jackson larose,
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 agree. I prefer anarchism to statism. However, anarchism is simply a means by which statists gain power. In contrast, liberal democracy is the most effective tool yet developed to forestall the emergence of absolutism.
I support a severely attenuated version of the state that retains all of the checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency against the central government and military while recognizing the folly of the ancap’s belief that if you eliminate government, statism will not emerge.
throughout history when the state has collapsed and the free market still flourishes – the end result has still been the emergence of statism. In many cases, more coercive and violent that the previous government.
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.
true, I think it is important that we enlighten the faith-based extremists on this site or provided some balance or the promise of mises.org to influence potential converts regarding the benefits of AE will be squandered.
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.
Not true, profit is king. Often the leader in an industry is not necessarily the company that provides the best service to the consumer. The leader is the company that is the most profitable irrespective of whether the consumer is best served. Of course, there is a direct correlation between consumer satisfaction and company profitablitity, however it is not the only determining factor on a companies success – particularily a PDA that services itself and seeks investors to fund operations.
if a consumer (investor, venture capitalist, entreprenuer, et al) covets a vital strategic resource that is not being utilized to maximum economic benefit to society AND that resource cannot be acquired by peaceful exchange AND that valued resource is not adequately defended – then they will find and fund a PDA to take the valued resource by force.
profit is the driving force determining whether capitalists and their PDA of choice succeed or fail irrespective of the manner in which the profits are attained.
As you have discovered, many pacifist ancaps on this site are of the polyannish and deluded opinion that (1) coercion for profit is immoral and (2)coercion is never profitable.
In sum, you cant balance the books by citing or determine the economic costs of specific enterprises and actions by enlisting subjective ethical value judgments into planning and profit and loss decisions.
In truth, the ancaps who have feebly tried to counter my arguments are not true capitalists or anarchists — they are primarily pacifists.
I wouldn’t be so hasty to completely discount internal strife/dissent as crucial to the collapse of (some) regimes.
True, Internal strife is a major determining factor on whether a regime succeeds or fails. However, the internal power bloc that utilizes coercion most effectively is generally the bloc that emerges as the most powerful, not necessarily the coalitiion that is the most moral, just, or popular.
This is another reason why pacifist ancaps can never gain and hold power. Their ideological faith-based opposition to coercion is a fatal gene.
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?
True, I dont think that a global hegemon can hold power for long. power blocs would form and grow to balance larger power blocs – there is a constant balancing of power among competing soveriegns. The USA, europe, and china move closer as the USSR becomes more powerful and aggressive ---- china and russia become closer as the USA becomes more powerful and aggressive. the process is unrelenting.
Nonetheless, local, regional, and continental hegemons would emerge from the detritus of ancap society since these societies have no checks, balances, decentralization, and transparency to prevent absolutism in contrast to liberal democracy which is primarily designed to forestall the establishment of despotism.
But yes, I agree with you that it is difficult if not impossible for a global hegemon to hold power for long. Rome and the anglo-saxons notwithstanding.
Then why haven’t they yet?
because ancap society doesnt exist, hence a hegemon PDA cant emerge. Liberal democracies have substantial checks, balances, et al on the power of private armies/militias. Indeed, liberal democracies have substantive checks on the power of its own military. There has been no miltary coups in any higher order democracy in which the civilian government controls the military and there is disparate commands in the navy, air force, and ground forces.
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.
No higher order democracies have ever waged war against each other. however, they are lethal to autocratic regimes. also, europe was not peaceful after the napoleonic wars. Indeed, there were numerous conflicts on the continent including the sack of france by the germans in 1871. IN contrast, there have been absolutely zero conflicts of any size among liberal democracies on the continent since the US established hegemony.
Moreover, the western hemisphere is more peaceful, stable, prosperous, and free then at anytime in its history thanks to unquestioned US hegemony in the aftermath of the collapse of the USSR and global communism.
also, nations aligned with the USA in the asian pacific rim are among the most peaceful, prosperous, free, and stable of any in this regions long history of conflict and despotism. Indeed, thanks to the influence of the USA, formerly militaristic japan cant even bring itself to spend more than 1% of GDP on defense.
by any objective measure, the pax americana in europe since the end of WWII and more recently the end of the USSR is a stunning demonstration in the efficacy of democracy to achieve peace. Moreover, the concert of europe was a house of cards that led to the two most costly wars in human history,
in sum, this hyper-statist structure is hardly anything to be emulated.
