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 repeatedly – read my posts.
(But you failed to address the question in any way. Just saying “The Market” is not an answer. You are assuming that using a resource to the maximum benefit is shown by how much security one has to protect that resource rather than how much the owner is profitting by utilization/selling of a resource. Address this, please. You’re using the term “maximum benefit” in the same way that an anarcho communist throws around the world “average”. What is the balance, exactly, that you are claiming between the value of a resource and a level of security? If value is subjective, shouldn’t the level of security necessarily always change? And doesn’t that mean it’s not something that is so clear cut as you like to put it? I mean, what if I value an old sandwich at a security level of, say, fifty soldiers?)
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. 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.
(Not a strawman at all. It was quite implicit. You implied that a company that profits greater than others, allowing them to afford to buy a bigger army, would view how their less successful (even if they were, in fact, somewhat successful) competitors as misusing resources that they themselves could use. Therefore, pending the the impetus of said company, they would plunder their competitors. If your idea holds true, this would be as constant as there are A) successful companies, B) slightly less successful companies, and C) entrepreneurs willing to hire guns to steal from others. Since A and B are given in any society with a market, and we both concede that there are such people as C, that is precisely what you are saying, whether you put it into words or not.)
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 absurd 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.
(This entire blurb assumes that the USA operates the same way as a business. What makes you certain that such expenses would be equivalent? You assume defense costs to be the same as a country’s defense costs vs. GDP? What if it is a country of conscription? I mean, let’s put aside the whole problem of economic calculation involved in a public defense system as opposed to the private one. The USA pays for its defense forces by taxation. A country can tax too much. A business can only charge so much. So a percentage of the one versus the other is a difference of acquisition of funds via force as opposed to sales. On what deranged chart do the two cross over and point to a sum? They are not equivalent. If they are, show how. By all means.
I think you’ve missed something quite important. I posed a question asking if it would be less productive to invest in an army to plunder competitors rather than to improve services. I don’t deny for a minute that it’s possible to get a good gain through plunder in very specific circumstances. For instance, someone could be sitting on a pile of gold, and gold could be in high demand. If they don’t sell, and they aren’t defending it, or can’t defend it, then sure, someone could hire an army, steal it, and sell to meet demand for profit. But that’s a pretty specific situation, not to mention that ANY situation, not just the ones that are actually profitable, in which someone might use their wealth to plunder someone, has incredible blowback from many different directions. Funds and personnel are diverted from both production and defense of one’s own assets in the hopes of staging an assault. The one being assaulted may be a producer of something that is very popular, and people may boycott the attacker. The attacker might not actually put the resources to as “maximum” a benefit as they thought they could. The values of people desiring the resource in question may change. The original owner may seek vengeance. What if the person being attacked also produces something useful to the attacker? There’s a lot of good reasons here to just wait until the hoarder is forced to sell to get buy. If they absolutely won’t sell, sooner or later everyone else will put economic pressure on the to do so, perhaps choosing to boycott that person, too.)
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. You dont 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 ?
(You assume far too much. What makes you think I’m a pacifist? I don’t remember ever calling myself a pacifist. Why do you assume a pacifist doesn’t know how to wield force? And since when can’t a pacifist understand the nature of coercion? What do you think it is to wait until a company becomes insolvent to buy assets cheaply? A gun doesn’t have to be put to someone’s head to coerce them to sell at a lower price. The pacifist merely waits until the seller has no choice. You could say coercion has a dual-naturedness in that regard. It can be direct, or it can be like a game of chess, where you back the competition into a corner financially. That’s actually pretty powerful. Where do I assert that it isn’t economically beneficial to steal by force? As a personal opinion, I believe that there are times when it is, and there are times when it isn’t. You can at least acknowledge that stealing is not always beneficial, can’t you? I merely raised the question of whether a businessman, in a world that you describe, where he is under the threat of being assaulted for his assets, is better off not trying to attack someone else in order to defend his own resources. The only case in which my question isn’t valid would be if the person or company in question was “top dog”, so to speak. The perceived most efficient company, with the most wealth and the greatest ability to pay for an army, is the only one who doesn’t face that situation. Certainly we’re not limiting the discussion of a company’s use of force to this one entity? After all, they are so wealthy that they can just defend themselves and keep doing good business. Perhaps they get the notion to plunder once in a while, just for kicks, but at the top, why bother?)
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.
(I don’t remember ever saying that pacifism was a driving factor in business decisions. Perhaps it is sometimes. I don’t deny that either. But quite frankly, business is business. Just because pacifism isn’t a driving force doesn’t mean it never plays a role. Being violent isn’t always a driving force in business decisions, and you’re certainly not throwing that one to the wind in this discussion. Otherwise your whole idea comes to a screeching halt.)
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.
(So using force isn’t also a subjective business decision? You’re implying that heavily. Violence is every bit as aesthetic as peace. Can you prove that there is not a single business that can’t prosper by being peaceful? Because I’m pretty sure Google hasn’t gone to war with anyone lately. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and say that government prevents them from doing so, but that just goes to show that peacefully approaching business is possible. Of course, I don’t see where justice and fairness fit into this conversation at all. I don’t think anyone was claiming that a company would be better off redistributing their wealth than plundering another company.)
capitalism = profit and nothing more. it could be accomplished by peaceful means, however when a conflict exists between peace and profit – guess who wins ?
(Prove that one always wins over the other. I could punch my best friend and take his wallet. I’d say that peace has every bit as much a chance to win as profit, as long as profits can be made in other ways. Now, if we somehow formulate a world where it is impossible to profit but for stealing, then I totally agree with you. But that’s just because self-preservation is a powerful driving force.)
maximal-capitalism is profit, not maximal-pacifism.
(Define your terms? What is maximal-capitalism? What is maximal-pacifism? I mean, it’s either capitalism or it isn’t. It’s either pacifism or it isn’t. And again, where am I saying I’m a pacifist? Where am I waving a pacifist banner and saying “Everything will be peachy and people will automatically never hurt each other!”? All I’m saying is that the situation you’ve described isn’t the impenetrable wall of logic you prescribe it to be.)
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 here you’re saying that successful businesses WON’T wield force? Which side are you on again? I mean, even I won’t go so far as to say that successful companies are full of angels who would do no harm. That’s every bit as ludicrous as saying it will always happen, inevitably. So I guess what you meant to say is the exact opposite: Those who DON’T have the means to use things efficiently will rob from those who do. Well, no argument here. I pay social security, after all.)
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 absurd assertion that aggressive and successful firms are going to be vilified for being profitable has no standing logically or in the real world.
(So why do so many people talk about the evils of Wal-mart? No, I should stop there…that’s enough…but I just can’t control myself sometimes. Are you saying that no one EVER villifies things that successful firms do? I’ll tell you what’s absurd. You just said, above, that capitalists are always under attack by statists. I mean, really. You’re doing somersaults from one standpoint to the next. And you make another assertion above: That people are going to invest in enterprises based on the level of security they have. First, why would anyone invest in a failed enterprise? I’ll assume that’s an error in word order…forget that. But if the company being attacked was successful in the first place…and people make investments based on ability to defend resources…then aren’t they well defended?)
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.
(I thought it was based on free trade? And what do states have to do as proof to what you are trying to get across?)
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.
(It’s not ad hominem if I also attack the argument, which I did quite succinctly. You did not subtract the cost. You “considered” the cost. The point exactly being that you CANNOT subtract the cost, because you don’t know it. You are not only assuming it will be worth the cost, you’re comparing it to an unrelated system and an unrelated situation. Do you think that all costs for defense are going to fall in the same range, percentage wise versus profits, as the military industrial complex shows versus GDP? Can you show how you arrived at this conclusion? You are also making the assertion about the costs of hiring a PDA. Here’s a situation. Did it ever occur to you that the price to hire for assault as opposed to defense of one’s own property might be higher? Sure, you can probably find a company willing to risk its reputation as a defender of assets and attack someone like hired goons…but don’t you think the price of service is going to go up when they have to acquire such a reputation? I can’t prove that it will, but neither can you prove that it won’t. And what if they perceive the value in the assault being launched, and raise their price given the circumstances that the hiring company stands to gain a good profit? And wouldn’t this be a boon to the strictly defensive PDA market? Wouldn’t more people, seeing these attacks happening, invest in defense, thus increasing the amount and competitiveness of defensive agencies? Competitive pricing will make such service much more acquirable than hiring an assault team, won’t it? If we’re just going to throw around some current comparisons, it costs a lot more to hire a killer than a bodyguard. But hey, I won’t say that this proves anything. After all, there will be differing circumstances that I can’t put into calculation. I can, however, consider. And I know the difference.)
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.
(What about the benefits of whatever the inefficient owner had to offer? Again, this person could still be making a profit at something, and just happens to be holding a resource that someone else thinks could be useful. Is attacking that person and taking that resource, scaring away their workers and possibly doing damage to property of any benefit? What if that person was making socks and happened to have oil. Someone wants the oil, but the owner doesn’t want to sell. So they go in, fire some bullets, damage some machines, and scare off workers. Now this guy has oil, and if his guess is right he can do something with the oil for profit. However, people have left their job making socks, and damage to machines is causing less socks to be made. So society is shorted socks. What if winter is coming soon?)
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 make the assumption that anyone who isn’t a pacifist would murder their own mother for a buck. You also think the pacifist wouldn’t put pressure on someone to sell. It’s possible to not sell in turn, thus making it difficult to live so long as the owner of a resource won’t trade. And just how often will anyone sit on a valuable resource anyway? Especially after going broke? It’s not impossible, but is this something you think would be a common occurence? And that has to cross another line on the graph representing someone who would actually have a use for the resource AND has the money for a strike force. In fact, if this idiot goes bankrupt while having gold bricks laying around, force is hardly even necessary. Run up and take the gold without hiring anyone. Certainly that is more efficient than hiring a strike force. At least…providing you know the owner isn’t carrying. Oh, yes. Very important point. If that person is leaving himself open to such a situation as being plundered, isn’t it his responsibility? You talk about how it’s legitimate, which is a subjective notion, so you can’t prove that. You say “oft used” with complete disregard for the fact that the choice to use force is also situational and subjective, and you throw around the term “beneficial” like you have some magic knowledge of what’s best for society, for a company, for a defense firm, etc. And then, with zero proof, you say it is a positive end. Hey, it’s not the best analogy, but potassium cyanide can help you crap if you need to. But there are other effects that should probably be taken into account.)
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.
(Funny that…I’ve been saying the exact same thing about your arguments. Oh, and explaining my assertions. What’s not subjective about what you are saying? If my claim that other ways to deal with the situation exist, and you say that I am on the wrong side of things in all those regards, then you imply that history, logic, and human nature has never shown any form of a peaceful transaction. I’d say there’s been a lot of peaceful AND coercive things, even in the most extreme historical texts. And I certainly don’t go around touting peace to be “legitimate” like it’s a given.)
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.
(It STARTED mean spirited. Not personal, though. Egypt was personal. You’re just passing practice. I’m exactly the type of person you are referring to, in fact. I’m the unforgiving capitalist. And a good businessman keeps on top of his game. And I don’t care about your other posts if your argument is here. If you can answer me in other posts. Link them. Or don’t. None of this matters to me a hair, sir. I’m exercising my mind and having fun doing so. Terribly sorry to say, but the world isn’t all peace-loving, just, and fair people.)
