yuberries,
the following is my response to your diatribe that was based solely on unsupported opinion deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism:
Cite any physically violent private entity and I’ll tell you how it benefits from the state.
if coercion benefits the state (and it does) , it can indeed bring profit to the private entity. This is where the ancap anchors his flimsy dogma on the faith-based absurdity that coercion, and the utility of coercion, to achieve ends disappears in when the state is removed.
the creation of the state was not an end unto itself, it is a means to an end. Within ancap society, statist structures will metastasize to achieve ends. In contrast, liberal democracies have some checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency to forestall this inevitability.
The well known mafias all over the world for example benefited (and still do) greatly from the illegality of certain products. The cops take care of the efficient entrepreneurs, and all thats left is a black market where you have to pay off and/or fight the cops to stay alive. If drugs, gambling, or prostitution weren’t illegal, then the mafias would have to outcompete common businesses
another strawman argument.
Indeed, I dont dispute this assertion. However, it has nothing to do with rebut my earlier arguments.
In fact, I challenge you to post the quote in which I supported any of my arguments by citing the “mafia” or “organized crime”
in sum, stop manufacturing irrelevant strawman arguments to misrepresent my position.
By the same token, so are shoemakers. So what?
big difference strawman:
shoemakers dont have warships, bombers, nukes, et al. I would like to see a coalition of shoemakers coerce society into submitting to absolutism armed with penny loafers.
you are obviously clueless on the best means required to obtain power via force.
moreover, profit and growth in the shoe industry (and most other industries) is not a zero sum game. All shoemaking enterprises can achieve growth and profit without negatively impacting others. Moreover, like most consumer goods, these industries dont require advanced technologies, resources, or skill set to generate start-up companies to compete against monopolies.
In contrast, the security industry is a zero sum game. WHen one entity builds a single warship, it then becomes more secure relative to its competitors.
Indeed, I agree that those actors in the PDA industry will be averse to war. Thats why they will form dangerous coalitions, cartels, and monopolies to reduce risk and costs. When this occurs the next step to preserve power and profit is oligarchy followed by absolutism.
in sum, your arguments are hugely naive and faith based.
Not never, never. But much less likely to, than a state with a subsidized army. Because they take the full blows at their own expense, not with the lives of drafted soldiers or taxpayer money (emphasis added)
here you acknowledge that PDAs will engage in armed conflict. Note that once this happens, the genie is unleashed. In reality, competition for power and security among PDAs in ancap society will mirror that which occurs within the global geopolitic today and throughout history.
Indeed, the present condition in the geopolitic (as it has always been) is anarchic. We have abundant empirical evidence that conflict will exist when a central government is removed.
Lowly criminals who have nothing to lose, therefore don’t fear retribution.
here you imply that PDAs will only be required to subdue “lowly criminals”. by your logic, the only coercive elements in society will be lowly. this thinking is faithbased and absurd. Indeed, criminal and despotic behavior is not reserved for the common criminal – it is pervasive in all classes. The most brilliant and charismatic leaders in history who have wielded despotic power to great effect were dangerously and effectively coercive.
wakeup ancaps, your living in a fantasy world if you think that coercion to achieve ends will cease in an ancap society.
I’d suspect however that a society filled with people that support killing and stealing doesn’t last for long.
if that was the case thn the United States, China, and Western Europe would be the weakest societies on the planet. IN truth, this is another example of the grand naivete of the faith based ancap who rejects the utility of coercion to achieve ends (namely security, power, and wealth)
a society that effectively utilizes both soft and hard power to achieve ends will be the most successful. in contrast, a polyannish society that rejects coercion is destined for the ash heap of history.
perhaps this is why no ancap societies have ever existed and it is why its pacific adherents will never gain power.
Lol, jesus christ.
Is your state more “transparent, decentralized, and driven by security” than the PDA because you wrote in a piece of paper that they ought to be?
ignorance is bliss.
by any objective, rational, and independent thinking measure transparency among the disparate and competing branches and agencies within the federal government exist.
we have constant oversight of action of all branches and levels of government over each other. It is a system that has existed since the 1800’s
Moreover, we have decentralization of power in all branches and levels of government and military.
your “lol, jesus christ” is not a substantive rebut of this fact.
In contrast, ancap PDAs would have no checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency from other elements of society.
What are the incentives, rettoper, for a statist to be transparent, as compared to an entrepreneur?
a statist is dangerous, it has no transparency. However, your argument is a strawman since liberal democracies are rife with transparency. you cant fart in the oval office without someone putting it on twitter a minute later.
In contrast, there would be no firm mechanism for transparency in any segment of ancap society. both PDAs and sociopathic terror groups could operate with relative impunity.
ancaps need to exit this fantasyland thinking that “market forces” will deter coercion among the military and political classes in ancap society. They are both dangerous and we need substantive societal restriction on their growth and freedom.
He only has to be transparent enough to convince 50% of the active voters. Not even taxpayers, because not all taxpayers care; they just get their tax refunds, welfare, and vote for whoever’s on their party ticket like the last 4 years. And only in 1/4 of the years that come election time. Past that, who cares, his pay won’t go any higher, his reelection is just as certain. So that means, A politician doesn’t have to be even 1/8 as transparent as an entrepreneur. The latter which has to be as transparent as consumers want him to be, 100% of consumers, 100% of the time. Any lower and it means a direct profit loss to him. And as unpopular he becomes, the more he nears bankrupcy.
strawman again
i have never denied that the state is the architect of economic coercion and that this coercion is a survival level threat to society health and well being. My argument against ancap society is based solely on physical or military coercion which is arguably more dangerous.
in sum, you dont understand the substance of my arguments. There is a difference between economic coercion and physical (military) coercion.
within liberal democracies political and social freedoms have dramatically increased since 1776.
However, I will acknowledge that statists have found a backdoor to the acquistion of power, namely economic coercion.
However, the masses have uncovered these truths (1) the welfare state is a failure and (2) economic coercion by the state is the cause of our present difficulties.
It is far easier to remove the ability of the state to engage in economic coercion than to gut the entire system for anarchism (which is a quicker path to absolutism)
the best and most viable course of action is to use the existing system to attentuate government’s ability to use economic coercion to maintain power. Namely, remove the commerce clause from the constitution, states enforce the 10th amendment (as they are now doing), enforce the equal protection clause in the consitution that would eliminate progressive taxation, and a balanced budget amendment that would ensure any politicians who raise taxes would be voted out inthe next election.
The latter which has to be as transparent as consumers want him to be, 100% of consumers, 100% of the time. Any lower and it means a direct profit loss to him. And as unpopular he becomes, the more he nears bankrupcy.
absurd, consumers of protection just want protection – if their PDA of choice requires opaqueness to accomplish its mission, the consumer wont care.
moreover, if the entire PDA industry rejects transparency there is no mechanism to challenge them, save your angry shoemakers armed with penny loafers.
Decentralization? You got to be kidding me. One monopolized, coercive institution is more decentralized than every single entrepreneur in the area? You got to understand the market isn’t limited on how many companies are running, it means everyone. Everyone is a potential entrepreneur, and everyone is able to enter any market. A shitty market means profit opportunity for new companies. While a shitty state means everyone is f***d.
read my previous posts on the extreme degree of decentralization within the US defense establishment.
polyannish thinking to assume that the PDA or arbitration industries in ancap society will not eventually form coercive cartels and monopolies.
it only has to happen once for an instant to lead to the establishment of absolutism
moreover, the top PDAs would easily be inticed into forming a self-serving cartel to reduce costs and risk to the detriment of your brave and mighty shoemakers.
And you still don’t understand that the company only profits if it serves well that which its paid to do. For PDA, profit does mean it’s efficiency rate on defense; its ability to defend it’s customers from aggression. That is exactly what it means.
polyannish and shortsighted thinking.
you are stuck on the PDA as an exclusively law enforcement role. I understand that PDAs will use their unique and dangerous skill set to take and hold strategically valued resources and assets for profit. THese are the big players in ancap society not your local “sheriff PDA” that provides law enforcement and protection.
in sum, the big boys will gain their funding from mergers, acquistions, and takeovers. these are the entities that will assume absolutist power in an ancap society. Your cops on the beat will be powerless to defend against nukes, aircraft carriers, bombers, et al of well trained professional killers led by a brilliant and charismatic meglomaniac sociopath (see alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, charlemagne, napoleon, et al) .
He defends less, he profits less.
Indeed, I have pointed out numerous times that a PDA that did not provide adequate protections to a customers valued resources would be inviting predation and loss of that resource. IN truth, ancap society would experience constant competition and armed conflict for water, foodstuffs, mineral resources, energy, and other key geographical, political, economic, finacial, et al valued strategic centers.
He becomes less popular, he profits less.
you got that ass backward dude.
In sum, you claim to be an ancap yet you dont understand the fundamental point of ancap society — profits.
in your contradictory world, ancap society is meant to be moral AND profitable at the same time. in contrast I understand that morality is a subjective value judgment that has nothing to do with profits. If a PDA can gain a profit by coercion, then it will be done.
For a state? Votes mean nothing over the 50%+ needed, he’s either elected or not, It signals the chances he has of being reelected, sure, but nothing past that. His wage doesn’t go up, his job doesn’t become any easier. In fact, if a politicians approval ratings go up, it’s more likely an incentive to screw up; because he can “afford” losing some voter base and gain some cash in some corruption scandal, and still get reelected. And again, it’s only from four to four years, so he can actually screw around for three years and only compromise some useful work nearing reelection to look good. It’s much much easier to scam the people when you’re in government.
strawman dude.
I understand (and millions more do also) that pure democracy is tyranny of the masses or the majority. Thats why our founding fathers created a constitutional federal republic. We just need to tweek the economic shortcomings of the system to eliminate the tyranny of the majority in ecomomic matters.
the system has worked for political and social rights. It is no argument that minorities and women have more rights today than in 1776. however, provisions to protect private property and income were left out of the constitution or not enforced. SO the answer is not gutting the most popular, prosperous, peaceful, stable, and free system known to man for a failed ancap experiment.
we need to peacefully and aggressively reform the system we have. In the event that doesnt work, then the ball is in your court.
I have to run some errands, I will respond to the dogma from the enchanted kingdom where everyone loves one another and nobody wants security and power relative to his fellow man when I return.
