Ahh yes because your satirical posts are so much more full of substantial information, or is it the lack thereof? filc
How else am I suppose to respond to repeated ad hominems from a supposed moderator on a thread that I started ?
In sum, if jon doesnt like my responses, and all he can offer in rebut is repeated ad hominems, then why is he even reading them ?
why is he even perusing this thread ?
dont they have a name for this kind of behavior – masochism, sadism ?
It’s no more of a subjective value judgement than subjectively believing the sky is blue.
I didn’t know there was more then one kind of logic. Do you even know what logic is? You seem to use the term loosely…
To be honest I have no earthly idea how your brain tied these two points together. I’m somewhat awestruck. I don’t think you fully understood what I told you… In fact I think you are more concerned with arguing and being right, then taking time to fully understand any information Jon or LS have provided you.
The rest of your post seems to be jibberish and not comprehensible.
Retropper when you rapidly respond like your doing it becomes obvious that your not taking the offered critique’s seriously, and your just more concerned with arguing. Though I suppose this was obvious 10 pages ago…
What goes around comes around Retropper. Really think about what that means.
P.S. Your not obligated to respond at all.
It’s funny, he makes fallacious assertions, I ask him to back them up or point out their fallacies, he begins whining about how non “substantive” it is.
I am not talking about pirates sam.
No, that’s exactly what you are saying. You are saying a PDA will effectively become a piracy firm, and will be able to take over the entire society. You’ve even used the word plunder before.
this will occur until a hegemon cartel or monopoly PDA emerges, then you will likely have absolutism.
Literally the only thing you’ve ever used to support this idea is economies of scale. Economies of scale are different for each industry and have limits. You have to PROVE Economies of scale are big enough to create a firm which is able to overtake an anarchic society. You haven’t even come close. Your assumption that a PDA can become hegemonic through war/acquisition is as stupid an idea as a firm becoming hegemonic through predatory pricing, another moronic theory that depends on a misunderstanding of economies of scale.
sam,
No, that’s exactly what you are saying. You are saying a PDA will effectively become a piracy firm, and will be able to take over the entire society. You’ve even used the word plunder before.
labeling a PDA a “piracy firm” simply because it identifies a weak competitor and uses its skill set (armed force) to gain market share in order to improve the net worth of its shareholders, customers, and reallocate scarce resources to more productive uses is a rejection of free market mechanisms on subjective moral grounds.
your rejecting logic in favor of opinion and value judgments.
In addition, it is a subjective value judgment and flawed thinking to discount the utility of armed force for positive change in society. In reality myriad beneficial change has come about from violence that would be otherwise unattainable. Indeed, the American Revolution was an act of coercion against the crown and the tories who supported them.
simarily, companies that prey on weaker competitors in hostile takeovers are removing detritus from the market place and reallocting scarce resources to more productive uses.
lastly, it is absurd to think that a PDA will gain market share by timidly “sitting on its hands” and not using its unique resources and skill set to accumulate capital and wealth relative to its competitors through acquisition of valued centers of gravity in society (water, foodstuffs, transportation centers, energy supplies, et al). NOte that all a PDA would have to do to gain considerable power and leverage over possible competitors is to take one or more of these key societal centers of gravity.
as I have stated previously, taking societal centers of gravity like the mississippi river, nile, amazon, danube et al head waters would be a coup to a PDA who could leverage these assets to accumulate military hardware, recruit talent, train employees, engage in intelligence, conduct R&D, et al.
moreover, customers would gravitate to the larger PDAs that had a demonstrated success in engaging in armed conflict.
Literally the only thing you’ve ever used to support this idea is economies of scale.
I cited market forces that predict PDAs will use their unique skill set (armed force) to engage in hostile takeovers of competitor firms. MOreover, I have cited specialization of labor as another economic tenet that predicts the establishment of PDAs whose area of specialization in armed force. To think that these professionals will be pacific when their skill set dictates otherwise is absurd. Moreover, they will be led by men like alexander, ceasar, genghis khan, napoleon, et al — Are you naive to you think these charismatic and ambitious leaders will engage in measured and peaceful acquistions of power and wealth ?
Economies of scale are different for each industry and have limits.
I covered this earlier and my arguments were unchallenged. For example, I stated that the security industry was more LIKELY to see the emergence of a hegemon or monopoly cartel since citizens would naturally gravitate to the largest most powerful PDA since PDAs compete directly against each other in protecting the interests of their shareholders and customers. IN contrast, monopolies are far more difficult in other industries because consumers pick products and services that are not direct competitors to monopolies. Oil monopolies can be countered by nuclear energy, wind, solar, geothermal, et al. The security industry does not have a competitor that consumers can move to.
You have to PROVE Economies of scale are big enough to create a firm which is able to overtake an anarchic society. You haven’t even come close. Your assumption that a PDA can become hegemonic through war/acquisition is as stupid an idea as a firm becoming hegemonic through predatory pricing, another moronic theory that depends on a misunderstanding of economies of scale.
individual PDAs wouldnt need to establish control or hegemony over the entire globe, they could easily use economy of scale to establish hegemonic control over a region the size of existing nation-states. Moreover, absolutist hegemons would emerge over a wide swath of the globe. They would establish themselves in easily defended geographic areas protected by natural boundaries making it difficult for the captive “customers” to seek assistance from competitor PDAs.
essentially, the establishment of anarchic society is simply a resetting of the conditions that led to absolutism and the establishment of the nation-state at the dawn of civilization.
we would have a geopolitic of nation-states dominated by individual PDAs who held hegemon status in their respective regions.
competing PDAs would be loath to undermine competitors once these quasi-states were formed.
Of course, there would be wars and the formation of coalitions since this failed anarchic experiment would quickly parrot the current geopolitic.
In contrast, liberal democracies are far less likely to engage in armed conflict for the reasons I have outlined in previous posts.
your rejecting logic in favor of opinion and value judgments.
No see, I’m not basing this on my opinions. Private property is useful in planning for the future. So people want to be able to keep their property. They create systems to define who owns what property, such as private property records. Therefore they disassociate/fight with actors who disregard private property records, and will disregard their private property record claims. Conversely, they will not disassociate/fight with other actors who kill those actors, nor will they disregard their private property claims.
People also have ideas of fairness. They will want to be able to resolve disputes peacefully. Therefore impartial courts arise in order to fulfill that demand, and will rule according to laws that people generally think are fair. If they don’t, they loose business. As soon as a court no longer seems impartial people will no longer use that court. If one actor says “Here are 20 courts I deem acceptable, pick one” and the other says “No, I will only use this court”, then everybody will assume that the person who offered 20 courts is on the correct side of the dispute, and the court is no longer necessary. So if he simply resolves the dispute violently, nobody will disassociate with him.
I don’t discount the utility of armed forces.
Protecting customers from aggressors is not sitting on your hands.
I’ve already refuted the center of gravity argument, you claimed but didn’t substantiate that I didn’t understand how power works, and then proceeded to not address a single point in the argument before that.
I cited market forces that predict PDAs will use their unique skill set (armed force) to engage in hostile takeovers of competitor firms.
As for hostile takeovers, if a PDA did that, all of it’s private property claims would be voided in everybody’s eyes, and their employees could easily take anything they wanted from the company with impunity. They would have extra incentive to do that since their own private property claims would be voided if they participated in the hostile takeover.
Defense and retribution are not pacific, and are less costly than aggression. And specialization of labor has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those who specialize in that area will compete or become hegemonic. That’s like saying, people will specialize in growing bananas, therefore a banana cartel will emerge. It’s a non-sequitur.
individual PDAs wouldnt need to establish control or hegemony over the entire globe
The size of the society itself is a limit on how big a firm can get.
competing PDAs would be loath to undermine competitors once these quasi-states were formed.
That’s too fucking rich. First he claims that PDA’s wouldn’t be loath to attack each other when the have the support of their customers, but once the people they subjugate know they aren’t safe from their current PDA, and are more willing to help invaders, that is when another PDA will be loath to attack.
As was clarified earlier, a free, or liberal democracy is a contradiction in terms. A democracy, by very design, is intended to restrict freedom.
14 pages now of you asserting that PDAs inherently become hegemonic, yet of those 14 you’ve yet to offer any proof or line of reasoning beyond your continued repetitious assertion. Argumentum ad nauseum.
I officially declare this thread as comical status. How many points do I have now Mr Retropper sir? 10??? Oh Boy!
Your idea that PDAs will war in order to optimise resource usage is an interesting one Rettoper, but I think you are underestimating the opportunity costs of engaging in warfare. Were opportunity costs zero, then your scenario might hold, but they are not zero. A PDA would have to stand to gain a heck of a lot, indeed, for warfare to be worth it.
It’s still something to consider, though. In a hypothetical ancap world, what happens to the PDA that invades a peaceful environmental area sitting on some uranium? Were there a large number of competing PDAs (just as there are a large number of competing states today), such aggressive actions would be condemmed and retaliated upon by other PDAs. Is that uranium worth it?
The USA’s military power far surpasses everyone else, but there are important reasons why they don’t simply drop nukes on Iraq and Afghanistan, or why they are so careful to avoid killing civilians today, when burning Japanese and German cities to the ground, killing millions, was fair game only 70 years ago. Ask yourself why they don’t do that today. You’ll see why conditions are more conducive to ancap today than they were in the past (and why they will keep being more conducive in the future), and also why such overt military action is condemned. The USA was a democracy then, as it is now, and Iraq and Afghanistan are not democratic, yet the USA does not nuke them.
These opportunity costs can be quite large, but we don’t really have any way of knowing them as we have never experienced a true ancap society, and I don’t think we will be seeing a pure ancap world anytime soon. The more interesting scenario to discuss is ancap living inside a statist world.
Here is a book which might be interesting for you: The Machinery of Freedom: The Machinery of Freedom is Now Up in e-book format
Chloe said: “I asked where the investors would obtain the funds, not where the PDA would obtain the funds.”
Rettoper,
Your answer proves you do not understand my question.
P.S. The forum ought to create a “Rettoper Award” for the most absurd post. When you said Liberty Student is a statist, you would certainly win the grand prize. That statement simply cannot be topped in terms of absurdity and ignorance (this is not an ad hominem directed at you, your statement was absurd and ignorant).
I will depart this thread with a few points to ponder:
What is meant by the free (unhampered) market?
What is meant by “value”, ie, how does “value”, or prices, come about?
How do property rights relate to the free market?
How is wealth created? (This is different from “value”)
How does coercion affect the free market?
Do free markets influence the prospects for social cooperation? If so, how?
Please don’t reply, because I am done with this thread. Just think about these things and, perhaps, do some research. This website is an excellent resource.
However, I understand that you are set in your thinking and have no interest in studying the topic you are attempting to debunk. Good luck.
[EDIT: post removed by Chloe732 because it became irrelevant and appears disrespectful]
The following is my rebut to liberty student in which I called him a “statist”. Amusingly, I was simply responding to liberty student’s repeated labeling of me as a statist simply because I asserted that PDA will use force to gain a profit (a view consistent with the free market). It is obvious from the post that the implication was that his views restricting the use of armed force was despotic and designed to prevent those skilled in weilding force from using this skill set to achieve ends (in many cases, positive ends against statist elements).
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. – Rettoper
The following is the unethical and misleading “cut and paste” of the previous post that chloe732 used in an irrelevant and cheap ad hominem:
P.S. The forum ought to create a “Rettoper Award” for the most absurd post. When you said Liberty Student is a statist, you would certainly win the grand prize. That statement simply cannot be topped in terms of absurdity and ignorance (this is not an ad hominem directed at you, your statement was absurd and ignorant). --chloe732
As the screen door hits you on the way out of this thread chloe, I post the following for you to ponder since you have not substantively or effectively answered any of my arguments or challenges on this thread:
1) What is meant by the free (unhampered) market?–chloe
A free and unhampered free market means that actors who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at weilding armed force to achieve ends will coalesce with others of the same skill set (specialization of labor). They will form PDAs whose sole mission is to weild force or the threat of force. The most effectively managed of these will grow stronger then the rest through mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers (economy of scale). They will try to create unrest and uncertainty through conflict since these conditions will lead to a increase in customers seeking protection (warfare state). Naturally, the majority of those seeking protection will sign on with the largest of the PDAs (economy of scale). Once a hegemon has established itself, then absolutism will emerge as it always has since the dawn of civilization irrespective of the moral indigination of a few unarmed bellowing naive pacifists.
In contrast, the “marketplace” for security in a liberal democracy is not “free and unhampered”. It is beset by myriad checks, balances, decentralization, and tranparency (albeit inefficient relative to anarchic society) that forestalls the emergence of absolutism.
2) What is meant by “value”, ie, how does “value”, or prices, come about? --chloe
value is subjective.
When a PDA covets a resource that it values, it will attempt to obtain this resource by peaceful means. however, if this resource is valued enough and it cannot be obtain through peaceful exchange – then the PDA will employ its unique skill set to take the valued resource by force, irrespective of the hypocritical moral bellowing of effeminate pacifists.
In sum, it is irrelevent that pacifist anarchists think that it is immoral or unprofitable to take valued resources by force since these grandstanding moralists are placing their value judgments on other individuals. these PDA warriors could care less what these effeminate pacifists think as they reap the rewards of hard earned plunder. Moreover, it is dangerously naive for anarchists to force their value judgments on a warrior class when the pacifists have neither the will or the means to force their utopian fantasyland values on armed and trained professionals.
3) How do property rights relate to the free market?–chloe
property rights are an essential component of the free market. The free market cannot function without property rights. however, the mission statement of the hegemon PDA does not include any provisions to accomodate the free market. The hegemon PDA serves itself, its shareholders, and its customer – irrespective of the long term viability and health of the free market.
disturbingly, naive ancaps believe that free market enterprises give a hoot about a smooth functioning free market. In reality, private enterprises will “game the system” in any way possible to maximize profit, growth, and security irrespective of their action effect on the free market.
A PDA cartel or monopoly will act in its own self-interest – not the interest of the markets. Indeed, they will destroy the market to establish hegemon status. The ancap is clueless to this truth.
4) How is wealth created? (This is different from “value”)–chloe
increased productivity, increased productive capacity, increase quality, et al
5) How does coercion affect the free market?-chloe
voluntary exchange is the least costly and most efficient means of transaction. It is in the best interest of all actors in the free market to engage in voluntary exchange. However, when a PDA covets a valued resource that cannot be obtained by peaceful exchange, then the PDA will use armed force to obtain the valued resource if it determines that the action will be profitable. Moreover, if an action is deemed profitable by management, investors, and customers – then that action will be funded irrespective of the empty bellowing of effeminate pacifists.
6) Do free markets influence the prospects for social cooperation? If so, how?
Free markets encourage and promote peaceful interaction and trust among the citizenry. In contrast, coercion of free market mechanisms creates inefficiency, corruption, distrust, and instability. Note that once coercion is present in an otherwise free market, the system begans to unravel, albeit slowly. Coercion begats distrust which begats corruption which begats inefficiency which begats instability which begats fear which empowers hegemon PDAs who use this instability and uncertainty to establish absolutism.
In contrast, liberal democracies install checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency that deters the establishment of a hegemon PDA. MOreover, liberal democracies are loath to engage in conflict with like minded states for the reasons I outlined in previous posts (that remain unchallenged, saved by numerous ad hominems)
No need to reply with another “cut and paste” of my posts out of context chloe.
Just think about these things and, perhaps, do some research However, I understand that you are set in your thinking and have no interest in studying the topic you are attempting to debunk.
Lastly, chloe you should read some of the information on this site, you might learn something – truth frees the mind, open yours.
Liberalism differs radically from anarchism. It has nothing in common with the absurd illusions of the anarchists… Liberalism is not so foolish as to aim at the abolition of the state.-- von Mises, Omnipotent Government
Anarchists shallow-minded, dull, and suffer from illusions and self-deception. – von Mises, The Ultimate Foundation of Economic Science, 98
Anarchism misunderstands the real nature of man. Liberalism, 36
There are people who call government an evil, although a necessary evil. However, what is needed in order to attain a definite end must not be called an evil … Government may even be called the most beneficial of all earthly institutions as without it no peaceful human cooperation, no civilization and no moral life would be possible. --von Mises, Economic Freedom and Interventionism
Good luck.
sam,
Private property is useful in planning for the future. So people want to be able to keep their property. They create systems to define who owns what property, such as private property records. Therefore they disassociate/fight with actors who disregard private property records, and will disregard their private property record claims.
sam your a genius ! you just eliminated war.
what a novel idea — create a system to defines who owns property and employ lawyers armed with briefcases to threaten actors who disregard these documents
I stand corrected, sam has just made war obsolete.
People also have ideas of fairness. They will want to be able to resolve disputes peacefully.
thats a nice sentiment sam,
however what do we do about hitler, mao, stalin, pol pot, ceasar, alexander, genghis khan, attlila, tamerlane, napoleon, et al and the hundreds of millions who followed these brilliant and charismatic leaders who dont exactly adhere to your polyannish vision of “niceties and fairness”?
If they don’t, they loose business. As soon as a court no longer seems impartial people will no longer use that court. If one actor says “Here are 20 courts I deem acceptable, pick one” and the other says “No, I will only use this court”, then everybody will assume that the person who offered 20 courts is on the correct side of the dispute, and the court is no longer necessary. So if he simply resolves the dispute violently, nobody will disassociate with him.
that another nice sentiment sam,
however courts dont have guns. what are your courts and public opinion going to do when confronted with a hegemon PDA with 10000 tanks, planes, destroyers, and nuclear weaponry?
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson: “the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it”
I don’t discount the utility of armed forces.
Protecting customers from aggressors is not sitting on your hands.
PDA that dont engage in profitable ventures will not have the resources to protect customers from aggressors. Profitable ventures will include preemptive and preventative strikes to obtain valued strategic resources. In contrast, my assertion was that PDA that were timid and averse to risk taking would lost market share.
In sum, the IBMs, walmart, microsofts of the world did not gain market share, wealth, and power by reacting to competitors, they forced competitors to react to them.
As for hostile takeovers, if a PDA did that, all of it’s private property claims would be voided in everybody’s eyes, and their employees could easily take anything they wanted from the company with impunity. They would have extra incentive to do that since their own private property claims would be voided if they participated in the hostile takeover.
this polyannish thinking is part and parcel of the ridiculous naivete of the pacifist ancap.
again, if the courts and public opinion (at least grandstanding unarmed moralists) reject hostile takeovers from large PDAs — “then let them enforce their decision”
Moreover, it is absurd to think that people will side against a dominate hegemon PDA – in reality, investment and venture capital will flow to the PDA that is gaining wealth and market share through an aggressive growth strategy, mergers, acquistions, and hostile takeovers.
In sum, sam you are placing your value judgments on others when history has shown that wealth, security, and power trump your grandstanding moralism.
And specialization of labor has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not those who specialize in that area will compete or become hegemonic. That’s like saying, people will specialize in growing bananas, therefore a banana cartel will emerge. It’s a non-sequitur.
weak sam, very weak argument. those who have a natural or acquired propensity to the military arts will gravitate to a PDA. The most profitable PDAs will acquire the most proficient of these professionals. Moreover, you wont find many warriors among financial, insurance, banking, et al industries.
so what we have is a unique class of men (warriors) in a single industry that specializes in the use of armed force.
moreover, in your polyannish world – this concentration of skill sets will be perfectly submissive, deterred and preempted from attaining hegemon and absolutist status by a group of briefcase weilding lawyers in the arbitration industry ?!
Defense and retribution are not pacific, and are less costly than aggression.
true and irrelevant.
defense and retribution are expenses that do not increase growth and profits.
moreover, while the acquisition of valued resources by peaceful means is preferable to aggression, none can deny (perhaps faith-based anarchist can) that the threat of force can lead to the surrender of a valued resource in an anarchic society. also, the actual use of force will be employed when a peaceful exchange is not possible if the annexation of a strategically valued resource is profitable.
in sum, I will invest my money in “evil” aggressive PDA walmart, you can invest yours in “moral” defense-minded Mom and Pop PDA on the corner.
The size of the society itself is a limit on how big a firm can get.
and your statement is irrelevent.
A PDA can achieve hegemon status in any society irrespective of its size for reasons I outlined in previous posts. the more conflict and uncertainty in anarchic society the more likely people will flock to the dominate PDA for security and the more profitable the security industry will be. Moreover, in anarchic society, large PDAs will try to create instability and uncertainty by engaging in armed conflict (both overt and covert) in order to coerce more customers into their charge.
That’s too fucking rich. First he claims that PDA’s wouldn’t be loath to attack each other when the have the support of their customers, but once the people they subjugate know they aren’t safe from their current PDA, and are more willing to help invaders, that is when another PDA will be loath to attack.
the emotion is overflowing. calm down sam.
while property rights enforced by a piece of paper have little sway on those weilding tanks, planes, ships, and nukes, a PDA that has consolidated its power in a geographically defensible position is more secure from predation. However, I will acknowledge that a larger PDA would be tempted to attack a contiguous PDA that was inferior in capabilities if the aggression offered some measure of security, wealth, power commensurate with the costs and risks.
In sum, faith-based ancaps discountsthe natural and inherent propensity of the warrior class manipulated by the charismatic, ambitious, and brilliant political leaders to achieve ends by force.
moreover, it is absurd to think that a group of men with a skill set in the application of armed force combined with tanks, planes, ships, nukes, et al are going to submit to a group of men with a skill set in arbitrating disputes combined with briefcases.
the emotion is overflowing. calm down sam.
Emotion? I was laughing at you and your obvious contradiction. PDA with population that likes it = PDA’s will likely attack. PDA with hostile population = PDA’s Loath to attack. Good job.
weak sam, very weak argument. those who have a natural or acquired propensity to the military arts will gravitate to a PDA. The most profitable PDAs will acquire the most proficient of these professionals. Moreover, you wont find many warriors among financial, insurance, banking, et al industries.
so what we have is a unique class of men (warriors) in a single industry that specializes in the use of armed force.
You didn’t respond to the challenge. You still need to show how specialization of workers in the industry of warriors will cartelize/give rise to a hegemonic PDA. So call it weak all you want, my point still stands. It’s a non-sequitur.
defense and retribution are expenses that do not increase growth and profits.
They are reputation builders, which is a growth strategy.
A PDA can achieve hegemon status in any society irrespective of its size for reasons I outlined in previous posts.
Then why did you say it wouldn’t happen on a global scale?
however what do we do about hitler, mao, stalin, pol pot, ceasar, alexander, genghis khan, attlila, tamerlane, napoleon, et al and the hundreds of millions who followed these brilliant and charismatic leaders who dont exactly adhere to your polyannish vision of “niceties and fairness”?
They would have any dispute resolution limited only to violence, even if they were on the “correct” side which is in line with the law, cutting them of from any cost saving peaceful resolution of disputes. I essentially said that in the very next part that you quoted. Specifically this…
So if he simply resolves the dispute violently, nobody will disassociate with him.
Perhaps you should read further before you try to make a point that I’ve anticipated.
that another nice sentiment sam,
however courts dont have guns. what are your courts and public opinion going to do when confronted with a hegemon PDA with 10000 tanks, planes, destroyers, and nuclear weaponry?
To paraphrase Andrew Jackson: “the courts have made their decision, now let them enforce it”
Courts don’t enforce. The simply signal who is in the right so that other people don’t disassociate with someone when they violently act against some person, firm, tank, or whatever. The strength or weakness of that signal is completely dependent upon their reputation as a court, something which is entirely held in the minds of the people in that area. Actions that are blatant, such as invading with tanks, don’t even need to be taken to court, and they can simply kill/steal from or do what ever they want to the employees/stockholders/CEOs/Property of that company, with out any fear of disassociation from anybody. And that includes the employees. You keep thinking of a PDA as a single entity. They are not. It’s made up of individuals, all living in the system we are talking about, and will act according to their interests, which includes insubordination and theft from piracy firms. What exactly is the CEO of that firm going to do when all his employees steal from him? Take them to court? Claim a property right?
Profitable ventures will include preemptive and preventative strikes to obtain valued strategic resources.
That has yet to be shown.
Moreover, it is absurd to think that people will side against a dominate hegemon PDA – in reality, investment and venture capital will flow to the PDA that is gaining wealth and market share through an aggressive growth strategy, mergers, acquistions, and hostile takeovers.
It’s yet to be shown that a hegemon PDA will exist. It’s also yet to be shown that a PDA will gain wealth and market share through aggression and hostile takeovers.
Rettoper is probably one of those guys who thinks they could rob a bank if they tried.
Well gee Rettoper, if even you’re able to come up with a plan to break windows and profit off it, what makes you think the people most interested in defending their capital won’t already have a counter for it? Defending is cheaper (you admitted multiple times now), safer (because aggression risks retaliation), but in a free market is more efficient yet than any central planner can manage.
If a “HEGEMON PDA 1000 TANKS LOLOLOL” comes into being due to a retarded psychopathic billionaire (disregarding that he wouldn’t be able to be a billionaire this retarded) wasting his life earnings, the defensive PDAs can make half those tanks and use their defensive advantage to still win. Nukes are even bigger inhibitors since both sides would just lose everything.
The PDA, knowing that, wouldn’t make 1000 tanks unless he’s deeply retarded. The PDA, knowing that, wouldn’t make a nuke to launch it aggressively.
And yet you ignore the precise difference between HEGEMON PDA LOLOLO and the state you vouch which incentivizes stupid behavior. The state got his army for free, the PDA had to work entirely for it. That you still believe subsidizing RISKY AND RETARDED behavior is going to best prevent RISKY AND RETARDED behavior is beyond me. Perhaps you haven’t put 2+2 together.
1- Aggressive behavior is risky due to retaliation
2- Aggressive behavior can be countered by cheaper defensive behavior
3- WHO THE F**K CAN MAKE A BUCK BEING A JERK?
Answer to three is obviously a subsidized window breaker aka state army, state contractors.
sam,
Emotion? I was laughing at you and your obvious contradiction. PDA with population that likes it = PDA’s will likely attack. PDA with hostile population = PDA’s Loath to attack. Good job. (emphasis added to highlight nonsensical statement)
The only folks laughing are my colleagues at work trying to make sense of your statement. i will respond to it when you clarify what you are trying to say.
You didn’t respond to the challenge. You still need to show how specialization of workers in the industry of warriors will cartelize/give rise to a hegemonic PDA. So call it weak all you want, my point still stands. It’s a non-sequitur.
I have responded to all of your assertions and you have yet to answer these challenges with other than claiming I didnt respond.
for the record, here is my response (5th or 6th time) – specialization of labor dictates that an industry will specialize in the application of armed force. the professionals in this industry will be individuals with a natural and/or acquired skill in waging war. It does not take a genius to recognize that a single industry that possesses all of this power to coerce by force is dangerous. moreover, economy of scale and the costs of conflict dictate that this industry will morph into lesser and lesser agencies thereby increasing the likelihood of monopolies and cartels forming. Once you have a cartel in a region or across the geopolitic then you have absolutism –
“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” – of course the naive and clueless anarchist rejects this tenet of human nature that is both logically and empirically supported.
You didn’t respond to the challenge. You still need to show how specialization of workers in the industry of warriors will cartelize/give rise to a hegemonic PDA. So call it weak all you want, my point still stands. It’s a non-sequitur.
i have repeatedly debunked your assertions and your repeated reply has been “you did not respond to my challenge”
for the record (5th or 6th time):
A free and unhampered free market means that actors who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force to achieve ends will coalesce with others of the same skill set (specialization of labor). They will form PDAs whose sole mission is to weild force or the threat of force. The most effectively managed of these will grow stronger then the rest through mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers (economy of scale). They will try to create unrest and uncertainty through conflict since these conditions will lead to a increase in customers seeking protection (warfare state). Naturally, the majority of those seeking protection will sign on with the largest of the PDAs (economy of scale). Once a hegemon has established itself, then absolutism will emerge as it always has since the dawn of civilization irrespective of the moral indigination of a few unarmed briefcase toting pacifists.
In contrast, the “marketplace” for security in a liberal democracy is not “free and unhampered”. It is beset by myriad checks, balances, decentralization, and tranparency (albeit inefficient relative to anarchic society) that forestalls the emergence of absolutism.
They are reputation builders, which is a growth strategy.
reputation in the absence of return on investment is an empty argument for defending pacifism. PDAs that engage in a maginot line business plan of no growth and no risk will see a decline in market share and eventually become bankrupt or absorbed by more aggressive pro-growth firms.
it is absurd to think that “reputation” is a substiture for profitable ventures. Last time I checked, there was no column on a balance sheet for “reputation”
Then why did you say it wouldn’t happen on a global scale?
absolutism and hegemon status is more likely achieved on a regional or local level. however, it would be far more likely for a global hegemon to be realized in an anarchic society. early history has shown that near anarchic geopolitic resulted in numerous incidents of global hegemony from a single conquerer (alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, genghis khan, et al) . governments, if any existed, tended to be small and irrelevant during these ages of conquest.
They would have any dispute resolution limited only to violence, even if they were on the “correct” side which is in line with the law, cutting them of from any cost saving peaceful resolution of disputes. I essentially said that in the very next part that you quoted. Specifically this…
The PDAs that were the strongest couldnt careless if a group of lawyers “declared war”. history is replete with empty proclamations from defenseless societies on the verge of collapse. The only “law” that would matter in anarchic society would be that which is backed by force.
more likely, the citizenry would embrace successful conquerers if only to share in future plunder and gain security.
Courts don’t enforce. The simply signal who is in the right so that other people don’t disassociate with someone when they violently act against some person, firm, tank, or whatever.
absurd. courts do not have a monopoly on truth and justice. they merely act in their own self-interest based on profit. If it is profitable to rule on the side of an aggressive PDA, then they will do so. it is equally likely that a court would side with a powerful PDA to gain favor with an emerging hegemon.
The strength or weakness of that signal is completely dependent upon their reputation as a court, something which is entirely held in the minds of the people in that area. Actions that are blatant, such as invading with tanks, don’t even need to be taken to court, and they can simply kill/steal from or do what ever they want to the employees/stockholders/CEOs/Property of that company, with out any fear of disassociation from anybody. (emphasis added)
checkmate.
Here you have parroted my exact argument. Moreover, you have naively assumed that your value judgments or that of your court(s) of choice will ahve a monopoly on truth and justice.
Absurd. conflict is rarely initiated without provocation, in many cases it is justified reaction to threats. Indeed, you have sanctioned war in anarchic society as viable and “just” yet hypocritically you attack my arguments when I assert the same thing. namely, if a PDA determines that it is profitable to attack another PDA it will. Attacking a potential aggressor or a PDA that is engage in an arms race is justification.
They are not. It’s made up of individuals, all living in the system we are talking about, and will act according to their interests, which includes insubordination and theft from piracy firms. What exactly is the CEO of that firm going to do when all his employees steal from him? Take them to court? Claim a property right?
In sam’s fantasyland world, there is always an aggressor and a victim. never a conflict between competing PDAs seeking to improve their security position vis-a-vis other dangerous competitors.
no sam, the mechanisms and factors for war in the present geopolitic will exist in a fantasyland anarchic society. Indeed, more war is likely to occur since an equilibrium will have to be established after many conflicts and costs.
Moreover, it is absurd to think that people will side against a dominate hegemon PDA – in reality, investment and venture capital will flow to the PDA that is gaining wealth and market share through an aggressive growth strategy, mergers, acquistions, and hostile takeovers.–rettoper
It’s yet to be shown that a hegemon PDA will exist. It’s also yet to be shown that a PDA will gain wealth and market share through aggression and hostile takeovers.–sam
can you offer a more pitiful and weak rebut than the one above ?!
Profitable ventures will include preemptive and preventative strikes to obtain valued strategic resources.–rettoper
That has yet to be shown.–sam
I stand corrected, you can and have offered a more pitiful and empty “rebut” with this last post.
Rettoper, you still here and trying to plan out the New World Order?
The only folks laughing are my colleagues at work trying to make sense of your statement. i will respond to it when you clarify what you are trying to say.
Let’s see, I’d like to test this out first. Can anybody else here figure out what I’m meant by…
Emotion? I was laughing at you and your obvious contradiction. PDA with population that likes it = PDA’s will likely attack. PDA with hostile population = PDA’s Loath to attack. Good job.
Much obliged.
can you offer a more pitiful and weak rebut than the one above ?!
…
I stand corrected, you can and have offered a more pitiful and empty “rebut” with this last post.
You made a statement without backing them up. You simply assumed the argument away. You said “because my side of the thing we are arguing about is true, stuff will happen that makes my side of the argument true”.
Let us analyze further.
We are arguing about whether or not a hegemon PDA will exist. Arguing that investment and venture capital will flow to a hegemonic PDA DOES NOT back up your position that a hegemon PDA will exist.
Ok, lets do it again.
We are arguing about whether or not a PDA will be able to gain wealth and market share through aggression, and hostile takeovers. Arguing that investment and venture capital will flow to a firm who is indeed gaining wealth and market share through aggression and hostile takeovers DOES NOT back up your position that a PDA will be able to gain wealth and market share through aggression.
checkmate.
Here you have parroted my exact argument. Moreover, you have naively assumed that your value judgments or that of your court(s) of choice will ahve a monopoly on truth and justice.
Absurd. conflict is rarely initiated without provocation, in many cases it is justified reaction to threats. Indeed, you have sanctioned war in anarchic society as viable and “just” yet hypocritically you attack my arguments when I assert the same thing. namely, if a PDA determines that it is profitable to attack another PDA it will. Attacking a potential aggressor or a PDA that is engage in an arms race is justification.
Yeah, checkmate if you ignore the queen in the way of your threatening bishop. Exactly the same argument if you completely ignore the statement to the right of the bolded text. You know, the part about disassociation, or the lack thereof. And no, I haven’t assumed that any court has a monopoly. The court is simply there to be a signal. Another court very well may have a stronger signal, and may have a different ruling. That doesn’t change the fact that court rulings will signal who is in the right to the people who trust them.
And then you deflect from blatant to non-blatant situations. In that case the PDA who simply attacks without taking a dispute to a court will be assumed in the wrong until signaled otherwise by court rulings.
In sam’s fantasyland world, there is always an aggressor and a victim. never a conflict between competing PDAs seeking to improve their security position vis-a-vis other dangerous competitors.
no sam, the mechanisms and factors for war in the present geopolitic will exist in a fantasyland anarchic society. Indeed, more war is likely to occur since an equilibrium will have to be established after many conflicts and costs.
Taken to calling things you have no argument against a fantasy? There will always be an aggressor and a victim in people’s eyes. One of them will be shown in the wrong according to courts, and people will trust the courts they trust on those decisions, and not trust those decisions from courts they don’t. They will also disassociate from those who simply have a viking mentality to fight it out instead of going to the courts. And that comes with all the baggage of disassociation I mentioned before.
it is equally likely that a court would side with a powerful PDA to gain favor with an emerging hegemon.
And when they do that, their signal is completely destroyed in the minds of people who previously trusted their judgement, which destroys the purpose of going to the court in the first place, namely, to convince people to not disassociate with you when you act violently towards someone. It will never be profitable to simply “rule on the side of x” for that reason.
The PDAs that were the strongest couldnt careless if a group of lawyers “declared war”. history is replete with empty proclamations from defenseless societies on the verge of collapse. The only “law” that would matter in anarchic society would be that which is backed by force
It would not be lawyers who “declare war” on a firm, it would be a signal to everybody in the society that looting said firm is only going to be stopped and punished by said firm. That signal will reach everybody in that society, including it’s employees, bank, stockholders, and indeed, other PDAs. It’s declaring a free for all on the company, and anybody who partakes will still have access to non-violent dispute resolution, and will have an untarnished reputation of non-aggressive behavior, thus not causing people to disassociate.
reputation in the absence of return on investment is an empty argument for defending pacifism. PDAs that engage in a maginot line business plan of no growth and no risk will see a decline in market share and eventually become bankrupt or absorbed by more aggressive pro-growth firms.
So now we’ve taken to comparing French statists versions of defense to free market defense as if Andre Maginot had the ability to voluntarily contract with people to become their PDA. But again you make baseless assumptions about a market by simply pointing to one instance where something not even remotely similar failed. Charging people for defense subscriptions is a revenue stream which already is a profitable venture. Do I really have to point to private security to show that defense is profitable? There’s no need to attack that fact if you are arguing that Aggression is simply more profitable then that. But again, you assume you are correct, and then use that assumption in your argument.
i have repeatedly debunked your assertions and your repeated reply has been “you did not respond to my challenge”
for the record (5th or 6th time):
A free and unhampered free market means that actors who have a particular skill set that makes them effective at wielding armed force to achieve ends will coalesce with others of the same skill set (specialization of labor). They will form PDAs whose sole mission is to weild force or the threat of force. The most effectively managed of these will grow stronger then the rest through mergers, acquisitions, and hostile takeovers (economy of scale). They will try to create unrest and uncertainty through conflict since these conditions will lead to a increase in customers seeking protection (warfare state). Naturally, the majority of those seeking protection will sign on with the largest of the PDAs (economy of scale). Once a hegemon has established itself, then absolutism will emerge as it always has since the dawn of civilization irrespective of the moral indigination of a few unarmed briefcase toting pacifists.
So let me see if I get this correct. Specialization of labor leads to creating a industry. Then once an industry is created, economies of scale occur, and they coalesce into a hegemon. So without the economies of scale, they would not become a hegemon, and specialization of labor has done nothing to create a hegemon. Therefore the hegemon argument really does rest on economies of scale. Wait, Isn’t that EXACTLY WHAT I SAID IN THE FIRST PLACE? Let’s look back…
the only thing you’ve ever used to support this idea is economies of scale. -sam
So it is.
The only folks laughing are my colleagues at work trying to make sense of your statement. i will respond to it when you clarify what you are trying to say.
Let’s see, I’d like to test this out first. Can anybody else here figure out what I’m meant by…
Emotion? I was laughing at you and your obvious contradiction. PDA with population that likes it = PDA’s will likely attack. PDA with hostile population = PDA’s Loath to attack. Good job.
Much obliged.
yuberries,
Rettoper is probably one of those guys who thinks they could rob a bank if they tried.
ad hominem and irrelevent.
Well gee Rettoper, if even you’re able to come up with a plan to break windows and profit off it, what makes you think the people most interested in defending their capital won’t already have a counter for it? Defending is cheaper (you admitted multiple times now), safer (because aggression risks retaliation), but in a free market is more efficient yet than any central planner can manage.
We dont know the manner in which a hegemon PDA will employ its resources to gain market share. Perhaps the emerging hegemon will simply sit back and conserve resources while lesser powers consume themselves in endless conflict. Perhaps, they will align with the strongest and most popular power bloc, then declare themselves when most of their competitors have been reduced. Perhaps, they will engage in a measure expansion that doesnt cause alarm. In sum, neither you or I know what machinations men like alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, napoleon, stalin, mao, et al will take to gain and hold power. However, the common demominator among all of these regional hegemons was coercion and conquest.
If a “HEGEMON PDA 1000 TANKS LOLOLOL” comes into being due to a retarded psychopathic billionaire (disregarding that he wouldn’t be able to be a billionaire this retarded) wasting his life earnings, the defensive PDAs can make half those tanks and use their defensive advantage to still win. Nukes are even bigger inhibitors since both sides would just lose everything.
Defense has never resulted in expansion of power. MOreover, nobody is stating that an emerging hegemon is going to be reckless and miscalculating. Of course, those PDAs that engage in provocative and destructive wars will lose market share and dissolve. YOur naive assumption that all aggression is unprofitable or unpopular shows how little you understand history or human nature.
By any objective measure, Mao’s use of coercion to take power in china was neither unsuccessful or unpopular. Moreover alexander the great’s wielding of power and coercion was not “retarded” nor “psychopathic”. lastly, while defense does offer a tactical advantage over the attacker, from a strategic viewpoint a defense posture in business or conflict does not increase strength relative to a competitor who is chipping away at market share with aggressive growth policies.
In sum, I know of no industry leaders who do not engage in pro-growth strategic business plans. The security industry would reward pro-growth firms.
Nukes are even bigger inhibitors since both sides would just lose everything.
The PDA, knowing that, wouldn’t make 1000 tanks unless he’s deeply retarded. The PDA, knowing that, wouldn’t make a nuke to launch it aggressively.
I think what your trying to say is that nuclear detterence works. you are correct. however, if one side has a nuke, then every PDA will eventually have one, and justifiably so. In this case, anarchic society will be beset with thousands of nukes and other WMDs. Perhaps an arms race would ensue. moreover, it is more likely with the proliferation of nuclear weaponry that a faith-based actor or one of those “retarded psychopathic billionaire’s” gets ahold of one and unleashes a fireball on a defenseless population center.
But yes, if a free society could control the use and proliferation of WMD by sociopaths or other faith-based actors who would use them to destablize society then nuclear weaponry would be effective at reducing the size and scope of conflict between PDAs that possessed them.
lastly, anarchic society could reduce the size and scope of conflict, however without conflict positive change could not result. In many instances throughout history positive change has occurred through force. This change could not occur as readily in a anarchic society that used nuclear weaponry to coerce potential revolutionaries from forcing beneficial change on the established order.
In sum, your assessment of a nuclear armed anarchic society offers nothing beyond what already exists on the geopolitic.
In contrast, liberal democracies are extremely unlikely to wage war on each other. Indeed, there have been ZERO wars between higher order democracies since 1945 despite hundreds of conflicts during this period.
And yet you ignore the precise difference between HEGEMON PDA LOLOLO and the state you vouch which incentivizes stupid behavior. The state got his army for free, the PDA had to work entirely for it. That you still believe subsidizing RISKY AND RETARDED behavior is going to best prevent RISKY AND RETARDED behavior is beyond me. Perhaps you haven’t put 2+2 together.
you obviously havent read my posts.
the PDA is self-sufficient – it alone is responsible for organizing, planning, funding, research, development, expansion, command, control, operations, intelligence, et al. All without any transparency and with complete independence from any other entity if it chooses. Moreover, it benefits directly from its actions or plunder. For example, the more successful its armed enterprises, the more profitable it will be.
hence, all actions by the PDA are motivated by profit and profit alone. Morality, promotion of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, justice, peace, to check genocide, and others humanitarian and ideological wars will not be fought by profitable PDAs. If a private company bases it actions on moral versus profit then it will lose market share and dissolve.
hence the only wars fought in anarchic society will wars that are profitable.
In contrast, within constitutional federal republics, those that fund war (taxpayers), those that dispense funds (congress), those that command (president), those that see (intelligence community), those that defend (state militia/law enforcement), those that wage war (military), those that benefit (defense related industry) are all disparate and in many cases competing entities. Moreover, their actions are all transparent to each other.
In sum, if the geopolitic is democratized (as it will eventually become) then the likelihood of armed conflict will decline dramatically.
1- Aggressive behavior is risky due to retaliation
not always,
it depends on the situation. In many cases aggressive behavior can save lives, preserve power, and defeat enemies. otherwise then how can you discount the success of numerous aggressors throughout history who profited from aggressive action.
2- Aggressive behavior can be countered by cheaper defensive behavior
Tactically not always, strategically never. Passivity in the face of an aggressive expansive competitor is suicide in business or war. History is replete with passive companies that resisted expansion only to experience hostile takeovers, loss of market share, or irrelevence.
Tactically a defensive posture is a force multiplier, but not against an imaginative and competent leader. History is replete with examples of heretofore unconquerable positions that were taken quite easily be a determined aggressor. Moreover, expenses designed to preserve existing wealth is funds denied to expansionary enterprises, hence the defense minded PDA will never gain market share.
- WHO THE F**K CAN MAKE A BUCK BEING A JERK?
henry ford, jp morgan, tj watson, thomas edison, carnegie, vanderbilt, trump, rockefeller, et al.
these great men (and many successful entreprenuers in general) are/were considered “jerks” by their contemporaries. Nonetheless, their contributions to society are noteworthy and without them societal health and well being would be significanlty less than it is today.
perhaps, busy and productive business leaders dont have time to suffer fools.