Why anachro-capitalist societies would be more violent and more vulnerable to the emergence of absolutism than liberal democracies.

Economics Political Theory
61

“an individual, PDA, or society that makes economic decisions based on moral grounds will fail.”

Why? And why does ‘economic calculation is impossible without the profit motive’ imply that it’s impossible to have any moral considerations? I would rather pay 100 dollars for a cell phone not made by slavery than 90 dollars for a cell phone made by slaves. Look: moral considerations. Notice: doesn’t effect economic calculation. Why wouldn’t these kind of mechanisms work in a pda-market? ‘Well, this one is slightly cheaper, but basically shoots everyone that dares to do something’ might not be that competitive, dependent on the moral evaluations of people in that society. These moral considerations, however, do not, however, mean that there can be economic calculation or monetary profit as such.

“economic calculation cannot be determined based on morality.”

<= Nobody is arguing that it does.

" enterprises that make calculations based on how it “feels” versus whether it will generate wealth will fail."

<= Nobody is arguing that it should.

“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.” <= But why would that mean that they will violently compete all the time? Why wouldn’t this uncertainty cause people to refrain from violence (and thus preserve themselves from the fear of retaliatory force?) Why wouldn’t there be a possible blow back mechanism that incentivizes people to refrain from violence?

“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.” <= Why do you assume this? Why won’t investors and consumers generally refrain from supporting such mechanisms? Investors might 'support pda’s that use coercion, but that’s basically the mafia. They won’t have that many consumers and people will try to refrain from having to deal with them. So they have to get all of their revenue from violence; which can or can’t be a succesfull enterprise. But there is no guarantee there.

“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.” <= Well; buy them out or try to lure the customers from this PDA? Why attack the pda? What you are basically saying is this: well, pda x doesn’t do a good job at defending customer A. Why attack him and have possible losses and not just lure the customer away?

Why would ‘greedy’ mean ‘save on costs’ and not ‘save on risks’? (Which is also a cost.) Why would this invite attack of another pda, that normally engages in ‘protection’ and ‘legal’ services? Why wouldn’t this just invite robbers as such that can be countered? If your pda is known to attack another pda for no good reason, would you stay as a customer? And if you do - and in generally people do - isn’t that just saying ‘ideology matters’?

62

adrianhealey,

Why? And why does ‘economic calculation is impossible without the profit motive’ imply that it’s impossible to have any moral considerations? I would rather pay 100 dollars for a cell phone not made by slavery than 90 dollars for a cell phone made by slaves.

if you were paying a 10% more for operations than a competitor PDA, you would soon be working in another profession.

Why wouldn’t these kind of mechanisms work in a pda-market? ‘Well, this one is slightly cheaper, but basically shoots everyone that dares to do something’ might not be that competitive, dependent on the moral evaluations of people in that society. These moral considerations, however, do not, however, mean that there can be economic calculation or monetary profit as such.

the simple and logical fact is that decisions made in the free market by entreprenuers that are based on morality instead of profit are less efficient. The degree of inefficiency is based on how much of a premium you are willing to pay for “moral” reasons.

Eventually, if you are a PDA you are going to lose power, security, and wealth relative to PDAs that devote less resources to satisfying moral considerations.

But why would that mean that they will violently compete all the time? Why wouldn’t this uncertainty cause people to refrain from violence (and thus preserve themselves from the fear of retaliatory force?) Why wouldn’t there be a possible blow back mechanism that incentivizes people to refrain from violence?

No it doesnt – I didnt say that. I stated that change increases the likelihood that conflict will result. The chances are increased based on the degree of change. most of the time, PDAs defending valued resources can temporarily reduce expenses by skimping on defense (as long as competitors dont discover this shortcoming). However, the more a PDA tries to maximize profit by saving on defense expenditures, the more likely the valued resource it is defending will be attacked. It is a constant and imperfect balancing act of weighing increased profits with decreased levels of defense.

The market will determine which PDAs act most efficiently.

Why do you assume this? Why won’t investors and consumers generally refrain from supporting such mechanisms? Investors might 'support pda’s that use coercion, but that’s basically the mafia. They won’t have that many consumers and people will try to refrain from having to deal with them. So they have to get all of their revenue from violence; which can or can’t be a succesfull enterprise. But there is no guarantee there.

There is always demand for increased wealth, security, and power. Increased growth in the PDA market is especially critical since competing PDAs may someday be forced to engage in armed conflict against each other.

people act in their self-interest. Those whose goal is profit versus morality will gain more wealth. If a PDA can earn a profit annexing a valued resource by force then those motivated by profit will fund these types of enterprises.

in sum, the market for morality based PDAs will quickly dry up since it cant attract the capital needed to increase its growth, power,and security relative to more profit driven PDAs – it is an unsustainable model. There are simply no profitable investors, consumers, and companies who reject profit simply because they personally abhor the means to attain these profits on moral grounds.

Well; buy them out or try to lure the customers from this PDA? Why attack the pda? What you are basically saying is this: well, pda x doesn’t do a good job at defending customer A. Why attack him and have possible losses and not just lure the customer away?

correct.

IN many cases, power and consolidation of the industry into a few large PDAs would occur by peaceful means (acquisition, mergers, takeovers, et al)

Note that in the current anarchic geopolitic most disagreements are resolved without armed conflict. simarily, since ancap society would be anarchic in the same way, most disputes would be resolved peacefullly or by arbitration.

however, history and human nature has shown that peaceful resolution and acquistions are not always possible irrespective of whether a government is involved or not.

moreover, the primary motivating force behind the forced annexation of a valued resource may not be the PDA itself. A capitalist who identifies a valued resource that is under utilized and under defended will contract a PDA to take the valued resource.

the capitalist is performing a vital and beneficial service to society by identifying a heretofore under-utilized resource and exploiting the resource to maximum production to benefit of society as a whole.

Why would ‘greedy’ mean ‘save on costs’ and not ‘save on risks’? (Which is also a cost.) Why would this invite attack of another pda, that normally engages in ‘protection’ and ‘legal’ services? Why wouldn’t this just invite robbers as such that can be countered? If your pda is known to attack another pda for no good reason, would you stay as a customer? And if you do - and in generally people do - isn’t that just saying ‘ideology matters’?

99% of companies in the free market go out of business. Primarily because they miscalculate allocation of resources to unproductive or risky enterprises.

since 99% of companies are poorly run to the point where they fail – obviously many PDAs and their customers will invite predation by not investing enough into defense or they will spend too much on defending valued resources and not enough on capital improvements (training, r&D, weapons procurement, maintenance, et al)

companies are always making miscalculations that will be exploited by competiting PDAs. hence constant conflict.

there is no fundamental difference between the global anarchic environment of competing states and the global anarchic environment of competing PDAs. both are competing for power relative to each other so they can more easily attain wealth, power, and security.

63

Funny you should say that because there is no reason to believe any of your assertions on that basis.

64

I had already said something to this effect. His assertions aren’t assertions but “proofs”

65

Does this sound familar to anyone who participates in a Rettoper thread?

Proof by Assertion

66

“Ad nauseum” certainly rings a bell.

67

AdrianHealey,

I write this to you because you are one of the best writers in the forum. I doubt, though, that you are familiar with Rettoper.

You may not realize that you are being sucked into a black hole by trying to use reason when questioning the OP. Before allowing this to happen to yourself, you might want to read through Rettoper’s Hiroshima, Praxeological Precepts, and now this thread.

Rettoper’s debating style is Proof by Assertion. He will simply wear you down until you give up, then he will declare victory over another “faith based ancap” as he calls them.

You will spend much time trying to reason with Rettoper, in the end you will wonder why you ever came to this thread and will regret your time spent here.

Just thought you should know.

68

Yea I pointed this out in the last thread.

For Adrian, I recommend reading parts of the other thread before continuing.

https://forum.freecapitalists.org/t/what-praxeological-precept-s-confirm-anarchism-over-minarchism-in-providing-for-societal-economic-health-and-societal-security-from-external-threats/13490

69

"depending on your defintion for a liberal democracy – they rarely, if ever engage in war.

for the definition of a “higher order liberal democracy”, see freedom house: http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010

According to freedom house — there are over 50 higher order liberal democracies."-- Epicurus

I was curious about this but am totally unable to find anything of relevance on that site. I tried using the search feature there, and when that failed I tried just browsing around, which failed as well.
I don’t want to be lazy but I’m not coming up with anything so do you think you could help me out and give a specific link rather than just the general one to the site itself? I’d very much appreciate it. Though if not I’ll understand that as well.
Cheers!

70

Thanks for the warning and I share your conclusions. I tried it my way - which I think differs a little bit than most people; but that might also be shameless self promotion :stuck_out_tongue: - and I, too, can’t seem to get through. So I’m calling it a day too; someone else might try too. :slight_smile:

I’m probably less optimistic of the workings of an anarchist society - just because it’s logically possible and just because there are certain reasons that an anarchist society can survive easily if established, doesn’t mean that it’s plausible that it comes to be. This point too might make an interesting discussion as such. The point rettoper makes, however, is that a well functioning anarchist society will very likely lead towards absolutist statism. I don’t agree that the proof given, proofs that it’s that likely.

Incidentally; I also don’t think he doesn’t grasp certain concepts that well, e.g. economic calculation that apparently has the complete inability to incorporate moral feelings. And apparently; charging 10% ‘more’ for people to have their moral judgement respected can’t be - by necessity! - a good marketing strategy. Well; anyone else can take a shot. I’m going to leave this topic at the side.

71

Incidentally; I also don’t think he doesn’t grasp certain concepts that well…

Incidentally, I’m don’t think Adrian doesn’t not understand double negatives. It couldn’t also be possible that he hasn’t not proof read his sentences.

72

Haha; it’s a thing I often do in my native language. :smiley: Funny; I didn’t notice up until now that I also did it in English. :slight_smile:

(By the way; it’s as wrong in my native language as it is in English.)

73

So what if some churches or non-profits fail every day. Some don’t and because some do does not prove your open to be true. It still defies reality.

74

curtis,

According to freedom house methodology, higher order democracies score 1 and 1 for both civil and political rights.

click on a “free” nation (green coded) to see its rating:

http://www.freedomhouse.org/template.cfm?page=363&year=2010

75

In sum, the ancap engages in the same faith-based “logic” as the leftist.

to use an analogy, the Leftist believes that gun violence can be eliminated by destroying all of the handguns. Simarily, the ancap believes that the use of coercion to obtain relative power and security can be eliminated by dismantling government.

in truth, the quest for power, wealth, and security --and the use of coercion to obtain these — will not magically disappear by a temporary dismantling of government. Parasites will gain and hold power by forming government structures within ancap society since there are no checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency to forestall the emergence of government structures. Moreover, those with a skill set at using coercion and armed force will not forego these skills to obtain power and security simply because some pacifist elements of society considers coercion as a means to obtain power as “immoral”

it is equally absurd for Leftists to think that those with a skill set to generate wealth, power, and security through capital investment and entreprenuership would forego these skills simply because the LEftist thinks this means to obtain power is “greedy” and anti-egalitarian.

they are of the same faith-based naive mindset, they just approach problems from a different direction.

however, rest assured that socialists and marxists will tacitly support any ancap “revolution” since this is the fastest means for these marxists to obtain power. namely assisting in the removal of their primary bane – liberal democracy and its checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency to absolutist schemes.

76

Since you have no rebuttal to the fact your opener defies reality I will address this one other point.

This ancap does not seek to dismantle government. This ancap seeks to eliminate coercion which simply happens to be government monopoly at present.

Since the world is anarchy, society is the fairytale, no system is perfect, it is impossible for the fallable nature of man to create man made heavan on earth…

This ancap will continue to strive for a fairytale where the members of said fairytale demand competition in all facets of society since competition has historically proven to be the friendliest system to the individual.

77

But point is PDAs are needed to enforce justice, not “unjustice” or wars (unless it is defence).

So it always more profitable for a PDA to trade rather than to risk losing its customers and going to use force and coercion or even go to war. Customers will see that and most of them would stop supporting the PDA. Others will arise.

I just wanted to point out that PDA goes not only by profit, but by justice (or I should say justice is/should be a result, it may sound naive, but whatever). So unjust PDA, no matter how profit it will have from unjust violence, will inevitably fail.

78

Ancap artifices are ideas. I don’t believe in the sanctity of NAP, or property rights, but I would prefer anarchism to statism, and free exchance to forced collectivism, so I think I might be simultaneously an Anarchist, and a Capitalist, but perhaps not an “An-Cap”.

I don’t think this is a tenant of An-Cap ideology. It seems rather that you have been attacked by some of the more zealous members of the forum, and have become rather reactionary as a result. Understandable, I went through the same thing whe I first got here.

I think it depends on who provides the most utility to the consumer, not who makes the most money, which determines which PDA would succeed or not. Remember, the effect of a market is to drive profits towards zero.

I wouldn’t be so hasty to completely discount internal strife/dissent as crucial to the collapse of (some) regimes.

Then why is there no One World Government? Civilization has existed for thousands of years in what amounts to complete anarchy (nature), yet not one society has ever been able to conquer the globe, and retain that hegemony. If it could happen, why hasn’t it already?

Then why haven’t they yet?

LOL, almost fell out of my chair after that one. That great stabilizing force known as global US supremacy. Ever hear of Blowback? It must be our efforts at stabilization that causes that phenomena, eh? Also, please see the Concert of Europe. They apparently did a much better job at peace without us.

Which is why empires will fail, even attempted PDA cartels.

79

summa sumarum, your argument is:

peaceful PDAs will fail, coercive PDAs will flourish.

Yep, nothing new here. Been debunked countless times.

80

summa sumarum, your argument is:

peaceful PDAs will fail, coercive PDAs will flourish.

Yep, nothing new here. Been debunked countless times.–maiku

Nothing like misrepresenting my assertions. that is nothing new on this forum

It is plain from my quote that I said nothing of the sort that you implied, namely “peaceful PDAs will fail, coercive PDAs will flourish” exclusively. That is your quote, not mine.

Specifically, I have stated repeatedly that PDAs that rejected coercive means to obtain power, security, wealth, profit, et al for moral reasons (versus profit motive) would fail in competition with PDAs that embraced any means available to obtain power, security, wealth, profit, et al.

moreover, I stated plainly “the dominate PDA might very well use peaceful means to attain power, wealth, and security.”

Yes, nothing new here. Another strawman argument debunked as they have been countless times.