filc,
Sam is not trying to predict human action as you are. What we do know is that people don’t only shop at the largest retailer, they pick and choose. There are not hegemonic retailers, grocery stores, ect…
Hypocrisy and contradiction run amok.
In the previous post you commit the very “sin” you accuse me of, namely your predicting what consumers will do !?!!
amusingly only an ancap can engage in this kind of paradoxical hypocrisy
In sum, I have repeatedly stated that during times of uncertainty and risk, consumers of security will gravitate to the strongest PDA. Hence, the market share will eventually gravitate to a few powerful PDAs who would benefit by forming a cartel to reduce the costs associated with conflict and competition.
The result of the formation of a hegemon cartel of the top PDAs is absolutism. Or there would be no societal structure to effectively deter this all powerful entity from assuming absolutist power.
“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”
We don’t need to. Cartels don’t work, or last. Austrian economics has already demonstratede this for us. PDAs that do this risk customers, and control of their own pricing, which means competitors can underminnd them.
absurd. you project the defense industry with other goods and services. Indeed, when monopolies form in industries separate from defense, consumers can find alternatives to satisfy ends. Moreover, since companies in these consumer goods and service industries are not in direct competition with one another, start-up enterprises can quickly emerge to counter the temporary monopoly. Indeed the more oppressive the monopoly the quicker the emergence of a credible competitor.
In contrast, the hegemon PDA can directly impede the ability of start-up PDAs to form. History is replete with myriad examples of hegemon, monopolistic state sponsored “PDAs” that have assumed and maintained absolutist power for decades without serious challenge.
you are correct to assume that walmart employees cant maintain their monopoly status by sacking start up retailers by force. however the naive and ignorant notion that hegemon absolutist status cannot be achieved and maintained by a PDA using armed force is debunked by randomly opening a single page in a history book.
note that it is obvious why there are no ancap societies today or ever since these naive faith-based hyper-worshipers of the free market discount the possibility of (1) a PDA monopoly forming and (2) that this monopoly could form absolutist power.
No such case studies exist fantasy boy.
here is a case study for you strawman.
what would prevent the top 2-3 PDAs from getting together over coffee and peacefully forming a hegemon PDA in order to reduce the costs associated with conflict and competition ? Moreover, once this cartel was formed, what societal mechanisms would be in place within ancap society to challenge the warrior class with all of the aircraft carriers, bombers, tanks, et al ?
Austrian economics has already demonstratede this for us.
you have misread AE and projected your views based on non-PDA industry monopolies that are not zero-sum or in direct competition with one another. Indeed I have read numerous arguments from ancaps who admit that a monopoly PDA cartel would form. however, they have never adequately addressed how society would counter any attempt by this cartel to assume absolutist power at the moment hegemony was achieved.
the same thing that prevents walmart from peacefully creating a retail monopoly. IE Markets and money.
again you have based your arguments on non-defense related companies and industries that are motivated by profit alone. In contrast, the PDA is motivated by securing power relative to its competitors, hence a zero sum game. PDA firms would frequently engage each other to protect clients interests. In contrast, walmart doesnt send employees over to target to sack their stores – among most industries the competition is indirect, hence monopolies in non-PDA industries can be challenged with impunity by new start up enterprises and industries.
as if it were relevant. ironically you hypocritically failed to providde evidence of a successful Liberal Democracy(a clear oxymoronic term)
manifestly absurd.
If liberal democracies are not successful, then no society or system on earth has ever been successful. Yet within the framework of liberal democracy we have seen tremendous increases in societal health, well, being, and freedom.
INdeed, liberal democracy has grown from 1 in 1776 to dozens today.
where liberal democracy holds sway peace, freedom, stability, and relative prospertiy reign. In sum, capitalism flourishes best under liberal democracy then any other viable system yet developed by man. Note that ancap is not viable since it has no history of practical and demonstrated success – indeed ancap society has never existed for more than a short time after the collapse of myriad statist regimes when government has been dissolved – yet predictably it is not ancap society that emerges from the detritus of failed states, it is usually statism.
let’s be clear here and remind everyone. The only one here in favor of hegemonic PDAs are you. And you certainly are not the beacon of logic here. You don’t even properly demonstrate formal logic.
strawman.
Moreover, your opinion ladened ad hominem deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism has not rebutted constitutionalist’s assertion that “power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely” or that economy of scale and division of labor will lead to the emergence of a warrior class of PDAs who subsequently coalesce to form a hegemon cartel that assumes absolutist power in the absence of any societal competitor who possesses battleships, bombers, tanks, et al.
It is obvious that I oppose statism and hegemonic PDAs. that is why I have been singing the praises of constituional federal republicanism which provides substantive checks, balances, decentralization, and tranparency to forestall the emergence of absolutism.
In contrast, the ancap leaves the door open for absolutism to form when among other possibilities a cartel of hegemon PDAs forms and establishes absolutist power in the absence of any serious competition.
Nice taunt, but trust me, he’s not whimpering. In fact you hadn’t even addressed his point. He has no reason to wimpier. You didn’t even try refuting him. In fact I don’t even know if you were addressing Sam directly at all.
the irony of a security monopolist lecturing us about hegemonic security is just over the top insane.
emotionalism deviod of fact, logic, and empiricism.
strawman assertion that I am a security monopolist when I support constitutional federal republicanism that takes extraordinary efforts to place checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency on the defense establishment.
In contrast to ancap PDAs who control funding, sea forces, air forces, land forces, training, oversight, command, control, intelligence, transparency, execution, and profits all by a single entity---- military structures in a liberal demcracy decentralize funding (taxpayer), allocation of funds (congress), oversight of military (congress), command (president), intelligence (numerous agencies), strategic forces (airforce), land forces (army), sea (navy), profits (defense industry), execution (warriors), support services (civilian), law enforcement (local and state government), militia (states) et al
In sum, defense establishment in a liberal democracy is anything but a monopoly. indeed, it is obvious to all (except faith-based ancaps) that the founding fathers intentionally creating competing and disparate agencies and levels of government over the levers of military power to forestall the emergence of a absolutist government.
the irony of a security monopolist lecturing us about hegemonic security is just over the top insane.
try looking in the mirror.
