In this thread, rettoper talks as if a PDA is one entity, instead of a bunch of people working together.–sam
the PDA, its employees, managers, investors, customers, shareholders primary objective is the accumulation of wealth, power,and security.
moreover, your strawman argument offers nothing substantive to rebut any of my assertions.
Here let me do it for you
In this thread, rettoper talks as if a PDA is one entity, instead of a bunch of people working together.
strawman!–sam armstrong
your post is devoid of fact, logic, and empiricism.
there are myriad strategically vital centers of gravity that are worth billions of dollars in rents, royalties, and fees when exploited to maximum effect. Moreover, these centers must be defended by large PDAs from predation by other large PDAs.
the mississippi river delta, north pole oil reserves, chile’s lithium desposits, et al are examples of lucrative centers of gravity that would be profitable to hold.
it is illogical to assume that these valuable resources would not be taken by force if they were inadequately defended and a net profit could be realized with their annexation. moreover, the PDA holding these resources could leverage this new found wealth to acquire more centers of gravity.
contrary to the faith-based utopian assertions of moralist ancaps – morality will have little bearing on the machinations of PDAs operating within a free market framework.
Indeed, morality will be largely absent in anarchic society since its utility in determining economic value is incalculable – in contrast profit seeking is the primary driving force in ancap society and the actions of its dominate PDAs.
If I may add on: it would not only be in a PDA’s interest to secure these areas, but also in external actors such as states and multinational organizations to secure these. They too are also interested in gaining power for themselves through aligning themselves with actors that share similiar goals. Take for example an oil reserve, a PDA would be interested in maintaing and controlling one for the profits that could be had since they are profit seeking, while someone like a state would want to allie themselves with a PDA in control of such a reserve so that they have a relatively safe stable supply of oil that they can draw from. The state pays the PDA to make sure the reserve remains stable and for the oil while the PDA benefits from the profits made. It’s a mututally beneficial relationship that geopolitical actors engage to gain an advantage over opponents and maintain the balance of power.
PDAs don’t have to be bound to an anarchist society exclusively and external actors shouldn’t be excluded from anarchist theory since I doubt an anarchist society would exist in a vacum.
your post is devoid of fact, logic, and empiricism.
Other than the fact that it predicted the future.
Other than the fact that it predicted the future.–sam armstrong
Sam Armstrong,
You are more than welcome to contribute to this forum.
however, if you are going to continue to engage in repeated inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empricism then your posts will no longer be addressed.
If I may add on: it would not only be in a PDA’s interest to secure these areas, but also in external actors such as states and multinational organizations to secure these. They too are also interested in gaining power for themselves through aligning themselves with actors that share similiar goals. Take for example an oil reserve, a PDA would be interested in maintaing and controlling one for the profits that could be had since they are profit seeking, while someone like a state would want to allie themselves with a PDA in control of such a reserve so that they have a relatively safe stable supply of oil that they can draw from. The state pays the PDA to make sure the reserve remains stable and for the oil while the PDA benefits from the profits made. It’s a mututally beneficial relationship that geopolitical actors engage to gain an advantage over opponents and maintain the balance of power.
PDAs don’t have to be bound to an anarchist society exclusively and external actors shouldn’t be excluded from anarchist theory since I doubt an anarchist society would exist in a vacum.–pentahedron
I agree. In a geopolitic dominated by statist regimes, liberal democracies, and anarchic enclaves – PDAs would leverage relationships with statist mlitary forces to capture valued resources and maximize profits when able.
indeed, history is replete with examples of mercenary armies working closely with statist regimes to mutual benefit.
however, my arguments are made within the framework of a geopolitic of ancap enclaves.
history has shown that ancap society cant survive in the presence of large statist regimes.
Tell me that my post did not predict the future.
jon irenicus,
You are more than welcome to contribute to this forum.
however, if you are going to engage in inane retorts devoid of fact, logic, and empricism then your empty posts will no longer be addressed.
objective observers will note your failure to contribute anything substantive is an affirmation of my arguments and a refutation of yours – if you had any to speak of.
Yeah, whatever.
Rettoper,
No more “meta” arguments. You are free to argue about the actual topic, but STOP whining about what you regard as the inadequate quality of other people’s posts. Any more such posts will be deleted in their entirety.
Unchallenged? This is awfully dishonest my friend. 
Defense agencies that disregard the profit motive for some other consideration will fail?
Your opener completely defies reality and the existence of churches, non-profit’s, and a whole host of organizations that have maintained existence with other considerations.
Is this a praxeological necessity?
Regarding the first issue: why wouldn’t there be ‘pda’s’ who are community based or essentially work as ‘for profit’s’?
Regarding the second issue: what does ‘for a profit’ mean? In one sense, the USA could just invade certain countries and take all the money ‘for a profit’. In another, however, this doesn’t seem all that profitable because some people don’t valuate monetary profits that high in comparison to making just actions. Furthermore; possible blow backs effect also detain countries from doing so. Why wouldn’t similar effects might keep ‘pda’s’ from attacking? Basically; the concept ‘for profit’ isn’t that clear. If we’re defining it as a subjective thing than sure; it’s logical. But shouldn’t you proof the likely hood of such an event?
Regarding the third issue: how do you know? Why aren’t people, for example, also motivated by trying to achieve a just world? People refrain from a lot of things that they might do if they were indifferent towards ‘coercion’ or ‘voluntary’ means. The key thing is that people, in general, aren’t indifferent. A lot of people don’t like violence that much. Futhermore; even if they were indifferent, why would it be likely that there would be a lot of such oppertunities relative to the current world?
Why are you so sure about the ‘frequencey and severity’ in armed conflict? As often explained before; there is a different between a pda ‘running’ the entire USA and having this entire tax base to perform a war. We can’t know a priori what’s the optimal level of the size of such a firm, so it’s impossible to tell a priori such a thing. Furthermore; I think you’re taking this ‘entrepreneurial’ concept of a pda way to serious. It is not that we predict that the world will be ruled by pda’s. This is just employed in discussion to help clarify that it’s not that impossible to conceive a world without a state. I, for one, don’t think that 'pda’s will be the general rule. There is no historical evidence for such a thing; all historical ‘anarchist’ societies worked on different mechanisms. (Obviously; I’m also not saying that I know for sure that it won’t work like that.)
It is also true that in our ‘current geopolitical’ world we often have secession movements trying to break away from central government, based on a combination of monetary and ideological factors. Why would this be any different? So according to your estimate in an ‘anarchist’ world, we will only have about 200 firms running the entire show? I seriously doubt that, by the decentralized nature of security.
The ‘wil lhegemon cartels’ is nothing more than a certain estimate of the market, nothing praxeological true, of course. Nor do I think you do a good job in given reasons why this is so likely.
See; I do not ‘know’ as I know A = A or 1 + 1 = 2 wether or not an anarchist world will look like. I also don’t know wether or not this will ‘work’. I don’t know any of these. I do know that, as a general rule, we don’t need monopolies for any market. I know that throughout history we had long and complicated judicial mechanims that didn’t rely on monopolistic government, nor did it rely on legislation. I know that ideology matters and people often refrain from things because of their perceptive about how the world should work and don’t act ‘just’ based on monetary incentives. I know that repeared prisoners dilemmas carry to roots of cooperation. I know that ‘security’ is not a pure externalities market and I know that ‘legal services’ isn’t either. I know government screws over a lot of things, can externalize their violence and costs and acts on political incentives. That democracy is a really bad way of reaching social optimal decisions - based on rational irrationality and rational ignorance.
So combining those; I think there is a strong argument that there is no reason that anarchy will necessarily lead towards hegemonic pda’s that are as likely to engage in warfare as liberal democraties now a days. What I do not know is what will happen in any ‘transition’ period; it might that when the liberal welfare states fail - and they will - we won’t have peaceful voluntary associations rise. Thìs actually might be very unlikely, because just because a system fails, doesn’t mean that people will just accept this. I consider it a good possibility that in such a transitionary period there might be a lot of opportunities for coercion for profit (relatively more than in a ‘working’ anarchist society. No major transition has ever happened peacefully and there are always a lot of coercive possibilities as such. Governments came before and they can always come back
What I do not thing is what you are claiming: that given a working ‘anarchist’ world, that there will be a certain tendency for hegemonic pda’s. It doesn’t seem all that necessary as you make it out to be.
Your opener completely defies reality and the existence of churches, non-profit’s, and a whole host of organizations that have maintained existence with other considerations.–live_free_or_die
churches and other “non-profit” organizations decline and fail every day. Thousands of churches close every year in the United States and most are not being replaced. thousands of non-profits are closing their doors.
in many cases, these organizations are protected by statist subsidies. however, ancap society churches and non-profits would be subject to the same free market machinations and risks as any other industry and many would fail as they do now by the thousands despite excessive government intervention.
So euhm; by when do you think we will run out of non-profits?
adrianhealey,
Regarding the first issue: why wouldn’t there be ‘pda’s’ who are community based or essentially work as ‘for profit’s’?
I never said there wouldnt be.
In one sense, the USA could just invade certain countries and take all the money ‘for a profit’. In another, however, this doesn’t seem all that profitable because some people don’t valuate monetary profits that high in comparison to making just actions. Furthermore; possible blow backs effect also detain countries from doing so. Why wouldn’t similar effects might keep ‘pda’s’ from attacking? Basically; the concept ‘for profit’ isn’t that clear. If we’re defining it as a subjective thing than sure; it’s logical. But shouldn’t you proof the likely hood of such an event?
if coercion among private and public entities was never profitable, then why have we had so many wars and predatory interactions? it is obvious that most rational people from time to time consider the use of coercion to be an effective means to gain power, wealth, and security.
moreover, not all coercion has negative consequences to society in general. frequently throughout history the only way to remove statist abuses has been through the use of force.
Regarding the third issue: how do you know? Why aren’t people, for example, also motivated by trying to achieve a just world? People refrain from a lot of things that they might do if they were indifferent towards ‘coercion’ or ‘voluntary’ means. The key thing is that people, in general, aren’t indifferent. A lot of people don’t like violence that much. Futhermore; even if they were indifferent, why would it be likely that there would be a lot of such oppertunities relative to the current world?
if achieving a “just world” is profitable then it will be done. however, your definition of a “just world” is a subjective moral value judgment and has no place in ancap society that is based on profit, not justice.
while many ancaps are pacifists, I think most people support the idea that coercion can be an effective means to obtain wealth, power, and security. Otherwise, why have we had so many violent personal and institutional conflicts throughout history?
Why are you so sure about the ‘frequencey and severity’ in armed conflict? As often explained before; there is a different between a pda ‘running’ the entire USA and having this entire tax base to perform a war. We can’t know a priori what’s the optimal level of the size of such a firm, so it’s impossible to tell a priori such a thing. Furthermore; I think you’re taking this ‘entrepreneurial’ concept of a pda way to serious. It is not that we predict that the world will be ruled by pda’s. This is just employed in discussion to help clarify that it’s not that impossible to conceive a world without a state. I, for one, don’t think that 'pda’s will be the general rule. There is no historical evidence for such a thing; all historical ‘anarchist’ societies worked on different mechanisms. (Obviously; I’m also not saying that I know for sure that it won’t work like that.)
I am sure that there will be conflict in anarchic society because there are no substantive checks on the use of coercion to achieve wealth, power, and security. Moreover, division of labor insures that those individuals who have a natural or acquired propensity to wage war will coalesce in the same industry. Economy of scale insures that through mergers, acquisitions, and takeovers that a hegemon cartel of PDAs will emerge in order to reduce the costs associated with compeition and conflict. From this union, absolutism will emerge since most of the elements of coercion and those most effective at wielding power will be concentrated.
in contrast, liberal democracies severely restrict the concentration of power within the defense industry with an intentionally inefficient series of checks, balances, decentralization of power, and transparency.
It is also true that in our ‘current geopolitical’ world we often have secession movements trying to break away from central government, based on a combination of monetary and ideological factors. Why would this be any different? So according to your estimate in an ‘anarchist’ world, we will only have about 200 firms running the entire show? I seriously doubt that, by the decentralized nature of security.
The ‘wil lhegemon cartels’ is nothing more than a certain estimate of the market, nothing praxeological true, of course. Nor do I think you do a good job in given reasons why this is so likely.
I cant predict how many PDAs will emerge because we dont know how ancap society would emerge, if ever. it is likely that there would be more PDAs then currently exist. However, economy of scale through mergers, acquisition, and takeovers would lead to the emergence of a few dominate players which is what occurs in virtually every industry.
we can all cite and industry and name the top 2-3 companies in that industry. while concentration of resources is not necessarily a threat among retailers, auto mfgs, insurance agencies, et al – a concentration of power among those that control military hardware is dangeous in the very least.
if you think the following commentators were wrong then you probably have nothing to fear from a cartel of dominate PDAs:
“people of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public..” – adam smith
“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely” lord acton
See; I do not ‘know’ as I know A = A or 1 + 1 = 2 wether or not an anarchist world will look like. I also don’t know wether or not this will ‘work’. I don’t know any of these.
I agree.
My argument is directed against many faith-based ancaps who naively discount the potential statist threats that can emerge within an anarchic society. they seem to think that once government is removed that it can never re-materialize. I assert that it can and that the best defense against the emergence of absolutism is with constitutional federal republicanism that reduces the tyranny of the majority (republicanism), decentralizes power (federalism), and creates substantives checks, balances, and transparency among the levers of power to deter absolutism (constitutionalism) .
in contrast, ancap society offers none of these substantive checks to the emergence of absolutism.
I do know that, as a general rule, we don’t need monopolies for any market. I know that throughout history we had long and complicated judicial mechanims that didn’t rely on monopolistic government, nor did it rely on legislation. I know that ideology matters and people often refrain from things because of their perceptive about how the world should work and don’t act ‘just’ based on monetary incentives. I know that repeared prisoners dilemmas carry to roots of cooperation.
unlike other industries – in the “defense industry” monopolies of coercion are the rule instead of the exception throughout history. perhaps this is because security and power is a zero sum game. I agree that people dont always act based on monetary incentives, but societies that are based on economic realties are always the most powerful. liberal democracies would not have become dominant by promotion of life and liberty alone — it is our economic freedoms that have provided the means to defend life and liberty.
in ancap society, the PDAs that operated solely on economic considerations would become stronger than those PDAs whose actions were influenced partly by moral considerations.
I know government screws over a lot of things, can externalize their violence and costs and acts on political incentives. That democracy is a really bad way of reaching social optimal decisions - based on rational irrationality and rational ignorance.
I agree. this merely shows that individuals will put self-interest ahead of societal well being. I believe that individual self-interest will trump societal health and well being in ancap soceity and lead to the emergence of absolutism among the top PDAs who covet power, wealth, and security.
So combining those; I think there is a strong argument that there is no reason that anarchy will necessarily lead towards hegemonic pda’s that are as likely to engage in warfare as liberal democraties now a days.
liberal democracies only wage war against statist regimes and anarchic threats. Primarily because liberal democracies wage war for ideological reasons.
In contrast, warfare in ancap society will primarily be for economic reasons.
if you want global peace, a geopolitic dominated by liberal democracies is the answer, not ancap PDAs perpetually competing over valued resources.
What I do not know is what will happen in any ‘transition’ period; it might that when the liberal welfare states fail - and they will - we won’t have peaceful voluntary associations rise. Thìs actually might be very unlikely, because just because a system fails, doesn’t mean that people will just accept this. I consider it a good possibility that in such a transitionary period there might be a lot of opportunities for coercion for profit (relatively more than in a ‘working’ anarchist society.
I agree.
No major transition has ever happened peacefully and there are always a lot of coercive possibilities as such.
not true.
we will have a major transition this november in the USA and it will be largely peaceful. Europe is already in the throes of a major reduction in the size and scope of government as a result of the collapse of the welfare state (even socialist sweden was forced to institute free market reforms in the 1990s to forestall collapse). liberal democracies are suprisingly nimble and dynamic when change is required. In the next 20 years, you will see liberal democracies significantly reduced the size and scope of govenment intrusion into the markets – and this change will be largely peaceful, save a few large scale rallies from parasites trying to protect unsustainable redistributive policies.
Governments came before and they can always come back
unfortunately that is true. The best course of action is to install checks and balances to forestall the emergence of absolutism. Rest assured that even after instituting economic reforms that remove many government abuses and negative influences in the economy, the statists will find other ways to infiltrate the system and gain power. They are as resilient and relentless as cockroaches and always find a way into the pantry of societal wealth.
What I do not thing is what you are claiming: that given a working ‘anarchist’ world, that there will be a certain tendency for hegemonic pda’s. It doesn’t seem all that necessary as you make it out to be.
well, i have answered that – division of labor, economy of scale, zero-sum nature of power and security, the allure of absolutism, et al.
So euhm; by when do you think we will run out of non-profits? --adrianhealey
that brings up an interesting point.
namely, that a society of churches and non-profits would never survive for long in competion with a society based wholly or partially on profit.
the only reason many churches and religions have survived for so long is (1) they were once dominant and huge as a result their decline takes longer to achieve and (2) they are subsidized by profitable enterprises in society.
From what I can see, there are few if any churches and non-profits in areas where there is no capitalism. hence, churches and non-profits cannot exist without profit driven elements in society supporting them.
in sum, since profitable enterprises and individuals subsidize churches and non-profits, they will survive as long as the free market exists.
How do you know that ‘economies of scale’ will cause a certain tendency towards monopolization? How do you know that people won’t think ‘morality’ is important in an ancap world? Why would there just be ‘profit’? Why wouldn’t people predict this and take actions to counter it? How do you know that ‘pda’s who act solely on economic considerations will be stronger than those who act upon morality’? Why would people still pay for ‘pda’s’ who go against their own moral understanding? Why would PDA’s ‘perpetually compete over valued resources’? How do you know that the exit costs aren’t that substantially lower that people can control their pda’s from going all out in a war? Why are you so certain that there will be a lot of profitable opportunities in war in an anarchist society? And why is it again that the tendency to engage in war in a pda-society is bigger than in a liberal democracy society? (Remember: compare theory to theory and practice to practice, not theory to practice.)
Basically; why the hell are you so certain that you can predict the future that well? How are you so certain that the quantitive considerations are so much in the negative for an anarchist society ?
The vision you seem to have is basically ‘people are always self-interest, you can’t have moral considerations, because they are costly, there will be a lot of opportunities to engage in conflict like behavior for profit, the ‘security’ and ‘legal’ industry is basically an industry with a large centralization factor (‘economies of scale’) and they will form one big monopoly without any check what so ever from the competitive process, because this almost doesn’t exist.’
All of these are, however, are based on very narrow interpretations, assumptions and theories. Basically; you ignore every other possible counter mechanism that might arise.
How do you know that ‘economies of scale’ will cause a certain tendency towards monopolization? How do you know that people won’t think ‘morality’ is important in an ancap world? Why would there just be ‘profit’?
because economic calculation is not possible without the profit motive.
an individual, PDA, or society that makes economic decisions based on moral grounds will fail. Moral value judgments are not remotely accurate at assessing whether an action or resource is economically valued hence companies basing their operations on morality will have no measure of whether their actions will generate wealth or profit.
Why wouldn’t people predict this and take actions to counter it? How do you know that ‘pda’s who act solely on economic considerations will be stronger than those who act upon morality’?
economic calculation cannot be determined based on morality. enterprises that make calculations based on how it “feels” versus whether it will generate wealth will fail.
Why would people still pay for ‘pda’s’ who go against their own moral understanding?
investors who support PDAs that are driven by profit will see their bank accounts expand. In contrast, investors who support PDAs driven by morality will feel good about themselves, but will see their bank accounts contract. IN sum, the PDAs that are driven by profit will be able to acquire the most capital to expand and overwhelm “feel good” PDAs.
Why would PDA’s ‘perpetually compete over valued resources’?
because the relative value of valued resources will be constantly changing and the relative strength of the competing and disparate PDAs will be constantly shifting.
this is the nature of the markets.
How do you know that the exit costs aren’t that substantially lower that people can control their pda’s from going all out in a war? Why are you so certain that there will be a lot of profitable opportunities in war in an anarchist society?
there is always a demand for profit. and investors will support PDAs that generate profit irrespective of whether it is by coercion or peaceful means.
moreover, an efficient free market has liquidity and change. as a result, there will always be PDAs on the lookout for valued resources defended by poorly run PDAs that have reduced the defense of these valued resources to save money.
also, overly greedy owners of valued resources will seek to reduce costs by reducing defense and this will invite predation from competing investors and PDAs.
in sum, efficient markets are dynamic and liquid. the more efficient ancap society, the more likelihood of conflict to value and annex resources.
Basically; why the hell are you so certain that you can predict the future that well? How are you so certain that the quantitive considerations are so much in the negative for an anarchist society ?
empirical evidence supports much of what I say. Namely ancap society has never emerged from the detritus of failed states despite having the advantage of no government and free markets present immediately after states collapse.
isnt it suprising that ancap society cant emerge even in the absence of government.
The vision you seem to have is basically ‘people are always self-interest, you can’t have moral considerations, because they are costly, there will be a lot of opportunities to engage in conflict like behavior for profit, the ‘security’ and ‘legal’ industry is basically an industry with a large centralization factor (‘economies of scale’) and they will form one big monopoly without any check what so ever from the competitive process, because this almost doesn’t exist.’
yes, people are always self-interested. and no, they act on moral considerations when it is in their self-interest. a PDA that bases its actions on moral consideration at the expense of profit may feel good about doing so, however they will not be in business long.
All of these are, however, are based on very narrow interpretations, assumptions and theories. Basically; you ignore every other possible counter mechanism that might arise.
i disagree, I think may assertions are broad based and supported by logic and empiricism.
fundamentally, PDAs will be motivated by profit. Growth in turn will be determined by profitability, not morality. moreover, there is no mechanism is ancap society to forestall a hegemonic cartel forming among the most dominant of these PDAs wanting to reduce costs by eliminating competion and conflict. these are fairly logical and straightforward tenets.
All of these are, however, are based on very narrow interpretations, assumptions and theories. Basically; you ignore every other possible counter mechanism that might arise.