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

Economics Political Theory
201

“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.”

Ok thanks for clearly stating the argument. Now how would you respond to Block’s points:

  1. A program of forced transfer of 1 eye from a normal sighted to a blind person increases social wealth (1 eye is economically speaking just as useful as 2) - under your program should (ignoring transaction cost/enforcement etc) the 2nd eye of any person legally belong to a blind person?

  2. Anytime some prices change (say meat-to-vegtable prices change), land should constantly be transferred from one owner to the other; this leads in maximal constant application to an essentially non-existant private property system; With all its consequences (lack of wealth creation) a ‘non-maximal-but-private property system’ will still be more wealthy than a ‘maximal capitalist - non private property system’

202

I really don’t understand how aesthetics are not economical?

203

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).

You have repeatedly used the term “economic value” as if it is somehow different that any other value. You have just as repeatedly been shown that economic value is a result of aesthetic value. I’m assuming you disagree, because you haven’t responded tothe point at all. So, in the interest of a healthy dabate, can you please define your terms? What is “economic value” and how is it different from aesthetic value? It is not, as you seem to think, obvious.

204

Rettoper, dismissing all of my questions posted in good faith as semantics and bullshit is not sufficient to claim a good argument.

You’ve offered up ideas which directly contradict the propositions you said you agreed with. I think it is important if we’re to go any further that we resolve those contradictions, otherwise we will just be shouting past one another.

Also, you didn’t answer my question about theft which was very important to the debate. I would appreciate it if you could revisit my post at your soonest convenience. Thank you.

205

yessir,

1. A program of forced transfer of 1 eye from a normal sighted to a blind person increases social wealth (1 eye is economically speaking just as useful as 2) - under your program should (ignoring transaction cost/enforcement etc) the 2nd eye of any person legally belong to a blind person?

I guarantee that if a powerful investor, firm, society believed that they can successfully use coercion to obtain body parts that significantly improve both the quality and length of life — then coercion would be used. however, this is not an action motivated by economic gain or improving the profitablility of an investment, firm, or society. It is an action designed to improve the quality and length of life.

moreover, virtually all societies consider this kind of action reprehensible. Indeed, even the most brutal statist regimes do not resort to cannibalism. Nonetheless, within ancap society there would be a vibrant market for voluntary transfer of body parts from financially distressed individuals to physically handicapped financially well-to-do individuals. And, it is not a stretch to assert that a black market of investors, PDAs, and societies would be available for hire to obtain body parts by coercion.

Your example is primarily a use of coercion to obtain some aesthetic gain (improved quality and length of life from new body parts) – it is not motivated by economic gain – but yes, if an extremely skilled and valued individual (isaac newton, ford, edison, da vinci, et al) in an important economic enterprise needed a heart, kidney, liver, et al to survive and continue benefitting society then using coercion to remove the heart from a vagrant or other non-productive parasite would result in an economically more productive society. Moreover, the incentives created by this kind of action would lead to a more vibrant and productive workforce since individuals, firms, and societies would be incentivised to work hard and be productive in order to gain economic wealth and a more vigorous security regime to deter potential threats of this nature.

In sum, ancap society makes no judgment on the morality or ethics of using coercion to harvest body parts from societal parasites in order to insure a productive member of society lives.

2. Anytime some prices change (say meat-to-vegtable prices change), land should constantly be transferred from one owner to the other; this leads in maximal constant application to an essentially non-existant private property system; With all its consequences (lack of wealth creation) a ‘non-maximal-but-private property system’ will still be more wealthy than a ‘maximal capitalist - non private property system’

I have never rejected private property. Try to avoid misrepresenting my arguments. When coercion is used by a private investor, firm, society to annex an economically valued resource – the property is still in private hands after the involuntary transfer.

moreover, despite constantly changing valuations for resources, generally the utility of coercion to obtain economic gain will not be considered profitable. Most valued resources will be adequately defended despite minor fluctuations in prices. It is when an owner is severely negligent in effectively exploiting his valued resources over a long period of time and hence his resource is inadequately defended that potential threats will emerge from competitor investors, firms, and societies.

Indeed, in today’s geopolitical anarchic environment, peace still reigns in most quarters of the world. Nonetheless, mankind has seen precious few years of history when the entire world was at peace. Similarly, ancap society would be constantly at war in areas of the globe where owners of valued resources mismanaged these resources or when societal changes led to extreme shifts in the balance of power among competing investors, firms, and societies.

206

Jack Cuyler,

You have repeatedly used the term “economic value” as if it is somehow different that any other value. You have just as repeatedly been shown that economic value is a result of aesthetic value. I’m assuming you disagree, because you haven’t responded tothe point at all. So, in the interest of a healthy dabate, can you please define your terms? What is “economic value” and how is it different from aesthetic value? It is not, as you seem to think, obvious.

economic value is the ability of a resource to earn the owner a economic gain, capital accumulation, or monetary profit.

aesthetic value is the ability of a resource to earn the owner a non-economic gain, hence foregoing a monetary gain from oil drilling to preserve the pristine natural condition of a parcel of land. a quiet walk in the wilderness is an aesthetic goal – driling for oil on that same parcel of land is an example of an economic goal.

if an owner utilizes a valued resource specifically for economic gain or monetary gain then that owner is more likely to see an increase in economic strength relative to owners who utilize a similar valued resource for other than economic gain.

to illustrate, two adjacent parcels of land. owner X is motivated by economic gain, hence extracts the oil underneath the property. owner Y is motivated by aesthetism and preserving the aesthetic value of the land, hence he rents cabins or simply leaves the land vacant and enjoys quiet walks or pristine views. Owner X will inexorably become the dominant economic player in this neighborhood, hence he will have more capital for security, aggression, et al.

another example, owner W is negligent and distracted and leaves the land abandoned. Owner Z is motivated by some measure of economic gain and builds cabins, softball fields, driving range, et al. Owner Z will inexorably become the dominant economic player in this neighborhood, hence he will have more capital for security, aggression, et al.

The property owners who utilized their resources for economic gain will insure that they have more capital and therefore more security then negligent owners who are motivated by some other consideration other then economic gain. In addition, mismanaged properties will see a decline in security due to waste, inefficiency, negligence, and/or corruption.

individuals, firms, and societies that are motivated by non-economic goals (environmentalism, egalitarianism, pacifism, nationalism, et al) will see their power decline relative to economically motivate individuals, firms, and societies. The endgame will see these economically motivated entities attain hegemon power over non-economically motivated actors.

*valued resources represent land, waterways, minerals, energy reserves, cultural centers, transportation hubs, capital, people, intellectual property, et al

207

Rettoper, dismissing all of my questions posted in good faith as semantics and bullshit is not sufficient to claim a good argument.

You’ve offered up ideas which directly contradict the propositions you said you agreed with. I think it is important if we’re to go any further that we resolve those contradictions, otherwise we will just be shouting past one another.

Also, you didn’t answer my question about theft which was very important to the debate. I would appreciate it if you could revisit my post at your soonest convenience. Thank you.–liberty student

arguments and rebuts based on semantic triflings is not sufficient to claim a good argument.

my assertion is simple,

the foundation of ancap society will be capitalism — not pacifism

hence if an investor, firm, or society believes that they can obtain a profit by using coercion to obtain valued resources – then coercion it is.

moreover, I have demonstrated why this is advantageous to society:

coercion is used to redirected mismanaged resources from inefficient enterprises to economically efficient enterprises.

for example, the owner of a valued resource (people, land, capital, et al) chooses to forego economic/monetary gain for some aesthetic goal. the owner foregoes drilling for oil because he values quiet walks in a pristine forest to the economic gain offered by oil drilling. Eventually, his land will be annexed by force since a economicallly motivated investor, firm, and society will judge the use of coercion profitable considering the previous owner had under utilized his resource and therefore under defended it.

if you consider it theft when a negligent owner is relieved of his property or resources and society has become more productive as a result – then theft it is.

for example, I would not consider the coercive overthrow of marxist cuba by anarcho-capitalists as theft. however, if you want to call it theft, that is your prerogative.

nonetheless, ancap society is not based on pacifism. It is based on profit.

208

If he doesn’t use it efficiently he goes broke and has to sell the resource.

209

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.

(Baseless assertion. Also, who is making the calculation as to what is “maximum”? It sounds to me like you’re just saying a wealthier company will always rob from slightly less wealthy companies ALL THE TIME. And isn’t the diversion of resources from production to plunder one of an inherently lower economic benefit than if they were to continue production on something that is apparently making them wealthier than the owner of resources you are suggesting they might attack? Wouldn’t that leave them open to attack themselves? Isn’t it much more economically beneficial to not attack someone and worry about oneself? Your premise says nothing.)

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

(So how far do you think you can go, robbing the people who are paying you for things? Eventually, people stop buying things from you, and you have less revenue with which to assemble the army you seem to think Facebook.com would employ.)

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.

(You know, below you make the case that you cannot rely on morality and good nature, and you appeal to subjectivism as a defense of this. Did it ever occur to you that it is the exact same thing to think in absolutes as to what people will do when there is a profit at stake? Did it ever occur to you that a PDA might not take a job that would harm a potential customer? Did it ever occur to you that just because morality won’t be the basis for every decision, perhaps neither will the chance of profit? Because, you know, people donate money to charities all the time. 'S pretty common, in fact. You are essentially looking at a box with a cat in it and saying, “You’re stupid because you think you can say for sure that the cat is dead, but there’s no way to prove it. And anyway, the cat is alive, because I said so.” At this point, there is simply nothing more to it. This is a witling’s argument. Remedial logic is my recommendation.)

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.

(You didn’t subtract the cost of corporate warfare, tough guy.)

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.

(You made two assertions without offering any proof. While I agree that anarchism is not always going to be peaceful (why the hell do you think people protect themselves to begin with? You yourself assumed that PDAs exist), you nevertheless offer no proof. In a summing up. What’s the critical-thinking version of “Were you born in a barn”?)

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.

(As pointed out above, you make the same assumption about profit motive.)

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

(I counter with “What formula did you use to determine whether a company that is making a profit is not using resources to maximum benefit?” Because, you know, if we assume someone is at maximum benefit in resource use, how do we know that someone just hasn’t come up with a better idea yet? Oops. Better pour a fortune into a manned assault.)

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

(They don’t. What’s your point?)

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

(Are you suggesting they do so by making objective value judgments? What does that even mean? Wouldn’t an assault on someone else for resources perceived–and the key word here is “perceived”–to be misused be a subjective value judgment? Isn’t the question of whether it is worthwhile to plunder something subjective? If not, why? Explain. Go on.)

according to the faith-based pacifist ancap, yes.

(Faith-based? Faith in what? Congratulations. You’re mediocre.)

I say no.

(He offers no further explanation. We call this an “opinion”, friend. Opinions, by the way, are subjective.)

210

If he doesn’t use it efficiently he goes broke and has to sell the resource.–emperorNero

It is possible and probable that negligent owners can still misallocate resources to less than maximum profit and still make a slight profit. Moreover, outright owners of valued resources can allow these resources to sit idle without threat of going broke.

For example, environmentalists acquire Saudi oil to prevent drilling.

211
  • It is possible and probable that negligent owners can still misallocate resources to less than maximum profit and still make a slight profit.

Yes, but their returns would be so low compared to everyone else (by necessity, since they misallocate resources) that they couldn’t raise funds and couldn’t innovate. As everybody else has who access to capital gets more efficient due to technological progress, they would have to use larger and larger shares of their ‘gold mine’ rents to maintain their infrastructure, while commodity prices go down because of progress. Eventually they’ll go broke and have to sell the resource. This is one of the basic processes of capitalism, that leads to resources being in the hands of those who use them efficiently. Lefties have a problem with that process, because they only see how poor farmers lose their homes to greedy bankers, see Capitalism: A Love Story. But all his this talk about underutilized resources is kind of besides the point, see next paragraph.

  • Moreover, outright owners of valued resources can allow these resources to sit idle without threat of going broke.
  • For example, environmentalists acquire Saudi oil to prevent drilling.

Now you’re talking about owners of resources who just plain don’t feel like exploiting them. There would be plenty of examples of that, in fact most people wouldn’t use their land to the fullest economic benefit. So there would be underutilized resources. So what? I see no reason this translates into low defenses. If someone is rich enough to forgo profits, he probably has the spare money for defenses.

But all this talk about underutilized resources and defenses is kind of besides the point anyways. Because there wouldn’t need to be defenses at all. So let’s just assume that no resource would be defended at all. You can ignore this post until here. Now you still have the task of showing that in a stateless society there would be a war for resources, i.e. that it’s profitable to steal resources. But nobody would go through the expense of maintaining a large military force to steal resources. It’s just not a profitable business model. I think I made a pretty solid argument that there wouldn’t be any sort of PDA with a significant military force, here and here. You directed me to this thread as a response, but I can’t really find anything that addresses that. (But the thread is long, so I guess I wouldn’t find it if it were here.)

As I mentioned in the other thread, having resources isn’t really that profitable any more. And it will become less profitable in the future. Pretty much all commodity prices in the free market go down, the real money is in manufacturing, knowledge, service, ideas, not natural resources. In the future owning resources will not be the kind of ‘gold mine’ you expect it to be.

I’m actually inclined to agree with your other argument, that constitutional republicanism is supposed to be cage where the power-hungry can consume themselves in constant competition for limited power while under our gaze. And that we might have a problem in anarchy because those people would be doing some destructive busywork. But the theory that there would be wars about resources; not so much. I would rather try to make the argument that anarchism possesses enough checks and balances to keep the power-hungry under control, that would be a much more realistic argument than the one about wars for oil fields.

212

It seems that his debate is missing a crucial point.

An entreprenuer who fails to afficiently use his/her resource will fail to be competitive, and thereby fall behind in the market.

He/she will be forced to maximize profits and eficiency in order to avoid bankruptcy, or will have to sell his/her property for sub-market price to recover at leat part of the loss.

No violence needs to be involved in order for this resource to be transfered to a more efficient entreprenuer.

213

Baseless assertion. Also, who is making the calculation as to what is “maximum”? – valject

The market. Owners who are negligent in managing their valued resources (and they are many in capitalist systems since 99.99% ultimately fail) will not have a level of security that matches the economic value of the resource .

however I have explained this in detail in previous posts

It sounds to me like you’re just saying a wealthier company will always rob from slightly less wealthy companies ALL THE TIME.–valject

strawman argument. I challenge you to produce a single post in which I stated ALL THE TIME. please read my posts.

coercion will be used when (1) peaceful exchange is not possible, (2) peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion, and (3) the transaction costs of coercion are less than the anticipated gain from annexing the valued resource.

And isn’t the diversion of resources from production to plunder one of an inherently lower economic benefit than if they were to continue production on something that is apparently making them wealthier than the owner of resources you are suggesting they might attack?–valjack

No.

the USA spends less than 5% on defense as a percentage of GDP, in contrast net profit within the economy is more than 5%/GDP. Using your logic, if an operating expense of more than 4% of total costs than it is not cost effective. This is an unsound assertion since by coercion and profit are integral components of a prosperous and dynamic free market

essentially, they create a dynamic in which valued resources must be utilized effectively or plunder and loss will result. society as a whole benefits.

Wouldn’t that leave them open to attack themselves? Isn’t it much more economically beneficial to not attack someone and worry about oneself? Your premise says nothing.–valjack

No. I dont think you understand the nature of force and coercion. Your thinking is from the pacifist perspective – pacifist are of no consequence since they dont know how to confront or wield force – hence they have no power. Your assertion that it isnt economically beneficial is wrong – in many cases it will be beneficial depending on the tenets I have repeatedly outline above and in previous posts.

moreover, if coercion was no effective, then why do statist maintain power despite the demonstrated failure of the system to generate wealth ?

INvestors and consumers generally dont make choices based on the promotion of pacifist beliefs. THe firms that are the most profitable, attract the most investment and consumers are the ones that are the most effective economically — not the most peaceful or nice.

in sum, consumers and investors who allocate capital based on aesthetic subjective value judgments like peace, fairness, justice, et al instead of profit will soon see their net worth decline to nothing.

capitalism = profit and nothing more. it could be accomplished by peaceful means, however when a conflict exists between peace and profit – guess who wins ?

maximal-capitalism is profit, not maximal-pacifism.

IN contrast, why are capitalist under seige despite their demonstrated ability to generate societal wealth and prosperity ?

in sum, statist know how to wield armed force and other coercive means – capitalist don’t.

So how far do you think you can go, robbing the people who are paying you for things? Eventually, people stop buying things from you, and you have less revenue with which to assemble the army you seem to think Facebook.com would employ-- valjack

investors, labor, and consumers are not going to invest in failed enterprises that cant defend their valued resources because of sympathy. moreover, the assertion that aggressive and successful firms are going to be vilified for being profitable has no standing logically or in the real world.

if your premise was correct, then why are the US and China global and regional hegemons when these nations are among the most violent ?

in sum, ancap society would be based on maximal-Ccapitalism not maximal-pacifism.

You didn’t subtract the cost of corporate warfare, tough guy. – valjack

cease the ad hominems or I will no longer waste my time dealing with you.

I did consider the costs of coercion – within an inefficient, wasteful, and corrupt politically connected liberal democracy, the military-industrial complex consumes less than 5% of GDP to maintain global hegemony. WIthin efficient and productive PDAs, the use of coercion would represent considerably less a percentage of operating revenue. Indeed, as I stated previously coercion will represent less costs than profit on the balance sheet.

You made two assertions without offering any proof. While I agree that anarchism is not always going to be peaceful (why the hell do you think people protect themselves to begin with? You yourself assumed that PDAs exist), you nevertheless offer no proof. --valjack

the best way to argue your point is absent emotion and invective. nonetheless, coercion is simply a means by which inefficient owners are relieved of their resources in the absence of peaceful means – hence society as a whole benefits. In contrast, pacifists would have inefficient and wasteful owners maintain control over under utilized resources and not suffer the consequences of poor managed simply because these pacifists have an aversion to a legitimate, oft used, and beneficial means to obtain desired and positive ends – coercion.

you are on the wrong side of history, logic, and human nature. essentially, your thinking is not guided by fact, logic, natural law, and empiricism — it is guided by subjective value judgments that you cannot enforce or defend in the real world.

I am not going to waste my time reading and responding to the rest of your post – it is getting too personal and mean-spirited. Read my posts, I have most likely covered your arguments in previous posts.

214

He/she will be forced to maximize profits and eficiency in order to avoid bankruptcy, or will have to sell his/her property for sub-market price to recover at leat part of the loss.

No violence needs to be involved in order for this resource to be transfered to a more efficient entreprenuer. – walter james

Owners of valued resources need not be entreprenuers, although they can be. My point is that if a valued resources is under utilized (a distinct possibilty), and if that resource is not for sale (a distinct possibility), and if coercion costs are less than the gain from annexing the resource (a distinct possibility or why has coercion been so pervasive in society irrespective of whether it is executed by public or private entitites)

then coercion it is .

215

I will end this debate quickly with the following challenge to valject.

Question for valjact:

is security needed in ancap society ?

will coercion be present in ancap society ?

after you respond to these questions we can proceed.

216

When has large-scale coercion by private enteties been worthwile without state barriers that made it artificially profitable?

217

Yes, but their returns would be so low compared to everyone else (by necessity, since they misallocate resources) that they couldn’t raise funds and couldn’t innovate. nero

there is a time preference involved. Many aggressive profit motivated actors are not going to sit around waiting for a mismanaged resource to fail.

As everybody else has who access to capital gets more efficient due to technological progress, they would have to use larger and larger shares of their ‘gold mine’ rents to maintain their infrastructure, while commodity prices go down because of progress. Eventually they’ll go broke and have to sell the resource. Nero

Not all owners of valued resources are in it to make money. many are motivated by some aesthetic goal – environmentalism, nationalism, egalitarianism, pacifism, culturalism, luddism et al.

Now you’re talking about owners of resources who just plain don’t feel like exploiting them. There would be plenty of examples of that, in fact most people wouldn’t use their land to the fullest economic benefit. So there would be underutilized resources. So what? I see no reason this translates into low defenses. If someone is rich enough to forgo profits, he probably has the spare money for defenses.-- Nero

this is where your house of cards collapses. If they were rich, they havent acted inefficiently. Your making the assumption that an actor can be both economically negligent and economically rich at the same time. Nonetheless, a formerly ‘rich’ actor would have to continue to act in an efficient manner or he would likely see his resources under greater risk of predation.

in sum, you need to effectively manage your resources or you will not have the means to defend them. of course, if you come to the table with wealth from past successes that temporarily negates risk. however, it is obvious that this business model of draining capital from past successes to defend under utilized resources in the present is not sustainable.

But all this talk about underutilized resources and defenses is kind of besides the point anyways. Because there wouldn’t need to be defenses at all. So let’s just assume that no resource would be defended at all. You can ignore this post until here. Now you still have the task of showing that in a stateless society there would be a war for resources, i.e. that it’s profitable to steal resources.-- Nero

then you are stating that security would not be necessary in ancap society !?!

would man suddenly become pious and pure ?

But nobody would go through the expense of maintaining a large military force to steal resources. It’s just not a profitable business model. I think I made a pretty solid argument that there wouldn’t be any sort of PDA with a significant military force, here and here.–Nero

how would you defend your resources against statists ?

moreover, how can you in all seriousness claim that coercion as a means to obtain economic gain cease from the human condition ?

dont you think this is utopian, naive, and empirically and logically unsound thinking ?

As I mentioned in the other thread, having resources isn’t really that profitable any more. And it will become less profitable in the future. Pretty much all commodity prices in the free market go down, the real money is in manufacturing, knowledge, service, ideas, not natural resources. In the future owning resources will not be the kind of ‘gold mine’ you expect it to be-- Nero

are you saying we dont need water, food, lithium, gold, land, steel, oil, wind, geothermal, labor, earth orbit, intellectual property, et al.

how about cruise missile, battle tanks, aircraft carriers, stealth bombers? how would your utopian society of ‘no resources’ deal with statists wieldng these weapons?

But the theory that there would be wars about resources; not so much. I would rather try to make the argument that anarchism possesses enough checks and balances to keep the power-hungry under control, that would be a much more realistic argument than the one about wars for oil fields.But the theory that there would be wars about resources; not so much. I would rather try to make the argument that anarchism possesses enough checks and balances to keep the power-hungry under control, that would be a much more realistic argument than the one about wars for oil fields.– Nero

the means to wage war (and POWER) are from mineral resources, energy reserves, labor, and manufacturing facilities – all capital intensive.

the bottom line is that statists are creatures who cannot compete effectively on the free market – hence they gain desired outcomes by alternate means, including coercion. ANcap society would need constant security to defend against this threat. However, there is no means within ancap society to forestall the emergence of a hegemon defense cartel within a region.

also, not everyone is motivated by economic goals, many are motivated by pacifism, egalitarianism, environmentalism, religion, nationalism, culturalism, et al. I dont see how these adherents are going to surrender power without a fight – hence you will always need security.

ancap society would quickly devolve into a series of territorial monopoly PDAs similar to today’s geopolitik.

unless as you say – resources dont matter in ancap society and statists will automatically become pure and just.

I just dont buy into that belief. Indeed, you could have isolated enclaves that are utterly peaceful, however they would quickly be overrun by more aggressive and violent profit driven enclaves and firms if their resources and land was of any value.

218

When has large-scale coercion by private enteties been worthwile without state barriers that made it artificially profitable? – Nero

This morning in libya, yesterday in bahrain, and last week in egypt.

and about 230 years ago in Boston and Virgina.

219

All these are states, not private entities.

220

All these are states, not private entities-- Nero

what state do the protestors represent?

of course, the protestors are private entities.

importantly note that out of the detritus of short-lived anarchy in these revolutions I guarantee that maximal-capitalism will not emerge.

In sum, the protests are private unrest motivated to improve the protestors economic condition – hence coercion to obtain economic ends.

doesnt that pretty much undermine your assertion that private entities are not coercive and that they wont use coercion to secure economic ends