society which can do this with impunity).
I do not deny that there may be pirates who can run amok and evade retribution, but they won’t be able to dominate for reasons given beforehand.
Do not take this as an invitation to start the argument from scratch.–sam
I am not talking about pirates sam.
I am referring to large, efficient, and expertly run PDAs who remove weaker inefficient PDAs from the marketplace.
this will occur until a hegemon cartel or monopoly PDA emerges, then you will likely have absolutism.