I do think independently. It was my ideal to google “expensive champaign”.
People romanticize about killing, it doesn’t mean it’s not a problem.
What was the ad hominem?
I do agree that your assertions can only be confirmed by logical fallacy.
What have I asserted? Can you cite them?
How so? Whoever wins will be a Republican or a Democrat. Therefore, the United States will continue on the path it is on.
In '10 and '12, and in all the years after that, the Federal Government will grow bigger, more powerful, and more in debt than it was prior to 2010 or 2012. It will also probably start a 3rd war (in addition to the continuing wars in Iraq & Afghanistan), and implement the draft in order to deal with the increasing unemployment caused by its intervention in the economy.
When was the last time a Federal law was repealed? Return to libertarianism? You mean the 16th and 17th amendments will be repealed? The Federal Reserve Act repealed? Social Security and Medicare, repealed? Nationalized Healthcare repealed? Undeclared wars will be ended?
On and on the intervention into the economy continues. But somehow you say this is the beginning of the inexorable return to libertarianism? (I think you must mean limited government, not libertarianism) What is inexorable is the march into Absolutism.
Unless you propose cloning Ron Paul, and then inserting him into every Congressional seat and 1/3 of the Senate, then I don’t see how anything will change in any election, ever.
When the people of the U.S. become desperate as the economy continues to crumble under Constitutional-Republicanism-Limited-Government-Liberal-Democracy-ism, the people will scream for more government, not less.
(Sorry I re-entered this thread, I just couldn’t sit here and read your statement without a retort. The concept of Limited Government, which is impossible, really gets to me.)
The US has some problems, but I hope you’re wrong about your last sentence. I don’t possibly see how a draft will be politically accepted by the masses… the amount of conflict it would take for that would be against the elite’s interests, as well.
I think the main problem with this thread is that both sides have been arguing about the possible outcomes of a worldwide ancap system.
Instead of saying I agree or disagree, I’m going to say: Who cares?
Guys much smarter than either of us have already made their cases, but arguing over the actual outcome of a theory is like arguing about what the weather will be like in 100 years. Global ancap isn’t coming anytime soon. Nobody can, with any honesty, state exactly just how such a society would function. We can only theorize, but we can’t know for sure. Therefore, both sides are just creating 100+ pages of arguments over beliefs. This is why it’s not going anywhere. You can’t “prove” a belief to another person.
This is why we have to find some solutions. I don’t think Ancap or movement toward ancap will come out by political processes. They will only come into existence by market processes, aided by technological progress. Instead of arguing, if you guys had all devoted the efforts to spreading awareness about seasteading or other initiatives that have actual, real potential within the next 10 years… 
Besides, Rettoper already believes in highly limited government. He even believes in limited an-cap in a world containing liberal democracies. I personally think that isn’t so bad at all. Things need to be kept in perspective. If the shit does hit the fan later this year and in 2012, I’m sure the guy will change his mind about the “back to limited government” path he seems to believe the US will take.
Where Rettoper comes from, there are millions more like him. You can argue all you want, but if someone is set on viewing evidence (and Rettoper can be counted among millions of people in this), then evidence is what we need to provide. The single, possibly best argument that can be provided in favor of ancap is to realize it, somewhere on this world. All the arguments in the world are meaningless if this can’t eventually be done.
Did people know that they wanted an iPhone before it existed? Did people know that they would come to appreciate the benefits of the Internet before it existed? 30 years ago, we could have theorized about something like the Internet, but we could not know the possible actual realization of it, nor could we “prove” it to people. It turns out that the marketplace “proved” the Internet, and “proved” the iPhone. I believe that the markets will provide the best proof for ancap when people see that it can indeed work, and that it is indeed effective. Theories must be validated by evidence sooner or later…
If we’re revisiting minarchy vs. anarchy in this thread, I’d like to share another essay I found where John Hasnas comes up with a pretty cool idea for a “remedial state” that he argues solves the anarchy vs. minarchy issue, because it is structured such that if PDAs start to turn into warlords the state mechanism would kick in, but if anarchy works the state would just wither away. I’m not sure whether it’d work, but it’s great food for thought for both anarchists and minarchists.
Reflections on the Minimal State http://faculty.msb.edu/hasnasj/GTWebSite/06_Hasnas.pdf
This article challenges the traditional argument for the state that holds that
because the market is unable to supply the rule-making, adjudicative, and
enforcement services that are essential to life in society, the state must, and
hence is morally justified.
This article challenges the traditional argument for the state that holds that
because the market is unable to supply the rule-making, adjudicative, and
enforcement services that are essential to life in society, the state must, and
hence is morally justified. The author argues that the market’s inability to supply
these basic services proves only that the state must ensure that they are
supplied, not that it must supply them itself. This implies that the traditional
concept of the minimal state as one that supplies only these basic services is
flawed. The ‘remedial state’ (one that regulates the private provision of these
services) is actually the minimal state.
Thauthor argues that the market’s inability to
supply these basic services proves only that the state must ensure that they are
supplied, not that it must supply them itself. This implies that the traditional
concept of the minimal state as one that supplies only these basic services is
flawed. The ‘remedial state’ (one that regulates the private provision of these
services) is actually the minimal state.
Also, the usual plug for the link in my sig, which I think addresses this issue in a way that both sides of the debate may find agreeable.
Sorry guy’s I tried to not. I tried to keep away from this thread. But alas.
Of course, if investment and capital flows to a security firm it can more easily become hegemonic since it will have more resources to plan, train, procure, design, execute, et al.
Are you really assuming I don’t know that becoming a hegemon requires this? Just admit that your argument required as a prerequisite, a hegemon to already exist. You weren’t arguing this point, you were arguing that hegemon’s which already exist will receive more investment capital.
moreover, during periods of volatility and uncertainty, the citizenry will logically flock to the PDA that is the strongest if only for security.
Are you kidding me? Why wouldn’t they just pay their current defense provider for more defense? THAT’s the whole point of a PDA. It’s to provide you defense during periods of volatility and uncertainty. They’ve obviously already made the judgement that that PDA is the best for the money.
in sum, capital goes to profitable enterprises. The more profitable and competently run – the more capital that enterprise will receive. Eventually a PDA hegemon will emerge.
in sum, capital goes to profitable enterprises. The more profitable and competently run – the more capital that enterprise will receive. Eventually a Shoe making hegemon will emerge.
At this point, nothing can stop it from assuming absolutist powers.
and why wouldnt it ?
Because it costs a ton of money with little assurance of success. And the cost of failure isn’t simply loosing your money, it’s loosing your life. That includes the employees, stockholders, and the CEO. Without an ideological backing, there are very few who will go along with that decision.
Since doing so would reduce conflict (statist regimes are generally stable and without random violent crime), eliminate costs associated from competition, and bring wealth and power to the PDAs investors, staff, and management.
Wait, statist regimes are generally more stable and have less random violent crime than a system which has never existed? You’re going to have to do more than simply state that to convince anyone.
alexander, ceasar, tamerlane, khan, frederick, napoleon, lincoln, victoria, roosevelt, bismarck, stalin, mao, et al gained power via aggression.
By what logic and empirical evidence can you cite that debunks the utility of great leaders to gain power through violence ?
history has debunked your assertion that armed force cannot be used to gain power.
Again, I haven’t made that assertion.
moreover, the hegemon PDA may not declare itself until its competitors have exhausted their resources in endless minor conflicts.
What endless conflicts are you talking about? The ones being resolved by courts?
Perhaps, the emerging hegemon only needs to use coercion as a last step in gaining power. perhaps, the top 2-3 PDAs will peacefully form a cartel during a weekend conference and declare absolutist power in the name of societal “peace and stability”.
Again already responded to the cartel argument.
in sum, we dont know that manner in which an emerging hegemon will achieve absolutism, we only know that profit is the PDAs motivation and that with power comes greater profit with hegemony comes even greater power and profits.
We also know with attempting to grab power comes massive amounts of risk, costs, and resistance, more so than any other type of activity.
and lastly, you havent argued why a PDA wouldnt want to expand. and why it is impossible for a hegemon in the security industry to emerge. You have continually disagreed with all of my assertions without offering anything substantive other then your personal opinion deviod of fact, logic, or empiricism.
I suppose I never wrote this then?
Sam - Becoming an outlaw firm is a MASSIVE cost due to having to pay every one of your employees enough to become an outlaw. Lasting monopolies have never existed without state interference, and while that certainly isn’t a convincing argument to me and the other people here, it is certainly an argument that has convinced you before. Sure a dominant firm may arise, but the very second it tries to forcibly expel its competition, it loses all of its employees and stockholders who don’t want to be outlaws, and the firm collapses since it’s costs have just risen astronomically with all of its funds leaving. If it’s a cartel of PDA’s, why wouldn’t one or two of them refrain, and gain all of the rests market share, employees, and stockholders cash at a ridiculously low cost since a whole bunch of them just quit their jobs/sold their stock, and all without becoming outlaws. Cartel’s fail when ever its not in their members interests to be faithful to it.
I’ve made numerous arguments against a one company being able to take over.
Like alexander, ceasar, napoleon, hitler, et al – the “early game” they will play by the rules, cultivate alliances, secure flanks, use diplomacy to curry favor and lull adversaries into complacency – however the “end game” will involve coercion and conquest.
Oh really! So you concede that it is unprofitable to not play by the rules until you become hegemon. Excellent. So now all I have to show is that hegemon is unattainable.
In sum, we simply cannot guess what machinations will lead to the establishment of a hegemon. however, none can deny that (1) a conflict for supremacy will exist in anarchic society, (2) that eventually a hegemon PDA cartel will emerge, and (3) that nothing will stop this hegemon from becoming absolutist.
I have shown all 3 of those assertions to either be false or questionable.
if anarchism was anathema to statism and absolutism, then why have so many statist regimes formed out of the detritus of anarchy of failed and collapsed states?
Wrong type of anarchy.
both a free market and the absence of a central government have existed myriad times throughout history in the instance that a state collapses from either internal or external forces – yet never in history has a viable and sustainable ancap society emerged from this detritus. Indeed, it is usually statism
Again, not an attack on a mature anarchy.
and let the courts and the untrained masses enforce their decision once a PDA cartel reaches hegemon status.
Cause that’s never happened before. Not to mention its not just courts and untrained masses. It’s other PDAs as well.
for example, the CEOs of the top 2-3 PDAs representing over 75% of market share (and military power) decide to form a cartel to stop violence in anarchic society. Moreover, they will pick a favored arbitration firm to manage disputes (with their oversight). Also, the insurance industry will welcome the establishment of a hegemon since this will dramatically reduce conflict to latent levels.
your “trusted” courts and those that support them will likely end up on the chopping block.
Well I’ve already explained why cartel’s fall apart, how employees would evacuate seeing as they now have a massive conflict on their hands, and the free for all on that cartel which would be positive feedback loop of shrinking in size/making it easier to steal, which makes it shrink in size. And as for insurance companies, trying to dominate society tends to make conflict sky rocket, not decrease. The low men on the totem poll aren’t going to gain nearly as much as if they simply stole a tank/submarine/destroyer from their employer. And there’s a lot of low men on the totem poll required to dominate a society. The only thing keeping them there might be ideology. Good luck installing that in them without a preexisting state. Conflict would already be at latent levels in a mature anarchy.
how will the courts and the unarmed masses enforce their decision on a hegemon PDA that has just declared itself ?
amusingly, I can see it now: the lawyers for the “trusted” arbitration firm are handing out citations and judgments to the tanks as they roll over the courthouse gates.
Seeing as a large portion of their employees just quit, and took a large portion of their resources with them, it’d be pretty easy for another PDA to just put it out of its misery.
Your views on human nature are dangerously naive at best.
Glad to see you using new vocabulary.
When a coalition or group of people cannot attain desired ends by peaceful means, they will use force. Moreover, those that are skilled at wielding force (the defense industry) will use this skill set to attain ends.
it is absurd to think that large interest groups will forego the attainment of desired ends simply because private arbitration agency X says they are not entitled to these ends. These masses will align with a favored PDA and challenge the courts for power. Indeed, these challenges may be slow in materializing, but they will be inexorable.
They already are using that skill to attain those ends. Defending people gains them money. That helps them attain their ends. Attacking people may gain them money in the short term, but comes at great long term costs and risks. That harms their attempt to attain their ends.
The courts don’t have power, they have reputation. You can’t take a reputation of judiciousness from somebody else through force. The real force comes from people. Ergo, you have to challenge the people, and that’s much harder to do, for reasons outlined in previous argument.
This is a societal house of cards. A PDA that took valued resources that were being squandered or mismanaged by a competing firm would be applauded rather than vilified.
What are you talking about. Resources which are squandered or mismanaged fall into others hands through market forces anyway. No PDA required. Why the hell would anybody assume that a resource taken by a PDA was being squandered?
A firm that hoarded resources or charged exorbidant fees for passage through a strategic transit point would be inviting predation if they didnt defend these valued strategic resources effectively. Moreover, only the interested parties would be involved in any armed conflict. Most disinterested actors would simply stand by on the sidelines. once the aggressor secured the valued resource, business as usual would resume and the defeated firm and its customer would be condemned for their shortsightedness and poor management.
Hmm, I wonder if I’ve responded to this before?
Sam - Who’s wrath do they have to deal with in order to take over that strait. First they have to deal with the land owner’s PDA which is protecting that strait. Then they also have to deal with the wrath of the PDA’s of people who have contracts to cross that strait in place already. And if that doesn’t work, then they may have to deal with any PDA who the original land owners are willing to transfer rightful property ownership over to them simply out of spite to the douche bags who aggressed against them in the first place. That PDA can do exactly what the original aggressive PDA did with all the same benefits of what the origianl aggressive PDA is getting, except now the original aggressive PDA is severely weakened due to expending resources against the first two set of PDA’s, and this new PDA doesn’t have to pay their employees/stockholders a great deal of money for the risk of becoming outlaws.
So it would seem.
THose engaged in preserving resources and power rather than expanding power are doomed to be overtaken by a more aggressive competitor. In sum, you cant gain and hold power by maintaining market share.
You haven’t shown that a PDA doesn’t grow through defense, reputation building, and convincing other customers to switch their agency? Unless you think GEICO isn’t a company who gained market share.
An aggressively run PDA will see capital and power increase relative to a static foe. Indeed, all firms desire to increase in size and wealth. The PDA would not be any different.
In sum, the PDA(s) that expands their power, by whatever means, will eventually gain hegemon status. Once this status is attained, then the freedom associated with utopian ancap society dissolves very quickly.
More tired claims that aggression increases capital long term, and hegemon status is attainable.
strawman.
A PDA of “accountants” could be dispatched easily if a warrior class was in society at large. You need both specialization of labor among those with a skill set to wage war and an expected union of these warriors in order to dominate society.
So tell me, does the fact that air exists support your claim that PDA’s would be able to become a hegemon? Cause you know, those warriors need to breath in order to dominate society, and air helps them do that. You need specialization of labor, an expected union of these warriors, and air in order to dominate society.
it would be a no-brainer that a coalition of the top PDAs would eventually get sick of unfavorable arbitration rulings against them and simply join forces to assume absolutist power.
Another cartel claim
Moreover, society might welcome (in the short term) the elimination of armed conflict that would come with a absolutist oligarghy.
You assume that conflict is constant before anarchy, and that courts aren’t already performing that job.
In sum, it is grand naivete and folly to think that a coalition of dominate PDAs would NOT align to take power, wealth, and security from the rest of society.
Nice to see even more new vocabulary.
What provision or a praxalogical a priori debunks this?
Your face.
Sam so classy, I vouch
filc,
Not one substantive logical, factual, or empirically supported argument rebutting anything I have asserted in your comments below:
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
IN sum, if you offer something substantive, then I will respond.
chloe,
How so? Whoever wins will be a Republican or a Democrat. Therefore, the United States will continue on the path it is on.
True both parties have been complicit in expanding the size and scope of government. What needs to change is the mechanisms of government since the individual actors have used the imperfections in our federal government to game the system to personal or ideological benefit.
However, there is an obvious libertarian trend in the body politic that is driven by the citizenry. I believe that our system is dynamic and can make substantive change, albeit slowly, to reduce the size and scope of government. Observe the numerous libertarian politicians that have emerged in this election season. This was not possible even a decade ago, moreover America is shifting more libertarian than at anytime in our history. Remember just a few generations ago, FDR was elected president 4 times.
In '10 and '12, and in all the years after that, the Federal Government will grow bigger, more powerful, and more in debt than it was prior to 2010 or 2012. It will also probably start a 3rd war (in addition to the continuing wars in Iraq & Afghanistan), and implement the draft in order to deal with the increasing unemployment caused by its intervention in the economy.
your frustration and emotion is guiding this assertion. Europe which is more socialist than the USA has made dramatic moves in reducing the size and scope of government since the financial collapse of the scandanavian nations in the 90’s. Indeed, greece has reduced the size and scope of government due to the obvious collapse and failure of the welfare state.
the notion that a nation of largely libertarians and fiscal conservatives will not follow suit demonstrates a lack of political acumen.
When was the last time a Federal law was repealed? Return to libertarianism? You mean the 16th and 17th amendments will be repealed? The Federal Reserve Act repealed? Social Security and Medicare, repealed? Nationalized Healthcare repealed? Undeclared wars will be ended?
See europe, russia, china, botswana, chile, et al
the welfare state is unsustainable. there is no choice but to attenuate government.
a decade ago the notion that the federal reserve could be reduced or eliminated was not considered – today real political momentum is building for serious oversight into its shortcomings and failures
On and on the intervention into the economy continues. But somehow you say this is the beginning of the inexorable return to libertarianism? (I think you must mean limited government, not libertarianism) What is inexorable is the march into Absolutism.
absolutism has declined as liberal democracy has grown. And yes, the era of big government is ending. moreover, we have seen the collapse of marxism that a generation ago was considered invulnerable.
Unless you propose cloning Ron Paul, and then inserting him into every Congressional seat and 1/3 of the Senate, then I don’t see how anything will change in any election, ever.
When the people of the U.S. become desperate as the economy continues to crumble under Constitutional-Republicanism-Limited-Government-Liberal-Democracy-ism, the people will scream for more government, not less.
You underestimate the wisdom and will of the AMerican people. While europeans, asians, africans, latinos protest for government protections – Americans are unique in that they protest against government intrusions.
Nonetheless, as I stated earlier, the welfare state is unsustainable. as a result, it will fail – the only alternative is a greatly attentuated government. The global interconnectedness insures that nation-states that do not limit government will decline in power and standards of living relative to their competitors. Moreover, the size and scope of electronic communications insures that the shortcomings associated with big government will be illumninated.
Browns 27 Lions 21! *honks air horn, barks like dog-- Epicurus Ibn Kalhoun
dont bark too loud, it looks like my lions and your browns will be the only two teams never to play in the super bowl by 2100.
we would have thunk that the lowly saints would have a ring before the lions or browns
Looks like you do believe in the idea behind this then: http://athousandnations.com/about/
AJ,
thanks for the link, however I am behind on my reading. Everyone is on vacation at work and I dont even have time to tweek my fantasy football rosters.
when time allows, I am going to read ultima’s citation then yours.
however, I dont believe that any artifices of mankind can limit the abuses of rule-making, adjudication, and enforcement. Mankind is inherently predatory and hierarchical. These traits have served us well for tens of thousands of years, hence without them we would not have evolved as master over our environment. However, the downside is that absolutism and armed conflict always rears its ugly head with great regularity despite the utopian flavor of the month that emerges every century or so. Disturbingly, the anarcho-capitalist seems to discount the threat offered by men like ceasar, alexander, tamerlane, genghis khan, et al. due to their overconfidence in the efficacy of market forces to check human avarice
This month flavor 32 appears to be anarcho-capitalism.
Last month it was marxism.
liberal democracy isnt perfect, but it has led to steady and unchecked improvements in civil and political rights since 1776. However, I acknowledge that weeking the system to restrict the ability of government to engage in economic coercion is necessary.
And I agree with you that anarcho-capitalism is not in the cards for the foreseeable future, while I assert that tweeking government to protect private property and economic freedoms is doable in our lifetime.
ultima,
I believe in the benefits of capitalism while recognizing the dangers of allowing predatory elements of society to expand unchecked.
anarcho-capitalism provides no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency of these predatory elements that will naturally gravitate to the defense and arbitration industries.
If you, a minarchist, demands checks and balances to keep PDAs accountable, would you not agree that anarcho-capitalists who are even more fearful of PDAs becoming minarchist states, would demand such checks and balances if they were appropriate?
Then, is there not a market demand for accountability and transparency?
Then, why can’t that demand be satisfied without coercion?
edit: damn typos
You should check out some of the articles at the site I just linked you. They don’t focus on anarcho-capitalism, since true anarcho-capitalism is likely to remain a theoretical construct for some time. What is more likely is micro-states that give most of the benefits.They talk about practical changes within the structure of the world today, such as evolving better rules by increasing the competition between governments. These ideas are, however, anarcho-capitalistic in nature, because they lead to a reduction of the state. Even what you believe in and say is anarcho-capitalistic in nature, you just don’t go all the way. However, I agree with you that eliminating much of the state will yield great benefits as compared to today. Every bit helps. Whether you are right about November remains to be seen. 
In fact, I don’t see the point in arguing over how pure anarcho-capitalism will work in practice because we are simply not there yet. Let’s discuss what is practical today rather than what the 100th move of the game will be.
You guys are never going to convince each other, simply because we cannot prove it until we see it. You could be right, and I’m inclined to believe that you’re right, because voluntaryism is what I feel to be the right moral system for human prosperity and progress. We, however, have no evidence to go on. Somalia et al. are pretty bad examples if you want to impress others.
I think that’s what we need to work on: Examples that reducing the state works, and examples that an area can be anarchistic in nature in our modern world yet not be a human cesspool. It’s not enough to show that absolute communism is a failure; that’s already been done. Now we need to show that absolute panarchism can work. I believe the real driver here is going to be technology. States will not voluntarily roll back, but the pressures of the market combined with technology, making it easier for labour and capital to cross borders, is going to force them to roll back through the sheer pressures of competition. As people see more and more that the state isn’t necessary for what they thought it was, so attitudes will change. Attitudes will also change when people see that it is in their best interest to reduce the state. Eventually we will reach an equilibrium that matches people’s desire for state-like behavior: The state tries to retain its monopoly privileges, but yes, even the state is subject to the market.
Basically, it comes down to this: Anarcho-capitalists have a recipe, and it looks pretty tasty on paper. Will it actually taste good? To convince others, you need to give them a taste of the real thing!
sam,
Are you really assuming I don’t know that becoming a hegemon requires this? Just admit that your argument required as a prerequisite, a hegemon to already exist. You weren’t arguing this point, you were arguing that hegemon’s which already exist will receive more investment capital.
strawman. I asked you to stop misrepresenting my arguments. Indeed, in the rant above your trying to tell me what I was arguing ?!!
I stated that during times of uncertainty, consumers will naturally and expectedly gravitate to the largest PDA. Moreover, it is a no-brainer that a coaltion of the largest PDA’s will form a union in order to reduce competition thereby reducing risk and increasing profits.
Your implied belief that private enterprises are motivated by civic duty versus profits and power is dangerously naive.
Are you kidding me? Why wouldn’t they just pay their current defense provider for more defense? THAT’s the whole point of a PDA. It’s to provide you defense during periods of volatility and uncertainty. They’ve obviously already made the judgement that that PDA is the best for the money.
using your logic, a consumer would throw good money after bad by continuing to fund a declining PDA. Moreover, using your logic customer loyalty trumps future security and profit. It is amusing that anarcho-capitalists have very little intuitive understanding of the real machinations driving the free market.
In sum, capital and investment will flow to the PDA that represents that can provide the best protection. Moreover, the PDA that provides the most security for its customers and its valued property are the PDAs that are aggressive and expanding as opposed to static and risk averse PDAs
in sum, capital goes to profitable enterprises. The more profitable and competently run – the more capital that enterprise will receive. Eventually a Shoe making hegemon will emerge.
perhaps a shoe monopoly will emerge. Unfortunately for management, employees, investors,and customers of this shoe hegemon – they will not be able to coerce other industries by wielding penny loafers as weapons. In contrast, a hegemon PDA can impose its will on all other industries for obvious reasons, ancaps notwithstanding.
assuming absolutist power and holding it are two different things sam.
let me educate you. ancap society offers nothing different than the current and past geopolitic of constant struggle for power. once a PDA assumes hegemon status, there is the inevitable machinations to usurp its power by force.
in sum, ancap society offers nothing beyond what already exists in the global anarchic environment — namely constant conflict in the acquistion and balancing of power.
Because it costs a ton of money with little assurance of success. And the cost of failure isn’t simply loosing your money, it’s loosing your life. That includes the employees, stockholders, and the CEO. Without an ideological backing, there are very few who will go along with that decision.
In sum, the typical ancap cites numerous examples throughout history of both anarchic and statist elements seeking to obtain power by coercion as a cost effective means to achieve these desired ends — yet in the same post the typical ancap will claim with a straight face that humans will not use force to obtain desired ends.
and you wonder why there are no ancap societies
Wait, statist regimes are generally more stable and have less random violent crime than a system which has never existed? You’re going to have to do more than simply state that to convince anyone.
Note that the safest nation from homicide is Mynamar, by any objective measure a statist regime. Indeed there are only 2 liberal democracies in the top ten nations with the lowest homicide rate. And one of them is a rural african nation (botswana) the other is japan which is safe due to homogenous cultural reasons.
In sum, the strict police state renders crime a more dangerous and difficult proposition for the potential criminal. Of course, those that temporarily surrender freedom for security gain neither in the long term. Nonetheless, human nature and empirical evidence confirms that the citizenry beset by constant low level conflicts will oft times turn to statist structures to gain temporary peace.
Again, I haven’t made that assertion.
You just contradicted yourself in the same post. you stated above that “Because it costs money…” PDAs wont go to war to obtain profits and above you stated the exact opposite, namely that you didnt disagree with my oft stated assertion that both public and private entities will use force to obtain desired ends when peaceful means are not possible.
What endless conflicts are you talking about? The ones being resolved by courts?
your hypocritical contradictions are amusing and palpable!!! I am using YOUR source to debunk your assertion that mankind is averse to obtaining desired ends by armed force.
history is replete with examples of intelligent and rational actors using coercion to obtain desired ends.
Again already responded to the cartel argument.
And I have repeatedly debunked your arguments.
We also know with attempting to grab power comes massive amounts of risk, costs, and resistance, more so than any other type of activity.
so what !
risk is what the free market is all about.
In sum, you cant make an omelet without breaking an egg. if mankind didnt think that desired ends could be achieved using coercion then why so many wars dude ?
is it any surprise that there are absolute ZERO ancap societies when these faith-based utopian pacifists discount the utility of obtaining desired ends by coercion.
I’ve made numerous arguments against a one company being able to take over.
and your empty faith-based argument that assuming hegemon power would be rejected since the costs exceed the benefits has been disproven by history and logic.
Namely, if a coalition of PDAs believed that absolutist power garnered benefits that exceeded the risks then they would engage in the risky behavior for hegemon power and security.
moreover, who says the the top 2-3 PDAs couldnt achieve absolutist power in a bloodless inexpensive coup d’etat ?
would lesser PDAs stand against a coalition of PDAs that represented over 75% of market share?
Oh really! So you concede that it is unprofitable to not play by the rules until you become hegemon. Excellent. So now all I have to show is that hegemon is unattainable.
see above sam
In sum, if anarcho-capitalism ever emerges on a global scale (slim to none chance) then a probable scenario is millions of naive ancaps awakening one morning to news that their beloved and trusted PDAs of choice have merged and assumed absolutist power without a shot being fired, primarily driven by market forces to reduce costs and increase profits by running the little guys and other potential competitors out of the industry.
I have shown all 3 of those assertions to either be false or questionable.
and I have repeatedly and convincingly debunk all of your assertions
Wrong type of anarchy.
in every single instance of the collapse of government – there exist at that moment in history (1) no government and (2) free markets — YEt maximal capitalism has never emerged !
Indeed, it comes to the table during these upheavals with the same playing field as other systems yet it never emerges.
and yet ancaps continue to support a system that is proven unsustainable and dangerously suspitable to statist overthrow.
Again, not an attack on a mature anarchy.
amusing and ridiculous that you are arguing the efficacy of ancap society on the grounds that it hasnt emerged instantly as a mature society. Note that statism and liberal democracy didnt need to be instantly “mature” in order to eventually reach mature and stable status.
your kidding right ?!
you adopt the same faulty faith-based reasoning that marxist use – namely that marxism will be utopia if it only overwhelms all other systems.
Cause that’s never happened before. Not to mention its not just courts and untrained masses. It’s other PDAs as well.
strawman again.
you need to become less intellectually rigid sam.
I stated repeatedly that a PDA cartel would assume absolutist power. I challenge you to quote when I said that the PDA monopoly would hold absolutist power indefinately.
INdeed, within anarchic society there would be constant conflict as various power blocs fought for absolutist power. The cycle would likely resemble that which has existed since the dawn of civilzation.
In contrast, liberal democracies dont engage in war against likeminded societies.
you want global peace, look to liberal democracies which restrict and check the emergence of coercive absolutist regimes.
Well I’ve already explained why cartel’s fall apart, how employees would evacuate seeing as they now have a massive conflict on their hands, and the free for all on that cartel which would be positive feedback loop of shrinking in size/making it easier to steal, which makes it shrink in size.
This is the gem of ancap utopian thought. Namely that profit seeking actors in ancap society will voluntarily surrender absolutist power and the security, wealth, and power. Of course, power blocs will form to challenge those seeking a monopoly on military power – no different than what now existed in the present day anarchic geopolitic.
Moreover, you continually discount the possiblity that a cartel of the top PDAs will form an irresistable and unchallenged union without firing a shot.
and you wonder why there are absolutely ZERO ancap societies today.
in sum, anarchic society has no substantive checks on its defense industry or the constant conflicts that will emerge among those seeking hegemon power, save those pesky shoe salesmen.
And as for insurance companies, trying to dominate society tends to make conflict sky rocket, not decrease. The low men on the totem poll aren’t going to gain nearly as much as if they simply stole a tank/submarine/destroyer from their employer. And there’s a lot of low men on the totem poll required to dominate a society. The only thing keeping them there might be ideology. Good luck installing that in them without a preexisting state. Conflict would already be at latent levels in a mature anarchy.
again your trying to argue that coercion will be “at latent levels” in anarchic society when we already know that the current anarchic society (global geopolitic) is anything but peaceful.
moreover, empirical evidence and human nature debunks your assertion that the majority of the citizenry and the insurance industry will not welcome a hegemon cartel of PDAs since this will likely lead to a reduction in violence and conflict in society – note that mature absolutist regimes have the lowest crime rates.
Seeing as a large portion of their employees just quit, and took a large portion of their resources with them, it’d be pretty easy for another PDA to just put it out of its misery.
opinion – hunchism without a shred of empirical or praxeological support.
I could argue the opposite that once a hegemon emerges, customers, employees, investors, et al would rush to enjoy the profits, security, and safety that would be gained from association with the “big dog”
using your logic, customers, employees, investors, et al would react irrationally and run from the private enterprises that were increasing market share
and you wonder why no ancap societies exist today
They already are using that skill to attain those ends. Defending people gains them money. That helps them attain their ends. Attacking people may gain them money in the short term, but comes at great long term costs and risks. That harms their attempt to attain their ends.
short sighted tunnel vision.
you are repeatedly focused on one responsibility of one sector of the PDA industry, namely law enforcement or security guard. the big players would be those PDAs acquiring and protecting valued strategic resources and societal centers of gravity. the multinational PDAs that possessed nukes, aircraft carriers, battle tanks, supersonic intercontinental bombers, et al.
not your glorified security guards who represent the small fish in a big market.
The courts don’t have power, they have reputation. You can’t take a reputation of judiciousness from somebody else through force. The real force comes from people. Ergo, you have to challenge the people, and that’s much harder to do, for reasons outlined in previous argument.
absurd,
we have seen how much sway international law has on the anarchic geopolitic in past history and today.
What are you talking about. Resources which are squandered or mismanaged fall into others hands through market forces anyway. No PDA required. Why the hell would anybody assume that a resource taken by a PDA was being squandered?
first, valued resources must be defended by a force commensurate to the resource’s value – or it will be subject to predation. THe less protection, the more likely it will be annexed.
moreover, if valued resources are being utilized to maximum effect, then the owner would have the resources/capital to adequately defend the resources. Valued resources that are not be utlilized to maximum benefit to society would be subject to predation since the owners were poor capitalists – therefore not deserving of control of a scarce resource.
Hmm, I wonder if I’ve responded to this before?
yes you have, and I have repeatedly debunked your opinions and hunchisms.
Sam - Who’s wrath do they have to deal with in order to take over that strait. First they have to deal with the land owner’s PDA which is protecting that strait. Then they also have to deal with the wrath of the PDA’s of people who have contracts to cross that strait in place already.
If the neglegent owner was not utilizing the valued resource to full effect as dictated by market forces then that owner would not have the resources/capital to successfully defend the resource. in contrast, a preditory PDA that recoginized the true value of the “straits” would endeavor to take this resource and charge the appropriate transit fees and provide a measure of defense commensurate to the true value of the resource that would deter attack.
of course, the ships passing through the strait would pay more, however they would recognize that the previous owner was not reaping the true benefits of the valued resource hence this poorly run PDA and previous owner were misallocating scarce resources that resulted in their inability to defend their property.
in sum, the free market would insure (1) PDAs underestimate value and skimp on defense of valued resources, (2) owners of valued resources used them to maximum benefit that would allow them the capital to contract an appropriate level of protection, and (3) all valued resources would be defended by a level of power that was in line with the resource’s value on the free market otherwise it would be subject to predation.
And if that doesn’t work, then they may have to deal with any PDA who the original land owners are willing to transfer rightful property ownership over to them simply out of spite to the douche bags who aggressed against them in the first place.
because you are a pacifist you are making hunches on what machinations of the free market would occur based on subjective value judgments.
your wrong. The free market doesnt give a rats ass whether you perceive an action to be inappropriate since it was coercive. The market only harshly judges actions that are unprofitable and there is no praxeological argument that debunks actions in the free market as unprofitable simply because they are coercive or pacifist handwringing ancaps dont like violence.
That PDA can do exactly what the original aggressive PDA did with all the same benefits of what the origianl aggressive PDA is getting, except now the original aggressive PDA is severely weakened due to expending resources against the first two set of PDA’s, and this new PDA doesn’t have to pay their employees/stockholders a great deal of money for the risk of becoming outlaws.
hunchism run amok.
hypocritically you are advocating aggression while at the same time condeming it. Moreover, you make the absurd assumption that non-aligned or neutral actors are going to invest more than indigination at the offending PDA. ALso, you assume too much when you assume a well trained, well led, and larger aggressor PDA is going to engage in wars it cant win.
see my previous statements. the eventual hegemon will not act recklessly or always use coercion to achieve ends.
in sum, you naively make the repeated empty assertion that the aggressor is always miscalculating and reckless while history has shown myriad examples of the efficacy of expertly led, well trained, and aggressive armies at obtaining power, wealth, and security by force while the rest of society stands by prostrate.
and does anyone believe that a group of pacifist ancaps on the sidelines will suddenly become “bushlike” and engage in wars to rescue a competitors property and capital from another stronger competitor?
That PDA can do exactly what the original aggressive PDA did with all the same benefits of what the origianl aggressive PDA is getting, except now the original aggressive PDA is severely weakened due to expending resources against the first two set of PDA’s, and this new PDA doesn’t have to pay their employees/stockholders a great deal of money for the risk of becoming outlaws.
history is replete with examples of “outlaws” literally getting away with murder while pacifists stood idly by. Indeed, where was the ancap protests as millions were killed in rwanda, sudan, iraq, afghanistan et al in the last quarter century ?
in truth, the ancap is the first one to say that the USA should not engage itself in foreign conflicts. WHy ?
it costs too much. yet this hypocrite claims that ancap society will aggressively move in union to stop acts of aggression.
grand hypocrisy and absurdity.
You haven’t shown that a PDA doesn’t grow through defense, reputation building, and convincing other customers to switch their agency? Unless you think GEICO isn’t a company who gained market share.
geico has 2% of the market – in contrast state farm has 20%.
you naively mistake perception for power.
moreover, walmart doesnt have to provide the best customer service to dominate market share and subsequently power.
customer satisfaction and service is far higher at the more upscale retailers, yet walmart has put many of them out of business.
again you naively equate customer perception with real power.
More tired claims that aggression increases capital long term, and hegemon status is attainable.
irrespective of how a PDA cartel achieves hegemon status whether peacefully through customer service, or coercion, or a combination of both is not the issue.
the issue is that a cartel or monopoly of PDAs will likely merge to reduce risk, costs, and increase profits by forcing out the competition and then the wall between absolutism and your utopian “paradise” is ripped asunder.
So tell me, does the fact that air exists support your claim that PDA’s would be able to become a hegemon? Cause you know, those warriors need to breath in order to dominate society, and air helps them do that. You need specialization of labor, an expected union of these warriors, and air in order to dominate society.
Yes, in order to achieve hegemon status, the PDAs investors, managers, shareholders, employees, et al would need to breath.
You assume that conflict is constant before anarchy, and that courts aren’t already performing that job.
Again, your courts have made their decision — now lets see them enforce it against a hegemon PDA cartel.
Your face.
and predictably your inability to identify a praxeological a priori to support even a shred of any of your empty assertions devolves into an ad hominem.
Basically, it comes down to this: Anarcho-capitalists have a recipe, and it looks pretty tasty on paper. Will it actually taste good? To convince others, you need to give them a taste of the real thing!
It will never happen because ancaps naively believe that you can both gain and hold power without coercion.
The statists will use anarchist movements to undermine their nemisis (liberal democracy).
the statist thugs will then usurp the anarchist movement when/if liberal democracy falls.
then the statist will execute these useful idiots on the chopping block as they have done repeatedly throughout history.
in sum, the well intentioned naive utopian will do most of the heavy lifting only to see the hangmans noose in the end.
if you want global peace, liberal democracy is the vehicle, not anarchism.