Because you make comments like this, all to frequently.
For example whats the above comment have anything to do with anything other then to inspire a type of response out of me or anyone else who sides with Anarcho-Capitalism? How does the above response address the issue you originally brought up? It’s these kinds of very frequent comments from you which suggest the following.
Look if your sincere it won’t matter if we are Ancap zealot pundits or not, you’ll engage the discussion, not the superficial fluff around it. The problem is you enjoy engaging the superficial fluff around it, like accusing us of being “mired in ancap paradigm’s” as if were blinded by zealotry.
It’s ironic because you accuse of being difficult anytime anyone disagrees with our position. But how is that not any different from you?
[PERSONAL ACCUSATION DELETED] You’ve made these comments all throughout the thread.
That we need to be worried about Warlordism. You brought up the thread, not me.
More or less, but with a defined, regular “sphere of influence”.
I dunno, how does anyone make money? Exchanging goods and services, perhaps?
They maintain it as any other firm would. Why do you think it would be different? Just because they raid some people, doesn’t mean they don’t exchange with others.
Thanks for informing me of my naivete. Care to explain your assertion?\
I would disagree. I asked a question. I did not make an assertion. Once you engage me with a proposed answer, the burden of proof is on you, since you are the one who has made an assertion about the topic. Do I think warlordism is a concern? I find it reasonable to treat it as one, but I can’t say if it actually will be or not.
So, without the state bribery goes away?
I don’t find them dishonest, just very confusing.
Forgive me if I am skeptical, but I don’t understand how you can dismiss the possibility that sometimes force is more economical than trade. If you could back that assertion up with a citation, or a quote, that would be great.
I understand where you are coming from, but I don’t necessarily agree. Defense can be rather expensive, too (great wall of China, Maginot Line).
Yet you haven’t yet explicitly made any of those points, nor have provided evidence to back any of them up.
In some instances, it seems likely to me. You said yourself that you don’t expect violence to be eliminated.
It doesn’t. As I said earlier,
So, what mitigates (can’t say prevents, don’t want you to flip out) people forming organizations which aggress?
LOL, where? Please sum it up for me. Or at least quote someone. Basically all I’ve read is a few hollow assertions that offense agencies will necessarily be more costly, which I find unconvincing. Just becaue you make terrible arguments, doesn’t mean I’m trying to be difficult.
It’s the only thing that makes sense to me. Sorry, that probably makes me antagonistic, huh?
Well no offense but just because your weak, empty assertions have not yet convinced me of their veracity, doesn’t mean I’m simply looking for people to swell my ego.
How do you know?
You’re right. My sense of judgement is faulty. I should find someone with better judgement to make my mind up for me.
If I am too abrasive for your taste, don’t correspond with me. It’s really that simple. I’m not a troll, but I don’t mince words, especially when I am consistenly getting dismissed on the grounds that I’m just being a troll whenever I have a divergent opinion. For being so incredibly critial of the ideas of others, some of the members of this forum are hyper-sensitive when they are questioned. Since there is no attempt made to mask your obvious contempt for my ideas, I don’t feel it necessary to mask my contempt of yours.
Yea I never said you were originally, you said that first and I responded to it.
Warlords exchange for goods and services? What service do they provide? And how are they paid?
I assure you they are not confusing. I made it very clear and asked you to explain to me how a robbed couch is traded for food and shelter. Since the Robbed couch is not money. I asked very simply how a pirate/bandit group earns revenue and pays it’s imployee’s. You seem to think there is something hidden in that or that its confusing. If squirm everytime I ask a very simple question, well there is no way we can take this discussion economically beyond trivial grounds.
You seem only interested in might makes right arguments, anytime someone wants to explore the discussion on economic grounds you dissmiss it out of principle, or complain that it’s too confusing.
Other legitimate firms pay for their maintenance and capital accumulation by participating in the market system. People voluntarily trade with them because they trust their organization as an honest one, and they pay with solid currency(Money). Historically speaking, and it follows logically if you accept property(Not morals) that firms who do not equally recognize and respect private property get pushed to the fringe of the civilized world. This is why historically speaking bandits/raiders/ and pirates had to go establish their own place to live outside of the civilized world.
At any rate a legitimate firm pays for it’s maintenance via money, you haven’t explained yet how a pirate firm even makes money. And your mind seems to boggle when I ask that question of you. You just explained how they obtained assets. It’s not a complex point J, I’m confident you can figure it out.
Why did you ask the question? Why does it concern you? What do you think would happen to Warlordism in the absence of the state?
Is this what you gathered from my statement? I’m saying it will get marginalized and loose it’s protectionist support. That in no way implies it will go away. That is a slight reading comprehension issue and no matter how I word it for you, it sounds like your not going to get it. I’m not picking on you but if your going to call my questions confusing, I’m going to point out the potential comprehension issues going on here.
Yea lets explore that, in which situations is force more economical then trade? What makes something “economical” and according to whom is it economical?
I’m looking for a principle here. If you want to avoid this line of reasoning as also, well I guess I’ve come to expect that now.
Anything that was built without economic calculation is going to have been shown to cost too much historically, like the great wall of china. But thats economics, you don’t seem interested in it. It has nothing to do with it being defense, or offense.
You may not agree to this but it’s generally accepted that defense is cheaper then offense.
I guess I need to clarify, what is your question? I thought you were asking “What would prevent Warlordism”. So I am trying to provide an economic answer for you. Your citing countries where warlordism was rampant while there was a state, created by the state, and so on.
Also, in the examples you cited, did the “warlordism” persist?
And you are not? I was not being hyper-sensitive with you when you started poking fun at my apparent in-ability to take criticism of the Anarcho-Capitalist position. I’d like to point out that it was you first who stopped discussing the topic at hand, and started to complain about “Anarcho Capitalists” deeply “mired” in beliefs and being unable to handle their position, or something along those lines. So perhaps you need to consider your own words.
At any rate this is an entirely superfluous position to take. I could just as easily point it right back at you. I’ve tried to engage you on reasonable plain, you’ve just complained about that the whole way through, saying I’m writing incomprehensible things!
So since you posted on a public forum, and I asked some questions which seem to really address your question, your accusing me of holding your ideas in contempt eh? And your saying I’m the one whos “mired” in my ideology?
Which assertions of mine are empty?
To the contrary, all of my questions specifically refer to this, I’m sorry you don’t seem to understand this. My position is as has a utilitarian bent, and inherently involves economics.
In some instances yes, but in general whats more likely across the entire social arena? Can it be shown empirically that generally speaking violence is most likely to be the solution to scarcity? I didn’t ask if this would occur over isolated incidents.
Don’t be so flippant about my alleged flipping out?
I’m not going to repeat myself on this, if you’ve no desire to explore the questions I posted above, and your incapable of understanding the signifigance, then as I said several posts ago, theres isn’t likely to be a real discussion on this topic from me, or anyone else short of a might-makes-right discussion which appends to be permissible in your ethical nihilist views.
Pretty much from the very first time I posted here.
I think your more intelligent then that, I just think you dismiss market analys out of principle, since you dismiss the concept of property incorrectly thinking it has something to do with morals, which is incompatible with your ethical nihilist views. (Which I am not criticizing at this time)
If you go back and read what I said, I didn’t say your sense of judgement was faulty, but I was questioning it and I was asking how you felt so confident in it. So who’s being flippant again?
Well, like you said, you can’t eat sofas. What to do with a good haul from some poor village? Use it, or trade it.
No, some people here make great economical arguments. Precise, to the point, and easy to read/comprehend. Unfortunately, you are not one of them (for me, at least). Do you think it coincidence that our discussions are so incredibly long-winded with little results? The only other guy like that for me is Angurse, but at least he’s not natively an anglophone, so I can understand the reason.
Why wouldn’t warlords trade as well as plunder? Also this,
Is an assertion. people trade to alliviate undesireable conditions. Beyond that, you are guessing.
As far as society and outcasts, I’m certainly not maintaining that there would be only two cadres of individuals. This is another topic for another thread, but I can’t imagine a stateless society in any other configuration besides a sort of “neo-tribalism”. Some tribes might be An-Cap, some might be communist, some might be criminal, etc. Of course, you seem to imply that the inescapibly moral concept of property rights is necessarily required for civilization (another assertion), so your opinion on the matter may differ.
I was curious. I keep running into this when talking to state supporters. I assume it would exist, since I haven’t seen much evidence to the contrary.
Should I list the situations? I don’t think I can hope to conceive every possible scenario, then predict their respective outcomes. To the actor, I suppose.
What do you mean by principle? Some type of over-arching statement of what is possible and impossible? Sorry, I can’t provide that.
Don’t understand what you are trying to convey here.
Assertion. Wow, that’s three already.
I disagree with your analysis of my listed examples. Either way, since there has never been a stateless society, I decided to work with history as it was. Sorry you don’t like it.
Define “persist”.
I’ve explained the single passage you keep harping on. I can’t be held responsible for your lack of comprehension. Maybe the deficiency is mutual?
LOL, OK.
Every one. You refuse to qualify any of your statements.
See, this is what I’m talking about. You might as well been using wingdings to write this passage. Too many pronouns.
Again, I can’t answer that. I’m not a sociologist, I have no idea which is more likely “in general” (whatever that even means). And FYI, you didn’t specify how large the instances had to be for you to acknowledge them.
Repeat what? Nothing? You never answered, quoted, or cited anything to qualify your position. If you did, please quote it, because I missed it. This is a really lame attempt at dodging the issue.
What the hell are you trying to say here. Please expand, and drop the insane amounts of pronouns.
Wow, bold move. Accusing the Egoist of being ideologically blinded, because they do not subscribe whole-heartedly to your respective ideology!
Its all I’ve got. Why do you feel so confident in yours?
I’m a flippant guy, especially when talking to someone I have a hard time taking seriously. Like I said before, if you don’t like it, don’t have a conversation with me.
It concerns me because in the state I live in (the US), the propoganda is such that the government attempts to legitimize itself by appealing to “freedom” “human rights” and stuff like that. To keep this charade going, they must at least pay lip service to the Constitution. If the state were to decide to rely on sheer force rather than a claim to legitimacy (as I assume a Warlord would), it would mean that they have no vested interest in keeping me believing some myth, so they could treat me any way they felt appropriate. I consider armed thugs raping my wife, stealing my child for slavery, stealing my posessions, lighting my house on fire, etc a much more direct and acute threat than the current state I am enslaved in.
So why does the State even care about legitimacy in the first place? Why not just take the Warlord route (according to your assumption) that couldn’t care less?
Trying to answer that without invoking a circular argument should prove how this entire passage makes no sense.
I wasn’t alone in that assessment then, but I am not calling you a troll now. Way to dig up the past!
Do you think this firm will receive adequate compensation for the stolen goods? So you think the community is going to willingly trade with this kind of institution? You think these bandits are going to just walk into subway and buy a sandwhich for lunch? Right after they raided the furniture outlet down the street?
Or is it more likely that they will rob the subway joint as well?
I guess I’ve never seen an example of you actually engage someone who came from a utilitarian position.
Who will trade with them?
So all things being equal, people would equally choose to trade with the thief, as well as the honest man?
Yea I don’t see why you or anyone would assume otherwise?
I think your missing the point. Just because it’s allegedly economical for one party, doesn’t mean thats the case for all parties involved. Certainly not for the one getting robbed. Though this may be one of those things that flew over your head?
Ok well I assert, that given human history people are more predisposed to trade, rather then fight, over scarce resources. I have to think if it were the latter, markets wouldn’t be as prevalent as they are.
Well according to you there is no economic argument.
Are the same warlordish groups which existed in rome, still in power today?
What?
|
Well according to you i’ve only listed 3 assertions, out of the countless other points I’ve brought up. So it sounds more like your just trying to ignore my questions. At any rate I can’t backup my assertions because I would have to appeal to authority of some sort to back it up, and you would reject that. Which is fine.
Another thing is I haven’t the energy to do full scale large economic analytical reports for you especially since they’ve already been done. Reading which you’ve been provided but dismiss outright because there exists a tenant of one of the articles you disagree with.
For example, you want me to prove to you that Defense is likely to be cheaper then offensive military activity. Well first off I posted that point because I expect an honest person to consider and contemplate on it, not to reject it out right. Second off for the other person to respect the fact that they’re not going to get someone to do a large analytical project for them over a web-forum. So I guess I just incorrectly expect a little give and take.
I personally think that whever the economic incentive is greatest, there you will find the cheapest solution, and I see economic incentive to protect property as being greater then violating property. I believe that due to the fact that historically and globally speaking, people prefer to trade, which implies a use of property and protection there-of. I would expand on this but you don’t sound like you want me to.
Fine, do you at least see how it may be relevant to the topic? And if you were in fact interested in the topic you presented, why you may be interested in doing research in this? Or do you also just dismiss that outright as well?
I can cite a whole lot, I had assumed you would throw the “Appeal to authority” or some nonesense. But lets be honest with each other here. Would you honestly take whatever empirical studies I present to you seriously? Put your emotions aside and be honest, would you appreciate that or not? Because I can spend about 5 minutes online and pull some studies up for you.
Right and as I said, we can go back and forth with this all night. How productive. Blah blah blah, too many pronouns blah blah.
I don’t.
Then don’t accuse me of being flippant.
Earlier you told me terms like Monopoly and Hegomony don’t apply to social contexts, and that we can define such terms over your own person. And now your going to lecture me on whether or not I should be taken seriously? Your changing the definitions of terms here, and I’m just trying to reason.
Which lessens the amount of effort required, makes their rule easier to maintain, & also serves their interest / utility towards ruling in the first place, as well, before further detail is asked.
Don’t know why this is controversial to see, honestly.
I also don’t see how offering an explanation for the State & it’s agents to care about legitimacy would be circular either, considering both the benefits for legitimacy as an unseen “autopilot” means for those rules underneath the state to do the state’s dirty work for it, & how we can currently see all of this under the mass delusion of representative democracy.
Probably not the one that was just raided, but I’m sure some neutral third party would have no problem.
Maybe. As you stated, it’s hard to be that specific in a scenario which has had no historical precedent. The closest analogy I can think of is something resembling the mafia, and they seemed to do OK in the “community”.
I’m not even sure what the utilitarian position is. I don’t think it’s your professed ideology that’s the problem, though.
People, probably.
If all things were equal, there would be no one to steal from in the first place. Also, theft and honesty are morally loaded terms, so I don’t really see the distinction you are attempting to make between the two sellers.
Why does it have to be economical for all parties involved?
So your appeal to tradition is perfectly OK, but mine is invalid? I’d like to see you explain that. Of course, rather than directly address a challenge, you will probably just cry about being too tired, or having cramps, maybe accuse me of being disingenuous.
LOL, quote me! That is, unless you are tired of this conversation (as long as you get the last word in). You really are terrible at this.
No, they were supplanted by larger, more powerful interests. I call them states.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL!!! That was three just in your last post!!! Besides, what kind of point is that to make? You are a citation/quote hawk for others. Yet you make many random assertions and when prompted, refuse to provide any sort of evidence to qualify your claims, usually by acting exasperated, resorting to ad hominem, or claiming you would be repeating yourself.
No, I just can’t answer many of them, because you keep trying to wrangle me into some sort of universally applicable generality which I am unable to determine. Sorry to dissapoint.
I asked you explicitly for any sort of evidence. Why does it follow that I would automatically reject references I requested?
Wow, called that one (file it under “sounding exasperated”).
I didn’t reject it, but I am unwilling to accept it without some sort of qualification. It’s really that simple.
You must’ve done something to reach these conclusions. What was it? I’d take a book, a quote, a link, anything. Oh, and let’s file this one under “resorting to ad hominem”.
Why? Please tell me. After all this talk, the suspense is killing me!
Again, your hypocritical appeal to tradition…
Again, sounding exasperated… (yawn)
Yes, I do.
Yeah, I would. You seem to know a lot about the economics preventing warlordism, please further my understanding. That is why I asked a question, after all.
Of course I would. Again, that’s why I asked the question. Of course, your inheirant bias against me would lead you to think otherwise, I assure you my intentions are not malicious.
LOL, can’t take a little constructive criticism?
So how can you be anything but agnostic about any subject?
I didn’t
I didn’t say they didn’t apply to social contexts, I simply said they could also be applied to the individual. See self-ownership. How is this anything but a monopoly? I will say that hegemony is exclusively social by definition, so I appologize for that one.
I don’t think you followed the exchange quite well. He is applying a double standard here. Rejecting the economic benefits of legitimacy for warlords but accepting them for States. He then concludes that it’s better to have a State then warlords because the former cares about legitimacy and the latter does not. The former may at least refrain from too much violence (theft, murder, rape…) while the latter will not.
This is an inconsistent position that he insists upon clinging onto by simply making endless circular type arguments:
Assertion: Warlords don’t care about legitimacy.
Challenge: Why not?
Assertion: Because legitimacy is not a concern for warlords.
There really is nothing more I can do then point out the circularity. If he doesn’t acknowledge it, then this argument is pointless.
If you consider that my position, then you seem to be the one having difficulty. I’m sure warlords would love some method of attaining legitmacy in the eyes of their victims.
I’m not sure he would say thats his position either. He likes to play the middle ground, being especially clever with wording so as not to commit to anyone position. So the whole thing becomes very frustrating as it is not obvious which angle would be most productive for him. As the frustration escalates, Jackson trying harder to avoid taking any one specific position, the debate degrades to an unfertile status. Basically an abuse on the devil’s advocate position.
I won’t respond to his above post as I feel we have gone down a road of counter-productivity.
I don’t understand how my acceptance of my inheirant ignorance is an abuse of “devil’s advocate”, and I apologize if my skepticism of hollow assertions frustrates you. But this begs the question: If you knew I was such a jerk, why did you talk to me?
PS, this is going in the “sounding exasperated” file.
LOL, man, I really get to you guys, huh? I thought Olly was just a nut, but I guess I just have that effect on some people…
I assume a warlord wouldn’t play the legitimacy card because they lack the means of attaining legitimacy, not because of lack of desire. Of course, this could change over time. Initially, the church didn’t much care for barbarians, but they became friends after a while, allowing these warlords to expand their holdings, becoming kings.
I’m not entirely sure about the debate as such, but conceptually, at least to me, the difference between a state and a warlord is legitimacy. So saying ‘warlords seek legitimacy’ is, to me, like saying ‘warlords seek to be a state’.
The advantages of having legitimacy are clear, imo. In any case; if we accept this dichotomy, maybe we can advance?
Maybe another note; some states might be worse than some warlord-dominated situations and vice versa. I don’t think there is any a priori way of determining something like that.
