seiben,
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).
this statement offers nothing to rebut my assertion that an under utilized, under defended valued resource will not be annexed by force from a profit motivated PDA funded by profit driven investors ?
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.
ancap society offers no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency of the PDA industry that would forestall the emergence of local, regional, and national hegemon cartel.
after this, the establishment of absolutism is assured in order to reduce the costs and conflict associated with competition among disparate PDAs.
It is chiefly because of this that we cannot have a state. A monopoly arbitrator must be avoided at all costs.
ancap society offers no substantive checks, balances, decentralization, or transparency of the arbitration industry that would forestall the emergence of local, regional, and national hegemon cartel.
in sum, profit is the motivation of the dominant PDAs and arbitration agencies.
PDAs and arbitration agencies that subordinate profits for some other goal will fail relative to profit driven enterprises.
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
trade has increased throughout recorded history, yet the frequency and severity of warfare has increased in parallel.
moreover, not all valued resources can be exchanged by peaceful means. often one or both actors will not trade – then coercion will be considered.
in sum, your assertion only applies when both parties volutarily submit to peaceful exchange. this is not always possible.
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.
if the price of security is bid up, then those owners of valued resources who have under utlized their resources will not have the capital to provide necessary defense.
You’re basically claiming that the market might have a shortage of security. There are no shortages on free markets.
no, there will never be a shortage. however, malinvesting owners of valued resources will not have the means to defend their property or resources.
Even people who just wanna make money do so by catering to aesthetic desires. A good example is plastic surgeons.
fine, you malinvest your money on improving your personal appearance then the likelihood your property will be annexed by force increases due to reduced expenditures on defense.
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.
you make the false assertion that every valued resource is for sale.
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.
true, the security industry in ancap society will be huge.
that increases the likelihood that a hegemon cartel will emerge and establish hegemon status.
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. – seiben
in this statement you are advocating a “profit driven” military in contrast to a military that invests in capital improvement .
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”.
in this statement you are advocating a military forego profits to invest in “gunz”
when you make-up your mind, I will respond.
in reality, the PDA that finds the most efficient balance between operations and capital improvements will emerge as one of the hegemon PDAs. nonetheless, these PDAs will look for underdefended valued resources to annex in order to increase profits to fund both operations and “gunz”
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…
if a society places trust and friendship ahead of profits, it wont be in power long.
why?
because a society that presupposes that it can reduce defense expenditures because of a subjective value judgment like friendship will have resources that are under defended due to an incalcuable “friendship” dividend.
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.
again, not all resources will be available for trade. moreover, if trade was a deterrent to conflict than this dynamic would be reflected in the global geopolitik (which has always been anarchic) — in contrast, as trade has increased so has conflict.
Depends on the stakes. I would say its worth a lot but difficult to procure.
your right,
ancap societies would devout substantial societal resources to defense. as a result, the PDA industry would be huge and conflict would be frequent.
I’ll pay for security till I benefit less from additional security than i would from spending money on something else.
obviously, you support my assertion that security is needed in ancap society. moreover, if it is required, then those individuals, firms, and societies that underfunded security would be subject to predation.
hence proving my assertion that underfunded, under utilized valued resources would be more likely to be annexed by force.
You can’t put an economic value on concepts, but you can put economic value on things that LEAD to those concepts.
it is intuitive that if an individual, firm, society spends more on satisfying aesthetic goals versus security then they risk predation at the hands of a more security oriented firm or society.
If ur not blowin stuff up, u got more stuff.
not so,
if the stuff you covet is not for sale.
then the only method to obtain it is by coercion.
