The PDA CEO has to make do with what he has, and do what he’s been hired to do. Every bullet has to be paid for, so any large scale commitment to violence is going to come at a direct profit deduction before any returns are made, and it will be noticed by the investors and costumers by lower returns and higher premiums. The statist? All that happens in a taax hike is greater discontent, but discontent doesn’t diminish his profits as directly as the PDA suffers from it, the statist has a much wider gap between discontent and loss, because he only loses really if he’s impeached or overthrown, and the amount of discontent needed to make that happen is far greater than it is for a PDA to go bankrupt; the PDA could merely become the second-best provider of security, from first, to have big losses. The CEO surely gets replaced then. The state has no competition to worry about; no price signals, no market incentive, apart from revolution.
strawman
I never said that statist or liberal democracies were more efficient at national defense than ancap PDAs
however, unlike statist regimes - the chief executive gets voted out forthwith when engaging in unpopular costly wars.
no doubt, poorly run PDAs will lose market share, wealth, and go bankrupt engaging in costly wars. however, there is an incentive in the industry as a whole to form cartels to limit costs associated with conflict. when a cartel is strong enough, it will assume absolutist powers and there is nothing your brave and formidible shoe salesmen can do, save throw penny loafers at the passing tanks along with the random briefcase thrown by the incredulous arbitration lawyer.
Also, please share it with Rettoper since he seems to be confused about what praxeology is!–liberty student
another ad hominem liberty student.
your ad hominems do more to confirm my assertions and debunk yours.
moreover, I understand the substance of praxeology more than the faith based ancap rabble who misrepresent it or reject it out of hand because it doesnt suit their value judgments on the use of coercion to achieve ends..
I challenge any faith based ancap to cite the praxeological a priori that rebuts my assertion that profit driven PDAs can/will form cartels and assume absolutist power.
if praxeology can neither confirm nor reject my assertions, then the ancap doesnt have an empirical or logical “pot to piss in”
But I’m repeating myself all over again and this won’t teach you anything, will it. You still believe businesses can make profits off breaking windows, so, I don’t know what else can I say for now.–yuberries
sure breaking windows can be profitable if a valued resource millions of times more valuable than the window resides inside and the only way to attain it is by breaking a window(s).
And of course, peaceful voluntary exchanges of goods and services is the most efficient and preferable method of transaction.
however, when this is not possible, then coercion will be the choice of many.
moreover, the ancap seems to discount this indisputable fact — there exists within all societies a dangerous class of men with a propensity and talent for using coercion to achieve ends. Our founding fathers recognized this truth and established checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency within societal governing systems including the military to forestall these men from establishing absolutist power.
in contrast, ancap society offers not a shred of deterrence to absolutism save the fantasy of “market forces”
perhaps this is way no anarchic societies exist today despite the fact that anarchism is present in the absence of any other system whenever a state fails. Yet it is always statism that emerges from the detritus, not anarchism.
I would offer a reply to your following posts, however none were based on fact, logic, or empiricism. They are simply inane, ad hoc, retorts of no substantive value. Indeed, your failure to offer even a shred of thoughtful rebut does more to confirm my assertions and debunk yours.
In sum, is the following rubbish the best argument you can present to defend ancap society?
Assuming what you wrote is not nonsensical, what is the relevance?
Question: I think I solved the mystery to your horrible typography. Are you posting from a mobile phone?
sigh You say that anarchism is a failed system and you also say that it has never existed. looks at the valley from the top of the hill
pops open a bottle of Perrier-Jouet So you concede that liberal democracy has failed.
Manifestly wordy.
Wait, which European states are liberal democracies?
pauses Ignorance is bliss.
If you are trying to save keystrokes, why did you include the period?
Straw man, non sequitur, and appeal to emotion. Woot! Hat trick.
Interesting: You prefix with “herr” but you don’t capitalize the “H” in Hoppe. You’re quite the wordsmith.
Wow. How more clear does it need to be that Rettoper doesn’t even understand his own rebuttals.
lolol
To the contrary. I don’t think you know what formal logic is. We’ve tirelessly pointed out the logical fallacy’s in just about everything you’ve posted. If nothing more simply because your too lazy to actually re-read what you posted. But as was stated before, Ignorance truely is bliss. Until your willing to actually learn your opponents side your simply arguing just to be right, not to find truth.
And don’t play the logical fallacy card on us, you don’t even know what a logical fallacy is.
I’m not a psychologist, but I think that by your capitalization of “I” and the first letter of your username and by your non-capitalization of the first letter of other members’ usernames, you are showing that you have an inferiority complex.
the following quotes from you have a bit of intellectual value so I will offer them the response they deserve, however slight:
A statist system that resists statism?
I will use an analogy to explain why a constitution is required to attenuate the establishment of absolutism while acknowleging that government is necessary for national defense.
to the ignorant mind it does indeed sound counter-intuitive that a statist structure is necessary to control the emergence of full blown statism. however, it is equally counter-intutive to think that the introduction of a live, albeit attentuated version, of a deadly virus into the body is deadly when infact the opposite is true. Vaccines like constitutional federal republicanism forestall and prevent the emergence of the virus.
the causal mechanisms that forestall the establishment of absolutism are apparent within a constitutional federal republic to all, except ancaps and muffinburg apparently.
moreover, there is one that I have not presented, namely that within a constitutional federal republic most of the meglomaniac despots are transparent and on perpetual display in a small highly visible locale – washington dc. from this vantage point we can easily observe their insidious machinations and eventually turn back their most debilitating moves toward greater state control.
the elections in 2010 and later in 2012 will begin the inexorable return to libertarianism that was present at the founding of our nation. importantly, this change will be relatively peaceful and without serious unrest or instability.
He was simply taking strategic valued resources away from the state.
so by your definition when an ancap is a parasite and benefits from taxpayers money and government coercion then it is okay since the ancap will put the money to better use then the government or more importantly the taxpayers who are the real benefactors.
I dont know what to say to this nonsense, expect welcome to the world of marxism muffinburg
I lost track, how many posts deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism have your offered in a row ?
Wow. How more clear does it need to be that Rettoper doesn’t even understand his own rebuttals.
lolol
To the contrary. I don’t think you know what formal logic is. We’ve tirelessly pointed out the logical fallacy’s in just about everything you’ve posted. If nothing more simply because your too lazy to actually re-read what you posted. But as was stated before, Ignorance truely is bliss. Until your willing to actually learn your opponents side your simply arguing just to be right, not to find truth.
And don’t play the logical fallacy card on us, you don’t even know what a logical fallacy is.
In sum, are my arguments that effective that you are reduced to repeated ad hominems ?
To the ignorant minded? You mean when something doesn’t logically follow, and as a result makes no coherent sense, it’s called being ignorant?
And unfortunately for you, but throughout the entire history of mankind constitutions have only at best kept statism at bay to a degree, but it’s power dwindling over time perpetually. It has never acted as a “Vaccine” which made man ultimately immune to “statism”. The Vaccine has the body create anti-body’s and is ultimately removed from the system. Your analogy makes no sense what soever.
You forget yourself. Who is coercing who? Anarchist does not want to Leech from the state, he is simply given no other options. A gun is pointed at his head and he is told to follow. If you put a gun to someone’s head and tell him to steal, is he the responsible party for stealing, or are you.
Your arguments are getting ever more desperate, and ever more silly.
I am disappointed, it appears that have joined angurse, sam, filc, jon, et al on the ash heap of failed arguments and you are now reduced to pitiful and inane retorts devoid of any substantive value.
Indeed you are not a psychologist or a political economist either. You are simply what herr hoppe, rothbard, woods, murphy or the next ancap flavor of the month tells you to be.
in sum, you need to think more independently, objectively, and rationally — not be dominated by intellectual rigidity that comes with an unwavering and uncompromising adherence to a beneficial and promising system that nonetheless has serious flaws.
see quote below from a brilliant, independent thinking, rational, and objective thinker — the truth will set you free!
In order to be an independent thinker you must first bury yourself in a sea of literature, material, and knowledge. Adherents do not do this. Adherents read the same material over and over worshiping it(Like the bible). On the other hand, there are people here who are more well read in Marxist literature then most marxists.
Simply judging off your posts I have to say, I would argue that Muffing burger has gone through far more self-reflection then you’ve ever allowed yourself.
This is one of the reasons you fail. You simply cannot stand up to such harsh consistency.
Flaws eh? The ones you keep romanticising about?
Or in your case, enslaved. If anyone here is an adherent, well its not Muffinburg. =p
