This is not basic economics for pacifists, this is simply basic economics. You may actually want to read up on economic calculation, before continuing.
You seem to be confused as to what exchange is. Theft, as far as economics is concerned, is not exchange.
You seem to be confused as to what exchange is. Theft, as far as economics is concerned, is not exchange.–filc
in a maximal capitalist society, exchange is the process of a valued resource changing hands between private owners.
Maximal-capitalism does place moral value judgments on the means by which these valued resources are exchanged — only that the process involves resources moving to their most productive economic capacity. Moreover, maximal-capitalist societies are not command control economies in which a junta of handwringing pacifists control the means by which private resources are exchanged. For example, maximal-capitalist society does not reject the transfer of valued resources from idle owners to profit driven owners simply because it does not approve of the means by which this exchange occurs. the market determines this – and their are no provisions in the market to restrict the movement of resources from unprofitable enterprises to profitable enterprises.
in the case I have outlined in previous posts (that you obviously are incapable of understanding or accepting irrespective of the fact and logic presented) ---- the process of ownership passing from the hands of an inefficient and negligent owner who does not want to engage in fair trade is passed to a profit motivated owner who simply uses coercion to secure the heretofore under-utilized and under-defended resource.
the end result is that society becomes more economically efficient and productive since a previously idle or mismanaged resource becomes available to society in a more economically productive form.
your objection to this process is based on emotion, ignorance of history and human nature, ideological rigidity, and a misunderstanding of the true nature of maximal-capitalism.
if you prefer non-violence to economic productivity — I suggest you find a new forum.
Perhaps, maximal-pacifism versus maximal-capitalism. hence, you are in the wrong place to further cement your rigid views on the efficacy of pacifism and non-violence to promote societal economic growth.
and stalinist russia was not maximalist capitalist society because?
because Stalin wasn’t the biggest capitalist who could predate on lesser inneficient capitalists, thereby wresting precious idle capital from them and bringing glorious capitalist efficient prosperity in his wake >?
and stalinist russia was not maximalist capitalist society because?
because Stalin wasn’t the biggest capitalist who could predate on lesser inneficient capitalists, thereby wresting precious idle capital from them and bringing glorious capitalist efficient prosperity in his wake–nirgrahamuk
what does this strawman argument have to do with my argument that profit driven actors within ancap society will use the most profitable means to gain power, security, and wealth irrespective of the subjective moral or ethical value of these means?
stalin, his cronies, and the soviet union didnt use coercion to gain capital or economic profit – they primarily used coercion to gain personal power, promote egalitarianism, or increase security from external predation — not coercion for economic productivity, profit, or growth.
hence your repeated use of this strawman (stalin) has nothing to do with debunking ancap society or my assertions.
It’s not a strawman at all.
You’re not making a claim about intent, you’re making a claim about action. That’s why you say that regardless of what ancaps intend, they will inevitably end up in a particular society of Rettoperian design. Nir is explaining to you that the system you describe is precisely the same system that Stalin employed. His intent is not relevant, just as you claim pacifist ancap philosophy and subjective moral value is not relevant.
One side note, if society (a collection of individuals; methodological individualism) values morals and ethics subjectively, then it seems logical to conclude that they profit from fulfilling those goals. In other words, a Christian society would be wealthy if it fulfilled Christian ethical precepts.
Food for thought.
There are definitely some semantic issues and I am a real fanatic about precise language in debate, which does make this tough.
That’s only a price if it is paid. If no one buys gas, or someone drives down the road to buy gas for $2.40 from someone else, then which is the price?
A sticker “price” is not a price in the economic sense. It hasn’t been arrived at by exchange and so it is just a value statement by one half of a potential trade.
This understanding is key to what you’re promoting because you are making a claim about objective value for a society as a justification (morally) for action. You’re at the same time promoting individual subjective value as objective efficiency, but efficiency the way you model it, is actually ordinal arrangement of preferences.
I prefer to steal from Rettoper rather than pay him $5 for his property.
This isn’t a trade however, and doesn’t actually communicate any notion of efficiency, except my own personal, subjective preference.
Efficiency can only be calculated in a market where trades between individual actors occur, each one a pairing of preferences to determine the best arrangement of property between them or, the most efficient arrangement of property between them.
I feel like I am repeating myself here, but all ends (motives) are aesthetic.
Actually, both have a lot to do with rebutting your argument, because your argument is based on premises which you claim are economic, but do not conform to economic theory.
Maybe it’s semantics (which are important to discussion), but “net profit” doesn’t jive as you have used it here. If I value ice cream more than beef jerky, I don’t achieve a net profit by eating ice cream.
I do agree people with less resources like the poor may find it advantageous to satisfy their ends through theft, however that act of stealing is not efficient in an objective sense and generates no profit because it created a loss for the party being stolen from. It is a zero sum transaction in our hypothetical society.
Voluntary trade is the only way to grow an economy, as both participants can achieve positive results. Voluntary trades result in positive sum outcomes else the two parties would not agree to trade with each other (if it wasn’t in their self -interest).
The reason why some of us disagree with your premise isn’t because we’re defending ancap or another ethical idea, but because we’re defending markets, which are economic ideas. Claiming that profit can be achieved outside markets is calling all of AE (as a value free method) into question. It’s not a casual claim to make, least of all here.
liberty student,
Nir is explaining to you that the system you describe is precisely the same system that Stalin employed.
it is subjective conjecture to guess what stalin’s motive was – -however by any objective, rational, and indendent thinking measure stalin’s motives were not driven by capitalism. Nor did graham’s off topic and disjointed post have anything to do with rebutting any of my arguments.
moreover, ancaps intend maximal-capitalism, specifically no statist influence in the machinations of the free market, including but not limited to the objections to coercion from handwringing pacifists nor the objections to capital accumulation from self-aggrandizing egalitarians
moreover, the society i am predicting based on maximal-capitalism is not “Rettoperian” or mine by choice — it is based on fact and logic. NOr do any of my assertions run counter to any praxeological tenets.
His intent is not relevant, just as you claim pacifist ancap philosophy and subjective moral value is not relevant.–liberty student
the intent of any endeavor is absolutely relevant. if an egalitarian values equality over economic growth, then when a particular action promotes equality at the expense of growth, that action will be adopted. In contrast, an ancap values freedom and capitalism over peace, then when a particular action promotes capital accumulation at the expense of peace, that action will be adopted. It doesnt get simpler than that unless you subconsciously are acting in the interest of peace,yet claim through ignorance or denial that you are a capitalist.
One side note, if society (a collection of individuals; methodological individualism) values morals and ethics subjectively, then it seems logical to conclude that they profit from fulfilling those goals.
NOT “if a society values morals and ethics subjectively” ---- these tenets are subjective. and yes, if an individual, firm, or society value and promote these aesthetic values over profit then they will likely go broke, out of business, or subject to predation – IF these objectives come into conflict with capital accumulation and profit seeking when making critical decisions regarding investments, business and societal decisions.
In other words, a Christian society would be wealthy if it fulfilled Christian ethical precepts.–liberty student
it would be “wealthy” in terms of aesthetic valuations – however it may not be economically wealthy if it severely subordinated this aesthetic goal at the expense of capitalism. Equally important, security is funded by capital (not morality) if a society subordinates profit and capitalism to some other aesthetic goals, then that society is subject to predation to a greater degree than it normally would. Eventually, the individuals, firms, and societies that act more to obtain capital and profits will emerge stronger and more dominant that competitors.
that is the appeal of maximal-capitalism — not this absurd belief that it somehow promotes peace (maximal-pacifism) as envisioned by those faith-based ancap posers who are ignorant of history, warfare, and human nature.
i will talk later — the games are about to start.
GO Blue !!!
shoelaces will send the spartans to their first loss next week.
This statement is oxymoronic, nonsensical even. Capital accumulation implies the net increase of capital. Not the movement of capital from one to the other.
This statement doesn’t make any sense. You say it is subjective conjecture to guess what his motive was, and then you make an objective claim about what it was not.
It’s not that I don’t think you are very intelligent, but you write a lot of things which are contradictory and that makes it very hard to debate.
I explained precisely how it was on topic. Stalin followed your conception of capitalism in action (regardless of his intent). By your definition of capitalist activity, Stalin was a capitalist. Chairman Mao was a capitalist. Anyone who traded without using coercion (ancap posers), was not a capitalist.
That’s your system, we’re simply applying reductios to it. Feel free to correct us where we apply your system incorrectly, but don’t say it is relevant to apply reductios to your theory.
We can’t judge intent. As you said, it is subjective conjecture. We can’t know it or prove it. What we can judge is action.
Your premises are not compatible with praxeology, but I will follow up with that in another post, as it is important to clear that hurdle.
Rettoper, I want to get more clarification in this debate, since we seem to have run aground of what (appear to me) to be contradictions.
You claimed to agree with the following propositions.
You understand praxeology and support it.
You believe value is subjective.
You believe values are arranged ordinally.
If this is correct, then the following statements by you contradict them. Could you please go through this small sample of three (there were more) and explain how they are consistent with the above? I’ll write your quote followed by the issue it creates with the above propositions you agreed to.
You’re creating a distinction here between two kinds of values, however praxeologically speaking, all value is aesthetic and no such distinction can be meaningful. Can you explain this?
If profit is an increase in value, then as above, all profit is aesthetic or psychological praxeologically speaking. Can you please explain how profit can be praxeological and not-praxeological at the same time?
If value is subjective, then what is a valued resource? You use the term valued resource instead of resource often, and yet within subjectivism, that qualifier doesn’t actually mean anything specific.
One bonus question.
You use the word exchange in the third example, but what you’re talking about with property changing under hands with coercion, most people would not consider economic (market) but theft. Would you agree that taking property by force is theft, and if not, how would you define theft?
Yes, Stalin thought that millions of people were not maximalizing their private properties value, specifically, their lives and labor itself. So, he took all of their worldly belongings to better utilize them and shipped those inefficient soul off to farms so that they could better maximalize their utility there. Mao Zedong did much of the same.
There was also Hilter who thought that many Jews were crowding respective markets and disallowing maximal utility, so he thought that they would be better served in slave labor camps and ovens. This of course, after taking ownership of all of their possessions so that The State could more efficiently maximize their utility.
No doubt it wasn’t their philosophy of maximizing resources for the good of the proliteriat through violence, it’s just that they didn’t have quite the right people going about the business. Surely that’s the answer.
Dude wtf is your actual argument? 5 Pages later i’m still not sure.
Are you saying that in anarcho-capitalism there will be crime?
Are you saying that there should be crime?
Are you saying that it coerced transfers should be legalized in ‘libertarian law’? (like the coase argument)
This statement is oxymoronic, nonsensical even. Capital accumulation implies the net increase of capital. Not the movement of capital from one to the other.–filc
pay close attention filc, I am going to cite a very simple example:
statist government like cuba has squandered the potential productivity of its people and resources. An ancap investor funds a PDA to remove the marxists from power by force.
the action of coercion has promoted increases in growth, productivity and capital accumulation.
Sounds more like what we are used to seeing in Africa. Where one violent regime overthrows another, for the sake of “liberty”.
An environment for capital accumulation will not be formed overnight by one fell swoop of perceived righteous justice. Out of principle it can only form an environment of peace. The fact that you think idealistically that capital accumulation best forms out of the ashes of a war-torn state, is if nothing else, just short sighted.
Also you fabricate many extremely unlikely stories in an attempt to justify your point. These stories often abandon principle. For example, I could make a similar argument to justify murder. I could say that murder could be beneficial to society. If a serial killer, in his practice, accidentally kills the next future Hitler, he would have been a benefit to mankind. It seems to me in your methods your trying to defend the murderer, instead of just calling it what it is, murder. Anyone can fabricate a fairy-tale notion bent and engineered in order to defend his/her personal beliefs.
filc,
You challenged my arguments, I provided a succinct example, and now you have resorted to more strawman arguments without substance as rebuttals.
I will no longer waste my time responding to your petty and inane rebuts..
yessir,
read the posts.
Are you saying that in anarcho-capitalism there will be crime?–yessir
of course, in virtually any society crime will be present. however, that is not the subject of this thread.
Are you saying that there should be crime?–yessir
if you are claiming that it is a crime to remove a statist despot from power in order to increase economic growth and productivity – then yes, there should be “crime” Moreover, individuals, firms, and societies that engage in coercive actions for other than economic goals will see their power wane relative to more economic-centric investors, firms and societies.
Are you saying that it coerced transfers should be legalized in ‘libertarian law’? (like the coase argument)–yessir
law is only legitimate if the means to enforce it exists.
moreover, the rationale for anarcho-capitalism is NOT pacifism, it is capitalism — hence maximal-capitalism as opposed to maximal-pacifism. as a result, actions that increase the economic utility of valued resources will occur within ancap society irrespective of the means used to achieve an increase in economic productivity and growth.
in sum, individuals, firms, and societies that are economic centric will outperform and attain hegemony over societies that are based more on aesthetic, non-economic goals.
It is not intended to be used as a strawman. It shows how anyone can fabricate which agrees with nearly any argument. It shows that story’s don’t necessarily get us anywhere productive. I likewise have shown you how murder can benefit mankind.
Yes, stalin thought that millions of people were not maximalizing their private properties value, specifically, their lives and labor itself. So, he took all of their worldly belongings to better utilize them and shipped those inefficient soul off to farms so that they could better maximalize their utility there. Mao Zedong did much of the same.–bohemian
stalin was not a anarcho-capitalist, he favored a command control economy that promoted egalitarianism. his and his cronies actions were primarily motivated by acquistion of power, not economic producitivity and efficiency.
There was also Hilter who thought that many Jews were crowding respective markets and disallowing maximal utility, so he thought that they would be better served in slave labor camps and ovens. This of course, after taking ownership of all of their possessions so that The State could more efficiently maximize their utility.–bohemian
hitler was not an anarcho-capitalist, he favored a nationalist/corporatist/statist union that promoted german nationalism and regional hegemony. his and his cronies actions were primarily motivated by acquistion of power, not economic productivity and efficiency.
No doubt it wasn’t their philosophy of maximizing resources for the good of the proliteriat through violence, it’s just that they didn’t have quite the right people going about the business. Surely that’s the answer.–bohemian
history and logic has shown hitler and stalin were wrong. the freedom associated with anarcho-capitalism would lead to far more productive and efficient economies than anything imagined by the fascists and communists. however, you are correct that the end result for fascism, marxism, and anarcho-capitalism is the emergence of a hegemon and then absolutism.
this zero-sum competition for security and power is the nature of man. it is the dynamic that enabled us to emerge from the savannah and steppe – however it is the same dynamic that has led to perpetual war and conflict – not government.
government is a symptom of man’s proclivity to engage in violent competition for relative security and power – it is not the cause of it.
unfortunately, most ancaps are pacifists who reject this truth and naively think that the competition for relative power and security will cease once government is temporarily removed.
Isn’t this what your promoting? An authority that will re-allocate, by way of force, resources, capital, and wealth into its most productive employment, as decided by you, or some wise liberal-democracy.
FYI It doesn’t matter what Stalin called himself. What matters is his actions, and the obvious correlation of what your advocating.
You’re creating a distinction here between two kinds of values, however praxeologically speaking, all value is aesthetic and no such distinction can be meaningful. Can you explain this?–liberty student
semantics aside — all I am “creating” is the assertion that actors who are motivated by economic gain are likely to secure more economic power relative to actors who are motivated by non-economic goals — period.
If profit is an increase in value, then as above, all profit is aesthetic or psychological praxeologically speaking. Can you please explain how profit can be praxeological and not-praxeological at the same time?–liberty student
philosophical and semantic bullshit aside ---- the profit I am referring to is an increase in ECONOMIC VALUE. again, if an investor, firm, and society actions are motivated by economic growth and productivity then, all things being equal, these actors will see an increase in the ability to acquire and hold economic power relative to societal actors who are motivated less by economic goals and more by non-economic goals (egalitarianism, pacifism, religion, nationalism, environmentalism, et al).
If value is subjective, then what is a valued resource? You use the term valued resource instead of resource often, and yet within subjectivism, that qualifier doesn’t actually mean anything specific.–liberty student
valued resources = factors of production = people, land, sea lanes, airspace, capital, intellectual property, technology, energy, minerals, geostationary/polar orbits, electromagnetic spectrum, et al.
Would you agree that taking property by force is theft, and if not, how would you define theft?–liberty student
semantics aside. I dont think that funding, training, and leading an army against the english in 1776 and throwing them off the continent was theft.
moreover, in the unlikely event that an anarcho-capitalist society emerged in North America within the present USA and a private investor funded a PDA to annex cuba in order to utilize the heretofore inefficiently managed valued resources on that island to more economically productive and efficient enterprises —you could argue that would be theft.
nonetheless, if pacifist ancaps believe that any coercive action save self-defense is theft then you are not maximal- capitalists since in the absence of coercion many inefficient, wasteful, corrupt, and despotic entities will remain.
these will not surrender power without the use of coercion, moreover in the detritus that would result in which all of these regimes eventually fail, it is likely that another statist regime will emerge to replace it – often more brutal than the original.