the notion that it is a “poor assumption” to state that an ineffectively managed resource will provide less capital for defense is manifestly absurd.
That notion wasn’t presented. I gave an example, you’ve dodged it.
my assertions are based on economics.
Proof?
irrespective of how much an owner “appreciates” his resource, if the owner does not effectively manage his resource foreconomic gain — that owner will have less capital available for defense
Already addressed:
“One’s source of wealth need not (and typically doesn’t) be derived from the land they occupy. For example: Ted Turner owns acres of forests just sitting their yet he certainly has the capital to defend it. Likewise, one actively exploiting one’s land doesn’t ensure adequate capital for defense.”
if an individual, firm, and society covet a valued resource for its economic utility that cannot be obtained by peaceful means and that property can be annexed by coercion for a net profit – then coercion it is.
Heard it all ready, you’ve yet to show how that makes it capitalism. You’ve just asserted what capitalism is without backing it up.
you are making the incredibly naive and dangerous assumption that actors in the PDA industry who have a skill set that makes them effective at using coercion to obtain security, wealth, and power will not use that skill set simply because handwringing pacifists like yourself disapprove of violence for economic ends.
I’m not making any assumption. I’m following the simple definition of capitalism.
theft is the antithesis of some moral and ethical dogma – not capitalism.
capitalism is about economic profit – it makes no moral or ethical judgment regarding the means.
“Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital” - nothing ethical or moral there.
wrong, you are not a capitalist – you are a pacifist
“Capitalism - an economic system based on private ownership of capital” - nothing pacifist there.
your not much different than the marxist who tries to introduce egalitarianism into the economy thereby resulting in the problem of economic calculation.
Private property rights is egalitarian? Ironically, Marx used similar “efficiency of production” reasoning as yourself to justify the taking of private property.
you will know when a resource has been mismanaged when a competitors tanks are parked on it or next to it.
This has absolutely nothing to do with economics.
perhaps, but society does not immediately benefit if a valued resource is idle.
Now we are getting somewhere. Immediate benefits may not be the best thing for society, firm, or even the individual. Rolling out the tanks isn’t the correct resourse in such instances.
capitalism will insure that an idle resource is not long witheld from production.
“Not long witheld?” How does society know how long is too long?
but, yes – an example would be farmland that is left unplanted for a particular season provided that farming is the most economically profitable use for the land.
Then you’ve conceded my point. As there is a point where the farmer isn’t reaping the benefits of his land, by your expressed logic, he’s inefficiently exploiting his land and therefore won’t have enough capital to defend it from the tanks.
the valued resource will still be in private hands after it is annexed.
"Private property is the tangible and intangible things owned by individuals or firms over which their owners have exclusive and absolute legal rights, and can only be transferred with the owner’s consent. …
it is absurd to think that you support economic freedom and capitalism when you selectively reject specific means that certain actors, firms, and societies use to obtain both economic and aesthetic goals.
How could that be absurd? Anyone who supports freedom must reject specific means, particularly those that run contra to freedom. I’m not ashamed to admit that I reject actions that aren’t peaceful. Yes, I reject slavery, murder, rape, and theft.
specifically, you and your ilk would deny the warrior class the use of their natural or acquired skill set of waging war for moral reasons despite the utility of using coercion to obtain economic ends.
No, as I’ve explained (and you agreed!) there are perfectly good economic reasons to deny theft as legitimate market activity. I could care less if its by the proletariat, the bourgeoise, or even the “warrior class.”