Why coercion is an essential and beneficial element of maximal-capitalist society.

[Rettoper]

the utility of coercion to achieve positive societal change is based on the following:

valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.

owners who fail to exploit valued resources effectively will see lower revenues. as a result, less revenue will lead to weaker defenses.

a profitable capitalist will identify poorly defended and under utilized valued resources and enlist a PDA to annex the resource by force when it cannot be obtained by peaceful means.

in turn, the capitalist who recognized the true value of the resource and exploited its benefits more effectively then the former capitalist or property owner has benefitted soclety by increasing societal wealth and productive capacity. Moreover, the efficient capitalist will earn more revenue from the resource than the inefficient capitalist thereby allowing for a stronger defense which will deter predation and further violence.

In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. the faith-based notion by many ancaps on this site that anarchism is peaceful is not supported by logic and free market mechanisms.

Moreover, ancaps who discount this argument on moral grounds are deluded to think that economic decisions can be effectively determined by considering morality, justice, equality, et al.

for example, what are the units of measure and the markets for trading “morality” “justice” “decency” et al?

where does the pacifist ancap include “morality” or “justice” on his company balance sheet ?

and can any PDA, industry, or society maximize profits and maintain competitiveness when making economic decisions influenced by subjective value judgments ?

according to the faith-based pacifist ancap, yes.

I say no.

[Azure]

valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.

If they are being underutilized then peaceful exchange is always possible by definition.

/thread

[Snowflake]

@Rettoper

valued resources that are not being utlized to maximum economic benefit to society will have to change hands by violent means when peaceful exchange is not possible.

How do you know what maximizes “economic benefit”? Particularly when each individual’s utility is subjective and cannot be aggregated or compared?

Why would you need violence to bid resources away to more profitable sectors? The price system already does this.

@Rettoper

a profitable capitalist will identify poorly defended and under utilized valued resources and enlist a PDA to annex the resource by force when it cannot be obtained by peaceful means.

In most cases, its probably cheaper to either buy or buy-in to resources. For example, if you are sitting on an oilfield, I can offer you my services to develop it for you and get paid a sallary or comission.

@Rettoper

in turn, the capitalist who recognized the true value of the resource and exploited its benefits more effectively then the former capitalist or property owner has benefitted soclety by increasing societal wealth and productive capacity. Moreover, the efficient capitalist will earn more revenue from the resource than the inefficient capitalist thereby allowing for a stronger defense which will deter predation and further violence.

Realizing that violence is less profitable than trade stops predation and violence in the first place.

@Rettoper

In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. the faith-based notion by many ancaps on this site that anarchism is peaceful is not supported by logic and free market mechanisms.

If you institute violence, you put a giant moral hazard on society where anyone can attack anyone else on the grounds that they percieve higher social utility for the resources. Practically any resource is sub-optimally allocated at any time because human beings forecast imperfectly.

@Rettoper

For example, what are the units of measure and the markets for trading “morality” “justice” “decency” et al?

Nowhere. Just as there are no units of economic utility that can be measured or compared. The incomparability of these fuzzy concepts is the reason your argument doesn’t fly.

@Rettoper

where does the pacifist ancap include “morality” or “justice” on his company balance sheet ?

It shows up as a consequence of economic behaviour. A society of psychopaths might have a very low murder rate because economic incentives are so strong.

@Rettoper

and can any PDA, industry, or society maximize profits and maintain competitiveness when making economic decisions influenced by subjective value judgments ?

I think so actually. Money is not the only unit of account in markets, even if it is the only comparable one. I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit. The hapiness that an artist gains from painting on streetcorners does not have a market price, but they judge it to be in their best interests anyway.

[yuberries]

Okay this is starting to look like spam. Do you really need multiple threads to expose your flawed rhetoric? Srsly.

[Rettoper]

seiben,

How do you know what maximizes “economic benefit”? Particularly when each individual’s utility is subjective and cannot be aggregated or compared?

resources have economic value equal to the revenue they generate for their owners/investors/society.

if a valued resource can generate more revenue if used for oil extraction versus environmental concerns, then the society that is motivated by profit versus aesthetic motives will be stronger economically and therefore stronger militarily.

Why would you need violence to bid resources away to more profitable sectors? The price system already does this.

if all societal actors were motivated by purely economic considerations AND agreed on the economic value of coveted resources then there wouldnt be a problem.

However, not all individuals value resources based on economic considerations. Many actors in society are motivated by other goals – pacifism, egalitarianism, liberty, nationalism, religion, environmentalism, justice, et al.

when an actor witholds a valued resource from production because of religious motives (ancient burial ground) society as a whole suffers economically. Moreover, the actor who disregards economic gain for intangibles will not have the capital to defend or hold this valued resource from actors who are motivated by profit.

the profit seeking actor will always have more resources to wage war then the actor who subordinates economic goals for some other aesthetic goal.

In most cases, its probably cheaper to either buy or buy-in to resources. For example, if you are sitting on an oilfield, I can offer you my services to develop it for you and get paid a sallary or comission.

Your right.

however, if an environmentalist, pacifist, religous zealot, et al refuse to sell the valued resource for non-economic motivations then an investor who covets the resource will fund a PDA to take it by force if necessary.

moreover, if a resource is not being under utilized economically, then the owner will likely not have the capital to defend it with a force commensurate to the economic value of the resource.

in sum, the austrian and ancap are correct in their belief that freedom equals prosperity. however, those actors that are motivated by profit will eventually gain the most power and be in a position to coerce those actors who subordinated economic growth for some other goal.

Realizing that violence is less profitable than trade stops predation and violence in the first place.

not true,

some coveted resources will not be for sale for a variety of reasons. moreover, many owners of valued resources will overvalue and under defend their resources. In this case, these miscalculating and negligent owners will see their property annex by force by investors and PDAs that correctly valued and utilize the valued resource

in sum, investors and PDAs that correctly value and exploit resources – will have more resources to defend the resource. IN contrast, miscalculating, excessive cost-cuttting, and negligent owners will not have the capital to defend resources.

in the end, society as a whole benefits since the resources value is better utilized.

If you institute violence, you put a giant moral hazard on society where anyone can attack anyone else on the grounds that they percieve higher social utility for the resources. Practically any resource is sub-optimally allocated at any time because human beings forecast imperfectly.

NOt true,

if valued resources are subject to predation if they are not utlized effectively then those owners will not have the capital to defend the resource. In contrast, if a resource is exploited effectively then the owner will naturally have the means to defend it. Moreover, society will benefit since a resource that heretofore was being underutilized is now in production.

Moreover, any owner that gets lazy and allows the value of the resource to decline through lack of investment will be at risk of losing the resource to more aggressive investors and their PDAs of choice.

of course, resources are never utilized 100% effectively due to human limitations, however if an investor perceives that a resource is being underutilized and underdefended then that resource is subject to predation. If it as indeed being underutilized and underdefended, then the attack will likely be successful.

Nowhere. Just as there are no units of economic utility that can be measured or compared. The incomparability of these fuzzy concepts is the reason your argument doesn’t fly.

wrong.

the costs to explore, extract, and ship minerals, oil, et al can be calculated relatively consistently and accurately. Moreover, the costs that ships passing through a choke point will pay can be determined by the value of the products they are shipping.

in contrast, the pacifist, environmentist, , egalitarian, et al cant put a price or make a reasonable economic calculation on these goals, hence any economic decisions based on these considerations will be flawed and inefficient. The more aesthetic values are considered, the more inefficient the economic calculations.

It shows up as a consequence of economic behaviour. A society of psychopaths might have a very low murder rate because economic incentives are so strong.

if this is true, how does it show up ? prove it.

then you should be able to show me the economic calculations that prove your assertion.

how do you calculate with reasonable accuracy into how these incentives translate into reduced violence?

are there opportunity costs associated with the goal of reduced violence ? and if so, how do you calculate that ?

how many units of “pacifism” or “non-violence” or “morality” is equal to a barrel of oil, or an ounce of gold, or the toll through the strait of malacca, et al.

Money is not the only unit of account in markets, even if it is the only comparable one.

true, however it is the only one in which economic prospertiy and strength can be insured. And with economic strength and prosperity come military power.

the USA did not attain hegemony by the promotion of life and liberty alone. Primarily we were able to dominate the globe by economic freedoms that focused resources on the attainment of profit versus intangibles like pacifism, egalitarianism, religious worship, mercantilism, et al.

I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit. The hapiness that an artist gains from painting on streetcorners does not have a market price, but they judge it to be in their best interests anyway.

You might be happy and content, but if you operated your business under this framework within the PDA industry – you would be bankrupt or worse.

[Rettoper]

If they are being underutilized then peaceful exchange is always possible by definition.–azure

what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource, or it is under defended ?

then peaceful exchange is not possible, by definition.

in sum, many actors in society put other considerations ahead of economic value – hence they prefer the simple beauty of an undamaged landscape to the hundreds of billions of dollars in oil underneath it.

should an investor, company, society forego the oil because a single environmentalist enjoys his view ?

would the society that put attractive views ahead of economic growth be more powerful militarily ?

which society do you think would eventually emerge as a hegemon ?

[nirgrahamUK]

what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource,

spoken like a true non-economist and anti-capitalist

[MJGreen]

In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable.

No. At best, it means there are instances where coercion can be profitable. That is, there are instances where the use of coercion will result in a “better” life for the masses than doing things only voluntarily. You don’t get to jump from, “Coercion can be profitable” to “Coercion is necessary to insure (sic) social growth and prosperity.”

Regardless, very few people care solely about money profits, and there are many variables a firm must consider before using coercion. In the case of the developer who can’t get the last homeowner to sell, thus ruining their whole venture (be it a freeway, shopping mall, whatever), the developer must consider more than the cost of removing the homeowner by force versus the cost of relocating or redesigning. There is the risk of losing business (members of the community boycotting because of the unethical decision), the risk of unanticipated retaliation (low-cost or even pro bono work by other PDAs, trying to gain favor with the public; anti-big-business-using-coercion groups, perhaps using guerilla tactics to make the company suffer), the risk of higher costs in future ventures (more homeowners might refuse to sell to such a company the next time they want to expand), etc. Not saying that no one would ever dare taking this risk, but we have no idea of the spontaneous order that would emerge to prohibit such uses of coercion/encourage peaceful solutions in the absence of the state.

[Snowflake]

@Rettoper

resources have economic value equal to the revenue they generate for their owners/investors/society.

Economic value is subjective, or “aesthetic”.

@Rettoper

if a valued resource can generate more revenue if used for oil extraction versus environmental concerns, then the society that is motivated by profit versus aesthetic motives will be stronger economically and therefore stronger militarily.

You don’t have to max out military… you just need enough military.

Since its a life or death matter, the security sector should be able to bid enough resources away from the rest of the economy to make their product.

@Rettoper

if all societal actors were motivated by purely economic considerations AND agreed on the economic value of coveted resources then there wouldnt be a problem.

They are. Just not in the way you think they are. People buy TVs out of aesthetic considerations. People want to stay alive out of aesthetic considerations. This is a false dichotomy. All goods are demanded subjectively by consumers. You’re just worried that people might not prioritize living over smelling flowers, which is a little silly because people usually don’t.

@Rettoper

however, if an environmentalist, pacifist, religous zealot, et al refuse to sell the valued resource for non-economic motivations then an investor who covets the resource will fund a PDA to take it by force if necessary.

This presupposes that there are people who care about forest preserves more than living.

@Rettoper

in sum, the austrian and ancap are correct in their belief that freedom equals prosperity. however, those actors that are motivated by profit will eventually gain the most power and be in a position to coerce those actors who subordinated economic growth for some other goal.

Ancap society is likely to have huge respect for property rights even if they are not always put to “optimal use”. Ancap society in fact presupposes egalitarian property rights…

@Rettoper

some coveted resources will not be for sale for a variety of reasons. moreover, many owners of valued resources will overvalue and under defend their resources. In this case, these miscalculating and negligent owners will see their property annex by force by investors and PDAs that correctly valued and utilize the valued resource

In other words, there is an incentive not to miscalculate.

@Rettoper

if valued resources are subject to predation if they are not utlized effectively then those owners will not have the capital to defend the resource.

Whether you have enough capital to defend the resource is not tied to how well you use the resource. I could be using my land to its maximal economic use and still be overtaken by an angry barbarian mob. I could be just sitting around on my land and not doing anything with it, and be able to fend off invaders with a shotgun and a few land mines. Defense/offense is an empirical matter… whether you have enough resources to do X cannot be decided a priori.

@Rettoper

in contrast, the pacifist, environmentist, , egalitarian, et al cant put a price or make a reasonable economic calculation on these goals, hence any economic decisions based on these considerations will be flawed and inefficient. The more aesthetic values are considered, the more inefficient the economic calculations.

But in pursuing these goals, they use the market and they use currency, integrating these concepts into the whole. The same way that the aesthetic desire for TVs and backrubs is integrated into the economy.

But you missed the point, which was that desires are only individual. There is no “social goodness” or “social economics”. Individuals cannot be aggregated. I can’t come up with an average of how much you and I like icecream.

@Rettoper

if this is true, how does it show up ? prove it.

then you should be able to show me the economic calculations that prove your assertion.

how do you calculate with reasonable accuracy into how these incentives translate into reduced violence?

Each sociopath thinks: “Man, I would like to kill some people. But I also want to have a house and TV and internet… and I also don’t want to be killed myself. I guess I should trade with other people to get these things”

If everyone takes this option, everyone protects themselves and becomes dependent on eachother’s economic freedom (freedom to produce houses/tvs/internet), serving as a counter incentive to murder.

It is true that if everyone really really really wants to murder no matter what, it will probably happen. But anarchism is the system which establishes the most incentives against this.

@Rettoper

are there opportunity costs associated with the goal of reduced violence ? and if so, how do you calculate that ?

Subjectively. The same way you calculate whether to eat a ham sammich or turkey sammich.

@Rettoper

You might be happy and content, but if you operated your business under this framework within the PDA industry – you would be bankrupt or worse.

Why? My reasoning is not fundamentally different from anyone else’s.

Your basic argument is that if we don’t go 110% military might, something bad will happen. In your view, there is no room for religion, environmentalism, or TV in society because those things aren’t A) Tanks, or B) Used to make tanks. A man who takes a 20 minute nap is wasting resources, and according to you will be attacked for letting his guard down. I believe this is false because property rights do not always have to be defended with guns. People are interdepdendent on eachother’s property rights, and so there is an incentive to leave them alone so we can continue having division of labor etc.

I WANT other people to have property rights because it will make me better off. They don’t have to threaten me.

[liberty_student]

Somebody is back for more attention!

[Snowflake]

You caught me LS. I’m just did it for the lulz.

[Azure]

what if an owner doesnt want to sell, over values his resource, or it is under defended ?

then peaceful exchange is not possible, by definition.

The owner will not be willing to exchange anything that can be offered for it at a profit to the offerer (that is, there exist no possible peaceful exchanges) if and only if the good is in its catallitically optimal position. Moving the resource by force can only lower total utility. More generally, if a peaceful exchange is possible at all, then there always exists such an exchange which is more optimal than all of the possible coerced exchanges.

In short, violence never ever works and no act of aggression can ever be justified by a catallitic argument.

Work the proof out for yourself if you don’t believe me. You look like you could use a good excercise in logic.

[Rettoper]

In sum, coercion is sometimes necessary to insure societal growth and prosperity when peaceful means are not possible or profitable. --rettoper (emphasis added)

You don’t get to jump from, “Coercion can be profitable” to “Coercion is necessary to insure (sic) social growth and prosperity.” --michael j green

nothing like misrepresenting my quotes and creating strawmen to argue.

Regardless, very few people care solely about money profits, and there are many variables a firm must consider before using coercion.-- green

wrong. profit is the only consideration a company must follow, otherwise it will fail in competition with a profit driven enterprise. This is true within the PDA industry. those PDAs that place profit above aesthetic intangibles will emerge stronger than those competitors.

n the case of the developer who can’t get the last homeowner to sell, thus ruining their whole venture (be it a freeway, shopping mall, whatever), the developer must consider more than the cost of removing the homeowner by force versus the cost of relocating or redesigning. There is the risk of losing business (members of the community boycotting because of the unethical decision), the risk of unanticipated retaliation (low-cost or even pro bono work by other PDAs, trying to gain favor with the public; anti-big-business-using-coercion groups, perhaps using guerilla tactics to make the company suffer), the risk of higher costs in future ventures (more homeowners might refuse to sell to such a company the next time they want to expand), etc. Not saying that no one would ever dare taking this risk, but we have no idea of the spontaneous order that would emerge to prohibit such uses of coercion/encourage peaceful solutions in the absence of the state. --green

so prove your assertion. What is the economic calculation that determines when coercion is not profitable and when it is profitable ?

what is the unit of measure for coercion?

In what market is this economically critical “commodity” or “liability” traded and shorted ?

how do you include its calculation on your balance sheet ?

in sum, the pacifist ancap is not a capitalist because he places peace above profit. Moreover, a society that subordinates peace over profit will fail as surely as a society that places egalitarianism over profit.

why ?

the problem of economic calculation.

[Rettoper]

seiben,

Economic value is subjective, or “aesthetic”.–seiben

the price of oil is $73.

the price of gold is 1275.00

the price of coffee is 2.00

what is the price of egalitarianism?

what is your price for peace ?

what is your price for morality ?

moreover, how do you include these costs in your economic calculations in determining whether a specific enterprise is profitable or not ?

They are. Just not in the way you think they are. People buy TVs out of aesthetic considerations. People want to stay alive out of aesthetic considerations. This is a false dichotomy. All goods are demanded subjectively by consumers. You’re just worried that people might not prioritize living over smelling flowers, which is a little silly because people usually don’t. --seiben

not true, some people forego additional profits for aesthetic motives.

for example:

I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit.–seiben

if a PDA did this, they would fail in open competition with a profit driven PDA. You cant fund an army on psychological benefits.

This presupposes that there are people who care about forest preserves more than living.–seiben

where did I say that aesthetic values lead to death ?

I simply stated that those individuals, enterprises, and societies that subordinated profits to aesthetic ends will be lesseconomically prosperous then those societies that were more motivated by profit seeking.

which confirms the premise of my assertions that economically successful ancap individuals, enterprises, and societies will place profits ahead of intangibles to a greater degree than less economically successful societies.

I didnt say that those societies that were more successful economically would be happier or more content. however, they would be militarily more capable in the long term since they would have the capital to build stronger armies and wage war more efficiently when not encumbered by aesthetic ends like egalitarianism, pacifism, religion, liberty, nationalism, et al.

Ancap society is likely to have huge respect for property rights even if they are not always put to “optimal use”. Ancap society in fact presupposes egalitarian property rights…

what is the market price for “respect for property rights” ?

how do you include this economically vital “commodity” in your economic calculation ?

In other words, there is an incentive not to miscalculate.–seiben

always,

and I agree with you that individuals, enterprises, and societies constantly miscalculate value since it is largely subjective, if predictable and economically measurable in standard units/price.

that is why 99% of companies fail and ancap society will be as violent as our current geopolitic.

Whether you have enough capital to defend the resource is not tied to how well you use the resource.–seiben

are you kidding ?

I will allow you to take back this absurd statement.

I could be using my land to its maximal economic use and still be overtaken by an angry barbarian mob.–seiben

I never suggested otherwise.

of course, if a competitor with significantly more resources coveted your land, presumably he could take it by force despite the fact that you utilized it to maximum effect.

this is precisely why I believe that ancap society will eventually decay into absolutism.

“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

of course, all ancaps naively disagree with this adage and they believe that the only corruption that leads to absolutism comes from statist origins.

they are dangerously wrong – thats why I am contributing to this forum – to correct this folly.

I could be just sitting around on my land and not doing anything with it, and be able to fend off invaders with a shotgun and a few land mines. Defense/offense is an empirical matter… whether you have enough resources to do X cannot be decided a priori.

good luck defending your property from tanks, cruise missiles, battleships, et al with a priori as your defense.

in sum, wars are generally won by material means. The society that can throw the most hardware and manpower into the battle will prevail in the long term. Moreover, there is no a priori to dispute the overwhelming empirical evidence to support the assertion that economic strength leads to military power that leads to better odds in battle.

But in pursuing these goals, they use the market and they use currency, integrating these concepts into the whole. The same way that the aesthetic desire for TVs and backrubs is integrated into the economy.

not to the same degree that profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies integrate into the economy.

in sum, no society will be 100% driven by profit. however, those societies that are the most profit driven will be the most powerful economically.

this is as close to a priori argument I can offer.

in contrast, ancap societies that penalize the use of coercion to obtain profit are committing the same economic calculation problems in the economy that marxist commit when they sanction profit driven enterprises in the pursuit of egalitarianism.

But you missed the point, which was that desires are only individual. There is no “social goodness” or “social economics”. Individuals cannot be aggregated. I can’t come up with an average of how much you and I like icecream.

i havent stated otherwise.

I have stated that individuals that disregard profit for aesthetic goals will be less economically successful than profit driven individuals.

Each sociopath thinks: “Man, I would like to kill some people. But I also want to have a house and TV and internet… and I also don’t want to be killed myself. I guess I should trade with other people to get these things”

If everyone takes this option, everyone protects themselves and becomes dependent on eachother’s economic freedom (freedom to produce houses/tvs/internet), serving as a counter incentive to murder.

It is true that if everyone really really really wants to murder no matter what, it will probably happen. But anarchism is the system which establishes the most incentives against this. --seiben

I would be more amendable to your argument if you could quantify the costs of “murderous behavior”

what is the unit of measure for “murderous behavior” ?

where is this commodity traded?

if “murderous behavior” has a real impact on economic output, why cant I short it in the marketplace ?

if you desire peace, what is the price per unit of peace ?

where is peace included on your balance sheet ?

Subjectively. The same way you calculate whether to eat a ham sammich or turkey sammich.-- seiben

yesterday, I paid $7.00 for a 1/2 pound of ham and $10.00 pound for turkey (i know it is pricey, but it is low fat and low sodium)

I subjectively determined that this was a fair price

albeit subjective, what is the going price for peace ?

what value do marxists place on egalitarianism ? what is the unit of measure that marxists use for egalitarianism ? what is the unit of measure pacifist ancaps use for non-violence ?

Why? My reasoning is not fundamentally different from anyone else’s.

simple, if you operated your PDA by anything other than profit, you would not accrue the capital needed to fund training, research, intelligence, operations, weaponry, et al required to compete against more profit driven PDAs.

Your basic argument is that if we don’t go 110% military might, something bad will happen.

wrong, I never stated this.

I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society – the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily.

In your view, there is no room for religion, environmentalism, or TV in society because those things aren’t A) Tanks, or B) Used to make tanks. A man who takes a 20 minute nap is wasting resources, and according to you will be attacked for letting his guard down.

wrong, I never stated this.

again – I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society – the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily. moreover, I acknowledge that no society will be 100% focused on profit, however the more profit driven societies will be the most economically prosperous.

I believe this is false because property rights do not always have to be defended with guns. People are interdepdendent on eachother’s property rights, and so there is an incentive to leave them alone so we can continue having division of labor etc.

what is the unit of measure for “trust”?

how much is trust per unit compared to the price of a glock or mossberg ?

if you believe you can forego defense of your property rights because you trust your fellow man to act in the best interest of society – why do we need guns or PDAs ?

are you saying that ancap society will render guns, defense, and PDAs obsolete ?

and if not, how many guns and how much defense is necessary ? how do you calculate the amount of defense needed ?

again, if “trust” has real economic utility in deterring attack and providing for defense - how much is it worth ?

how do you calculate “trust” in your economic calculation of how much to spend on defense ?

I WANT other people to have property rights because it will make me better off. They don’t have to threaten me.–seiben

how bad do you want property rights ?

and how much are you willing to pay for it ?

and what is the unit of measure for it ?

and where is it traded ?

in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits — the same as societies that put a premium on egalitarianism that likewise negatively impact economic health and well being.

if you want peace and property rights then fine – however, you are not a purist anarchist since you cant put an economic value on property rights and peace. moreover, to promote these goals it does indeed impact economic prosperity in a way that reduced profits.

if not, please provide the cost analysis disproving my assertion of how promoting peace and property rights increases societal economic profits.

[MatthewF]

“in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits”

I haven’t read this whole thread so I apologize if this has already come up but…

If people value peace and property, then wouldn’t it be profitable to help them attain these?

[Rettoper]

The owner will not be willing to exchange anything that can be offered for it at a profit to the offerer (that is, there exist no possible peaceful exchanges) if and only if the good is in its catallitically optimal position.-- azure

peaceful exchange will be preferred and more frequent.

however, there are myriad instances when (1) a coveted resource is not for sale by the owner, (2) it is under utilized, and (3) therefore it is under-defended. Hence it will be subject to predation

Moving the resource by force can only lower total utility. More generally, if a peaceful exchange is possible at all, then there always exists such an exchange which is more optimal than all of the possible coerced exchanges. – azure

if someone doesnt want to sell his land because he enjoys the view – how much money would convince him otherwise ?

for example, what is your unit price per view ?

what is your unit price per sq. ft. of ancient burial ground ?

what is the unit price per sq ft of polar bear habitat ?

in sum, many resource owners do not want to sell. in many cases, these resources will have economic value that is being denied to society and profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies.

these individuals will leverage their economic strength gained through profit driven enterprises to annex by force those resources owned by economically inefficient individuals motivated by aesthetics.

In short, violence never ever works and no act of aggression can ever be justified by a catallitic argument.

Work the proof out for yourself if you don’t believe me. You look like you could use a good excercise in logic.

tell that to alexander, hannibal, ceasar, tamerlane, temujin, charlemagne, napoleon, mao, stalin, bush, et al.

[Rettoper]

If people value peace and property, then wouldn’t it be profitable to help them attain these?-- matthewF

it would not be economically profitable because you cant measure the per unit value of peace and property rights.

if individuals, enterprises, and societies have a goal of promotion of property rights and peace that is fine, but profits will be surrendered to obtain these intangibles. moreover, there is no measure to calculate how much profits suffer as a result of the attainment of these goals.

what is the cost/unit/peace or cost/unit/property rights ?

so how do you include something in your economic calculations that has no discernable economic standard to measure or compare ?

at least I know that a pound of ham is roughly $5 and that a gallon of gas is roughly $2.75 – so I can compare the two. try doing that with egalitarianism, peace, liberty, nationalism, et al.

this is the economic calculation problem of pacifist anarchism that many self-proclaimed ancaps on this site are guilty of.

the same as marxists (who I debate with greater fervor) who surrender profits and economic efficiency in the name of egalitarianism.

[Snowflake]

@Rettoper

the price of oil is $73.

the price of gold is 1275.00

the price of coffee is 2.00

These are products.

@Rettoper

what is the price of egalitarianism?

what is your price for peace ?

what is your price for morality ?

These are not products. But you can buy things like charity, security to try and produce them.

@Rettoper

moreover, how do you include these costs in your economic calculations in determining whether a specific enterprise is profitable or not ?

It shows up in consumer demand. If people buy safety, the price of padlocks and alarm systems will increase.

@Rettoper

not true, some people forego additional profits for aesthetic motives.

Its a false dichotomy. You are foregoing profits at a second job right now because you’d rather engage in this “uneconomic” debate on the mises.org forums. There is no distinction between “aesthetic” and “economic” behaviour. All wants and needs are subjective.

@Rettoper

I might be willing to run a business or take a job with sub-optimal monetary profits because of some percieved psychological benefit.–seiben

if a PDA did this, they would fail in open competition with a profit driven PDA. You cant fund an army on psychological benefits.

Actually the army IS funded on psychological benefits: namely everyone’s innate desire to stay alive and have security.

@Rettoper

where did I say that aesthetic values lead to death ?

You’re arguing that if people don’t devote 100% of their resources to military they’ll be attacked by people who do.

@Rettoper

which confirms the premise of my assertions that economically successful ancap individuals, enterprises, and societies will place profits ahead of intangibles to a greater degree than less economically successful societies.

The profits are a RESULT of prioritizing “intangibles”. I can have a very profitable back-rubbing business. It is entirely founded on everyone’s aesthetic desire for back rubs.

@Rettoper

I didnt say that those societies that were more successful economically would be happier or more content. however, they would be militarily more capable in the long term since they would have the capital to build stronger armies and wage war more efficiently when not encumbered by aesthetic ends like egalitarianism, pacifism, religion, liberty, nationalism, et al.

Your argument reduces to “If you spend all day producing guns, you’ll have more guns than you would otherwise”. This is a really grim assessment.

@Rettoper

what is the market price for “respect for property rights” ?

how do you include this economically vital “commodity” in your economic calculation ?

Depends on the ancap legal system. If people purchase security on the market, you buy “respect for property rights” with security guards and fences. If people provide legal services socially, as they have done in most historical examples of anarchist societies, legal services will be provided outside the market by non-aggressive reputation organizations.

@Rettoper

and I agree with you that individuals, enterprises, and societies constantly miscalculate value since it is largely subjective, if predictable and economically measurable in standard units/price.

that is why 99% of companies fail and ancap society will be as violent as our current geopolitic.

Even if 99% of companies did fail, the 1% still around would obviously be enough to satisfy market demand (or else the others wouldn’t have failed in the first place).

@Rettoper

of course, if a competitor with significantly more resources coveted your land, presumably he could take it by force despite the fact that you utilized it to maximum effect.

this is precisely why I believe that ancap society will eventually decay into absolutism.

This is an objection to markets for law. I think markets for law can work better than state law, but I prefer, and most anarchists implicitly advocate social-law. That is, legal services produced without regard for individual wealth or status in the market.

@Rettoper

“power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely”

of course, all ancaps naively disagree with this adage and they believe that the only corruption that leads to absolutism comes from statist origins.

It is chiefly because of this that we cannot have a state. A monopoly arbitrator must be avoided at all costs.

@Rettoper

in sum, wars are generally won by material means. The society that can throw the most hardware and manpower into the battle will prevail in the long term. Moreover, there is no a priori to dispute the overwhelming empirical evidence to support the assertion that economic strength leads to military power that leads to better odds in battle.

Ceteris parabis, if one society invests more in war machines than the other, it would be able to take them over. They still have the incentive to trade between eachother though, so even if war is profitable, trade is more profitable still.

Even if you don’t buy that, if one society begins to pose a threat to other societies, the price of security will be bid up, bringing the under-protected consumers up to snuff with whoever is threatening them.

You’re basically claiming that the market might have a shortage of security. There are no shortages on free markets.

@Rettoper

not to the same degree that profit driven individuals, enterprises, and societies integrate into the economy.

Even people who just wanna make money do so by catering to aesthetic desires. A good example is plastic surgeons.

@Rettoper

in sum, no society will be 100% driven by profit. however, those societies that are the most profit driven will be the most powerful economically.

This false dichotomy again… You can’t not be driven by profit. If I trade your pizza for my wristwatch, we both profit. How much? Don’t know the $$$, but we both profit subjectively.

@Rettoper

I would be more amendable to your argument if you could quantify the costs of “murderous behavior”

Depends how bad everyone else wants to stay alive. If they’re humans, its probably a lot. They’d be willing to put most of their income to security.

@Rettoper

what is the unit of measure for “murderous behavior” ?

The economically relevant factor is how likely or easy it is to murder.

@Rettoper

if “murderous behavior” has a real impact on economic output, why cant I short it in the marketplace ?

You can via security stocks.

@Rettoper

simple, if you operated your PDA by anything other than profit, you would not accrue the capital needed to fund training, research, intelligence, operations, weaponry, et al required to compete against more profit driven PDAs.

Actually if I reduce my profits and invest more in military expansion, I’ll do even better. Profit is revenue - costs. Consumers want to pay you as little revenue as possible. You maximize profit by getting your costs as low as possible. The profit driven military is very very lean. The might-driven military probably has awful profits because its costs are so high.

@Rettoper

again – I stated that the more profit driven an individual, enterprise, and society – the more economically wealthy. the more economically wealthy a society, the more capable militarily. moreover, I acknowledge that no society will be 100% focused on profit, however the more profit driven societies will be the most economically prosperous.

In order to have military might, they have to actually put the resources towards gunz. So your argument really does reduce to “the society that puts more resources into military will have a better military”.

@Rettoper

if you believe you can forego defense of your property rights because you trust your fellow man to act in the best interest of society – why do we need guns or PDAs ?

I don’t need guns to stop my friends from taking my stuff. I do need some security to stop strangers though. It just depends…

@Rettoper

are you saying that ancap society will render guns, defense, and PDAs obsolete ?

It will render them less useful than they are in more primitive economies. The more trade interdependence there is, the less people will have to gain by attacking eachother.

@Rettoper

and if not, how many guns and how much defense is necessary ? how do you calculate the amount of defense needed ?

Market demand for security.

@Rettoper

again, if “trust” has real economic utility in deterring attack and providing for defense - how much is it worth ?

Depends on the stakes. I would say its worth a lot but difficult to procure.

@Rettoper

how bad do you want property rights ?

and how much are you willing to pay for it ?

I’ll pay for security till I benefit less from additional security than i would from spending money on something else.

@Rettoper

and what is the unit of measure for it ?

Subjective.

@Rettoper

and where is it traded ?

Alarm systems, locks, personal firearms…

@Rettoper

in sum, if society places property rights and peace ahead of profit then the costs to insure these aesthetic goals will negatively impact overall economic health by reducing profits — the same as societies that put a premium on egalitarianism that likewise negatively impact economic health and well being.

All goals are aesthetic.

@Rettoper

if you want peace and property rights then fine – however, you are not a purist anarchist since you cant put an economic value on property rights and peace. moreover, to promote these goals it does indeed impact economic prosperity in a way that reduced profits.

You can’t put an economic value on concepts, but you can put economic value on things that LEAD to those concepts.

@Rettoper

if not, please provide the cost analysis disproving my assertion of how promoting peace and property rights increases societal economic profits.

If ur not blowin stuff up, u got more stuff.

[MJGreen]

Don’t know why I’m bothering to respond, but I just want to make clear that I did not mean to misquote you. Even with your qualifier of “sometimes,” I still think you have not proven it is “necessary to ensure social growth.” It may sometimes be the best way to gain control of resources in order to put them to a better use from the perspective of the masses. Sure, this can mean that, without using coercion in certain instances, society may not be as wealthy as it otherwise might be; I think this is different from stifling social growth.

If you’d like to point out my straw man, go ahead and do it. Good luck, though, considering I agree with the broader point that, some times, it can pay to coerce.

profit is the only consideration a company must follow

First, a company is not people. Owners of a company (people), in their capacity as owners, want to maximize profits, but this still need not be their only concern. Second, the actual point was that consumers do not care solely about lower prices or whatever else the company using coercion can offer. I might remove a lone homeowner by force so as to develop a shopping mall, only to find that perspective consumers are boycotting my mall in response to my tortious action. Though they would otherwise want to spend money at my shopping mall (they prefer that this space have a mall to a lone house), they refuse to patronize my business because of my decision to annex another person’s property. All this in addition to possible legal fees, retaliation, etc., means that my decision to employ coercion is unprofitable.

What is the economic calculation that determines when coercion is not profitable and when it is not profitable ?

what is the unit of measure for coercion?

What? It’s no different than any other business decision.

As usual, you’re simply throwing out terms without any regard to their relevance.

[Rettoper]

seiben,

These are not products. But you can buy things like charity, security to try and produce them.

security has a price. I can pay $50/month for alarm monitoring, $20/hour for a guard, legal advice for $100/hour

what is the price of property rights/ unit ?

what is the price of peace /unit ?

It shows up in consumer demand. If people buy safety, the price of padlocks and alarm systems will increase.–seiben

fair enough,

if peace and property rights “show up” in consumer demand, what are their costs per unit ?

if they have real economic value how do you efficiently calculate for them when you making economic decisions ?

what are their specific units of measure and costs per unit ?

Its a false dichotomy. You are foregoing profits at a second job right now because you’d rather engage in this “uneconomic” debate on the mises.org forums. There is no distinction between “aesthetic” and “economic” behaviour. All wants and needs are subjective.–seiben

you prove my point even if you dont understand it.

by engaging is an economically inefficient exercise in exposing ancap folly – I am foregoing economically more beneficial activities. Hence I have placed asethetics ahead of profits. a society of debaters would be subject to predation from a society of profit seekers.

Actually the army IS funded on psychological benefits: namely everyone’s innate desire to stay alive and have security.–seiben

how many tank rounds, missiles, ships, bombers is this “psychological benefit” worth ?

how much is everyone’s inate desire to stay alive worth in terms of bullets, oil, titanium, high ground, et al ?

presumably if these goals are force multipliers that have economic value and can be used to calculate defense spending, however by how much can defense be reduced ?

You’re arguing that if people don’t devote 100% of their resources to military they’ll be attacked by people who do.–seiben

no, your manufacturing a strawman.

i stated that the more profitable an enterprise utilizes a valued resource, the more capital is available for defense, and the less likely that resource will be attacked.

The profits are a RESULT of prioritizing “intangibles”. I can have a very profitable back-rubbing business. It is entirely founded on everyone’s aesthetic desire for back rubs.–seiben

and this intangible can be economically valued. there is no calculation problem since I know the value of an hour massage relative to a pound of ham and can make an efficient economic value judgment on which one to spend my money on.

however, I will ask you again — what is the unit price of peace, property rights, relative to an hour massage ?

Your argument reduces to “If you spend all day producing guns, you’ll have more guns than you would otherwise”. This is a really grim assessment.–seiben

my argument does not assert this at all. I merely stated that societies that are more focused on profit will be economically more prosperous then societies that subordinate profit seeking for some other intangible. this is not grim.

unless you can quantify “grim” in terms of unit price per pound of ham .

Depends on the ancap legal system. If people purchase security on the market, you buy “respect for property rights” with security guards and fences. If people provide legal services socially, as they have done in most historical examples of anarchist societies, legal services will be provided outside the market by non-aggressive reputation organizations.

security will be most efficiently allocated to resources that provide economic benefit. those owners that spend exorbidant capital to defend resources for the sake of property rights will see their capital and economic wherewithal decline. simarily, aggressors who misuse capital to take resource of little economic value simply to gain property rights or deny others property rights will likewise see their capital and economic net worth decline.

in contrast, individuals, enterprises, and societies that correctly value resources according to its economic value and not “property rights” will be more economically efficient and prosperous.

in sum, if individuals expend capital and resources to defend property simply for the sake of property rights and not a quantifiable economic output from that resource – then these individuals will decline in wealth and economic power relative to profit seekers who value resources for their ability to provide measurable profits, not some intangible like “property rights”.

the balance of your post demands a more thoughtful response than I have time for.

I am going to make a value judgment on the fly and I decided to watch the notre dame-state game.

unfortunately for the economic health and well being of our society, I have again opted for prodigious consumption of alcoholic beverages, football, and home made subs.

later.