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

Economics Political Theory
61

If an object cannot be obtained by peaceful means, then we can only assume that it already is at its highest state of productivity. If the object’s value is re-located by coercive means it does not necessarily follow that it’s now going to be placed into it’s most productive state. Individuals in society were not willing to pay the price for said resource, and instead decided to rob the owner of his wealth.

So I don’t understand why your stuck here. If the resource is not for sale, the owner recognize’s his opportunity cost, recognize the potential value. He’s willing to pay for that, and society is not willing to pay a high enough price to justify aquisition. If society(individuals) are not willing to pay the price for said resource, then we can only assume that said “insecticide”, in the eyes of other individuals, is not as important as you had thought.

62

This is a peripheral issue. The point is that anarchy doesn’t under-produce security.

The distinction between guns and butter is false. It’s all butter. I want a backrub so I can feel better. I want guns and security so I can feel better (because I want to live).

If some of my employees were monks, it wouldn’t matter. “Aestheticly” motivated people still work and produce stuff that other people want.

But I’m saying that profits ARE aesthetic goals.

The people with the greatest returns, yes. But if a company went out and spent a ton of money on men with guns, they’d have the best military might, at least for a short time.

It won’t cause a shortage of security. We already agree on that. Security will be bid up (or down) to its marginal price. In reality, this translates into buying the bare minimum amount of security.

You can be actively defensive though.

In the status quo, we are cattle.

Ah but I don’t want it to be a monopoly or attack innocent people… These kinds of fraternal societies had voluntary membership. They served as reputation holders, or “brand names” for their members.

You misunderstand. I want property rights to arise via non-aggressive social mechanisms. They can be defended using force, but force ought not to be initiated.

63

seiben,

This is a peripheral issue. The point is that anarchy doesn’t under-produce security.

it is fundamental to my argument. namely that ancap society will be prone to violence and invest huge sums of money into the security industry.

however, these traits will not negatively impact security – coercion will reallocate resources to economically efficient and productive uses by forcing economically inefficient enterprises to change their business model or risk predation.

The distinction between guns and butter is false. It’s all butter. I want a backrub so I can feel better. I want guns and security so I can feel better (because I want to live).

after securing base needs (shelter, food, water, et al) security is paramount. A society devoted to aesthetic pleasures will soon be extinct by more profit driven societies who in turn will have more capital to devote to security.

no, it isnt butter.

It is guns and butter in balance depending on the ongoing risk assessment.

If some of my employees were monks, it wouldn’t matter. “Aestheticly” motivated people still work and produce stuff that other people want.

if they are motivated by profit, then yes those citizens that provide consumer goods will be a net benefit to society. However, when “monks” are motivated by some other goal then economic profitability, then society’s ability to increase economic strength is negatively impact and with it the ability to accumulate capital that is essential to fund, research, train, equip, and operate a strong military

But I’m saying that profits ARE aesthetic goals.

absolutely not.

an egalitarian who rejects profit by retaining inefficient employees on his payroll is sacrificing profit for equality of outcome.

an environmentalist who rejects drilling or mining on his land to preserve the view is not concerned with profit.

a nationalist who prevents the economic exploitation of his land to preserve a historic site is not motivated by profit.

a socialist who transfers his resources to a politically connected individual or enterprises instead of a economically efficient enterprises is motivated by the acquisition of power.

obviously, infinite examples exist to rebut your assertion that not all men are motivated by profit.

You yourself have stated your desire to place aesthetic goals ahead of profit. Ancaps that place a premium on peaceful coexistance reject the utility of coercion as a viable and legitimate means to obtain profit, therefore pacifist ancaps will be less able to project power then pure ancaps

I have also placed aesthetic goals ahead of profit by promoting liberal democracy at the expense of unbridled capitalism because I believe that liberal democracy offers the best defense against the emergence of absolutism and unbridled statism.

The people with the greatest returns, yes. But if a company went out and spent a ton of money on men with guns, they’d have the best military might, at least for a short time.

you agree with me then.

to paraphrase nathan bedford forrest – “the firstest with the mostest wins the battle”

meaning that the first to achieve hegemony will have a significant advantage over competitors.

It won’t cause a shortage of security. We already agree on that. Security will be bid up (or down) to its marginal price. In reality, this translates into buying the bare minimum amount of security.

irrespective of the market price for security at any given time, those individual, firms, and societies that are the most profit driven will have the most overall economic strength that will be used to overtake firms that dilute economic prosperity with non-economic aesthetic goal seeking.

You can be actively defensive though.

the geopolitik and mankind in general is always dynamic and growing.

building a maginot line and hoping that more aggressive actors wont grow strong enough to eventually overtake your static defenses and conservative business plan is a ticket for disaster.

successful individuals, firms, and societies act, they do not react to threats.

In the status quo, we are cattle.

cattle are led to the slaughter house without resistance and ignorant.

Liberal democrats are armed with eyes open – they are the most dangerous threat to statism that has yet emerged. In contrast, statists have attempted to usurp democracy from within – however these schemes have already been uncovered and the house of cards that is the welfare state is unsustainable and crumbling even in the areas of the globe where it was once strongest (europe, china, india, et al). Moreover, liberal democrats do not presume that the threat of statism and absolutism disappears with a temporary removal of government. They are constantly seeking ways to circumvent the schemes of the statists.

Ah but I don’t want it to be a monopoly or attack innocent people… These kinds of fraternal societies had voluntary membership. They served as reputation holders, or “brand names” for their members.

since 1776, liberal democracy has expanded from a few on an undeveloped continent to hundreds of millions in all corners of the globe.

If reputation and “brand name” is a sign of success — anarchism has none.

liberal democracy despite its correctable flaws is still ascendant. I dont advocate the removal of the most effective tool yet developed by man to counter absolutism and statism for an unproven and unpopular system.

while “appeals to popularity” are anathama to the physical sciences and economics — they are essential to politics.

You misunderstand. I want property rights to arise via non-aggressive social mechanisms. They can be defended using force, but force ought not to be initiated.

what you want is irrelevent if you cant defend it.

wanting peace and justice without the economic means to enforce both are empty goals.

64

Still don’t understand praxeology?

65

Still don’t understand praxeology? — libertystudent

what is the praxeological a priori that rebuts my assertions?

remember, no strawmen.

rebut MY assertions, not those you manufacture.

66

what is the praxeological a priori that rebuts my assertions

Psychic profit and loss.

From Human Action:

The difference between the value of the price paid (the costs incurred) and that of the goal attained is called gain or profit or net yield. Profit in this primary sense is purely subjective, it is an increase in the acting man’s happiness, it is a psychical phenomenon that can be neither measured nor weighed.

Also see chapter XV.

Rothard also mentions it in The Ethics of Liberty:

An employer may refuse to make such exchanges for many reasons, and there are none but subjective criteria to enable Hayek to use the term “arbitrary.” Why is one reason any more “arbitrary” than another? If Hayek means to imply that any reasons other than maximizing monetary profit are “arbitrary” then he ignores the insight that people, even in business, act to maximize their “psychic” rather than monetary profit, and that such psychic profit may include all sorts of values, none of which is more or less arbitrary than another.

So, to take your second example:

an environmentalist who rejects drilling or mining on his land to preserve the view is not concerned with profit.

Praxeologically, the environmentalist who rejects drilling or mining on his land is more concerned with his psyche than his wallet, as, he feels, it will increase his happiness (i.e. profit).

67

angurse,

none of the sources you have provided rebut any of the assertions I have made throughout this thread.

Please take the time to read my posts (not just the last one) before commenting. (semantic quibbling aside, it is obvious to any who have followed this thread that my use of “profit” in many of the previous posts is based on economic profit)

I have acknowledged numerous times that aesthetic or psychic goals can bring “profit” to the owner of a valued resource who exploits his property for other than economic gain.

However, I have pointed out numerous times that utilizing a valued resource to obtain aesthetic/ psychic rather than economic profit does not provide a level of economic return commensurate with the ecomomic value of the resource. Hence, the valued resource will be underdefended – and more likely annexed by force from an investor/PDA that covets the valued resource for its economic utility versus its “psychic” profit.

In turn, the new owner who is primarily motivated by economic goals with now have the wherewithal to defend the resource thereby reducing the level of conflict in society — equally important is that the new owner will exploit the valued resource for its economic worth thereby increasing overall societal productivity and wealth. A heretofore under utilized valued resource will now benefit society to a greater degree economically

hence maximal-capitalism, as opposed to maximal-aestheticism.

in sum, i have supported the praxeological notion that psychic goals are subjective and desired by all actors in varying degrees. however, aesthetic or psychic goals versus economic goals do not provide for the men, material, and training required to protect a valued resource from predation.

I would recommend you go back and read the thread in its entirety before making comments based on my latest posts.

moreover, I dont want to get into an argument in sematics over my use of the word “profit” — generally when I use the word “profit” I am describing economic profit versus aesthetic or psychic profit – if you are unsure of its specific use, check with me for clarification, dont assume.

68

I have acknowledged numerous times that aesthetic or psychic goals can bring “profit” to the owner of a valued resource who exploits his property for other than economic gain.

Great! Start using the term profit correctly. As statements like “an environmentalist who rejects drilling or mining on his land to preserve the view is not concerned with profit.” are false from a praxeological stand-point.

However, I have pointed out numerous times that utilizing a valued resource to obtain aesthetic/ psychic rather than economic profit does not provide a level of economic return commensurate with the ecomomic value of the resource. Hence, the valued resource will be underdefended – and more likely annexed by force from an investor/PDA that covets the valued resource for its economic utility versus its “psychic” profit.

The latter sentence doesn’t follow from the former. First, it must be stated that value isn’t defended, its judgement is nothing more than the outcome of mental phenomena of individuals. So to say the value was under-defended or over-defended is nonsensical. Moving back, to say that the assets would be under-defended because the owner only valued their aesthetic qualities whereas a rogue PDA valued their potential utility is to make a praxeological error, since you cannot measure how much either party desires the resource. As Mises said:

Profit and loss in this original sense are psychic phenomena and as such not open to measurement and a mode of expression which could convey to other people precise information concerning their intensity.

In short: The environmentalist could find so much satisfaction in his trees that hes willing to go to greater lengths to defend them. There isn’t a way to determine who would do more for them.

In turn, the new owner who is primarily motivated by economic goals with now have the wherewithal to defend the resource thereby reducing the level of conflict in society — equally important is that the new owner will exploit the valued resource for its economic worth thereby increasing overall societal productivity and wealth. A heretofore under utilized valued resource will now benefit society to a greater degree economically

There isn’t a conflict with society, there was a conflict between two agents on how to best utilise resources. However, this analysis completely ignores the economic concept of optimal conservation. Due to the fact that resources are scarce, the increase of the supply by the new seller would result in less monetary profits, and faster consumption of the resource. The capital value will be depleted. More importantly, in the long-run, total oil would be consumed faster resulting in a latter period of increased prices, undoing many of its positive effects. Murray Rothbard gave a good lecture on Conservation and Property.

hence maximal-capitalism, as opposed to maximal-aestheticism.

Capitalism isn’t the immediate consumption of resources, its an economic system based off of the private ownership of resources. With this correct understanding of capitalism in mind either owners property being completely respected would constitute “maximal-capitalism.” Murray Rothbard gave a good lecture on the capitalist benefits of conservation

however, aesthetic or psychic goals versus economic goals do not provide for the men, material, and training required to protect a valued resource from predation.

Goals don’t provide men, economic or aesthetic. A goal is nothing more than an intention..

69

angurse,

Great! Start using the term profit correctly. As statements like “an environmentalist who rejects drilling or mining on his land to preserve the view is not concerned with profit.” are false from a praxeological stand-point.

You need to seek clarification on my use of the term, as I stated if you are in doubt, dont assume. Otherwise your arguments is based solely on semantic diversions.

First, it must be stated that value isn’t defended, its judgement is nothing more than the outcome of mental phenomena of individuals.

you dont understand my argument in the least, presumably this is another exercise in sematics

Namely, a valued resource must be defended if it is coveted by another individual, firm, or society. Moreover, if that valued resource has not been effectively exploited for economic gain then the owner will not have the requisite capital needed to defend the resources with forces commensurate to its economic value.

So to say the value was under-defended or over-defended is nonsensical. (emphasis added)

again you are engaged in an exercise in semantics – in this case, you have incorrectly equated value with economically valued resources.

again, if the owner of a valued resource does not exploit the economic utility of his resource effectively irrespective of how much he personally appreciates the resource, he will not have the requisite capital available to defend it from predation.

In sum, value judgments that dont lead to an effective and efficient economic exploitation of a valued resource will lead to less capital for defense, hence utilizing a valued resource for its aesthetic value versus it’s economic value will increase the likelihood that the resource will be annex by force since the less capital will be available for security.

Moving back, to say that the assets would be under-defended because the owner only valued their aesthetic qualities whereas a rogue PDA valued their potential utility is to make a praxeological error, since you cannot measure how much either party desires the resource.

an owner who did not effectively exploit a valued resource’s economic utility would have less economic capital available to defend that resource. In contrast, the owner who effectively and efficiently exploited the resource for economic gain would have the capital to defend the resource, thereby deterring predation.

using your logic, it is not important that a valued resources be defended – only that the owner appreciates the aesthetic or psychic value of the resource.

I’m sorry to burst your bubble, but appreciation for a valued resource’s aesthetic qualities wont prevent tanks, bombers, battleships, et al from taking it if an investor and his PDA of choice covet the resource for its economic value that you have not efffectively exploited for economic profit driven motives.

In short: The environmentalist could find so much satisfaction in his trees that hes willing to go to greater lengths to defend them. There isn’t a way to determine who would do more for them.

In short, the environmentalist may be committed to defending his resource, however he would not have the economic/material means to do so because he promoted aesthetic values over economic values in determining his favored use of the valued resource.

hence, the environmentalist would not have the economic means available to defend the valued resource if its economic utility was denied from production. IN contrast, the investor(s) who recognized the economic value of the resource would be incentivised to take it by force if peaceful means were not available. Society would benefit economically since a heretofore under utilized economic resource would now be in production.

moreover, since the valued resource was not being exploited effectively for economic gain, then the owner would not have the resources needed to provide a measure of defense commensurate to the economic value of the resource.

There isn’t a conflict with society, there was a conflict between two agents on how to best utilise resources.

one agent places aesthetic “profit” ahead of economic profit.

read my previous posts - the actor motivated by economic profit will have a stronger military.

I make no judgment on which actor is happier or healthier – nor do I make any judgment on whether a society that is devoted to aesthetic or economic “profits” will be the better one.

I am merely stating the obvious — namely that an actor motivated by economic profit will be economically more powerful than an actor motivated by aesthetic profit. IN turn, economic strength will result in more capital for war making capability.

However, this analysis completely ignores the economic concept of optimal conservation. Due to the fact that resources are scarce, the increase of the supply by the new seller would result in less monetary profits, and faster consumption of the resource. The capital value will be depleted. More importantly, in the long-run, total oil would be consumed faster resulting in a latter period of increased prices, undoing many of its positive effects. Murray Rothbard gave a good lecture on Conservation and Property.

strawman,

rothbard’s lecture has nothing to do with rebutting may assertion that economically motivated actors will possess more economic capital than actors motivated more by aesthetic valuations. Moreover, the economically motivated actor(s) will have more capital available to defend resources and project power.

Capitalism isn’t the immediate consumption of resources, its an economic system based off of the private ownership of resources. With this correct understanding of capitalism in mind either owners property being completely respected would constitute “maximal-capitalism.” Murray Rothbard gave a good lecture on the capitalist benefits of conservation

absurd, by using this “logic” we dont need PDAs since every valued resource that was being wasted and denied to society from maximum economic production could be prevented from attack by the “correct understanding” from pacifists.

your interpretation of maximal-capitalism is wrong – it is not based on pacifism AND capitalism

it is based solely on capitalism irrespective of the means used to obtain economic wealth.

if economic profits can be obtain by coercion when peaceful means are not available, then coercion it is. of course, peaceful means are the preferred method of exchanging valued resources, however if an actor refuses to part with his inefficiently managed valued resource for economic reasons – he will soon see his property annexed by coercion since he has not the capital to defend it relative to its economic value.

moreover, if individuals, firms, and societies promoted pacifist values ahead of capitalist values – then those of the pacifist camp would soon see whatever valued resources they held be transferred to those actors motivated by economic profit seeking.

Goals don’t provide men, economic or aesthetic. A goal is nothing more than an intention..

another exercise in sematic diversion or you completely misunderstood the substance of my posts and this thread.

if the “goal” of an actor is to defend his valued resource — then he needs the material means to do so.

if this actor has not effectively exploited his valued resource’s economic value then he is less likely to have the capital and the means to defend this resource from more profit driven actors (economic profit driven actors for the semantically challenged)

In sum, many of the ancaps on this site are of the mistaken opinion that maximal-capitalist society really means maximal-pacifist society or maximal-aestheticist society.

maximal-capitalist society will primarily be driven by the pursuit of economic profit at the expense of more aesthetic valuations since those that subordinate economic profit over some other consideration will not have the capital to defend their valued economic resources. Indeed, aesthetically driven actors may be happier and healthier, however they will not have the economic means to project power and preserve material wealth and personal security.

of course, they can still pray for peace and “correct understanding” of pacifist beliefs.

for semantic purists:

capital = economic resources

profit = economic gain

valued resources = economically valued resource

aesthetic = non-economic goals

70

in the event that the owner of a valued resources being inefficiently managed does not want to sell – then coercion is the only means available to insure that the resource changes ownership and is more efficiently exploited to the overall benefit of society.

This is an error. The benefit of the use of said resource cannot be measured. It is impossible to prove that the loss of the original owner will be less then the benefit to others.

71

This is an error. The benefit of the use of said resource cannot be measured. It is impossible to prove that the loss of the original owner will be less then the benefit to others. --jackcuyler

wrong,

the market can determine if a valued resource has not been effectively exploited for ecomomic gain since the former owner will see his property annexed by coercion.

Why?

because the economically negligent owner will not have the material means to defend the land from investors who recognize the economic value of the resource and see that it is under defended as a result of under utilization.

moreover, we can accurately measure the economic output of any valued resource and compare these outputs among different owners each motivated by different goals.

if the original aesthetically driven owner earned fees through renting the use of his land to photographers, hunters, hikers, et al — we could compare those revenues with the profit driven owner who earned revenue through oil drilling.

within maximal-capitalist society, the more economically efficient enterprise would be the one that ancap society would adopt. Indeed, if alternative energy sources became available then the economically more profitable use for the land might revert to what many consider aesthetically pleasing revenue streams, nonetheless irrespective of how the valued resource is used – guns or butter – the most profitable enterprise will be the one that is most likely .

72

This is an error. The benefit of the use of said resource cannot be measured. It is impossible to prove that the loss of the original owner will be less then the benefit to others. --jackcuyler

This is really an absurd statement since it implies that actors within maximal-capitalist society cannot accurately make judgments on the economic value of a resource.

your statement implies that there is the problem of economic calculation within ancap society.

maybe I misinterpreted your statement, however dont tell me that profit driven actors in ancap society cant judge value when making decision on whether to acquire a valued resource.

73

Still not understanding praxeology …

74

This is really an absurd statement since it implies that actors within maximal-capitalist society cannot accurately make judgments on the economic value of a resource.

your statement implies that there is the problem of economic calculation within ancap society.

Not at all. The problem lies in the fact that all value is subjective. I don’t think you’ve fully accepted that. The market price reflects an amalgam the value preferences of a group, but it is still sujective. If I value a resource more or less than the amalgam does, this does not make me wrong. I will simply refuse to trade that resource. My subjective value preference is no less valid than anyone else’s.

Take a real world example. I love my car. The market price for my car is about $2,000. I would not even consider selling it for $3,000. This does not make me “wrong”, as the car has no objective value. The market price is every bit as subjective as my preference.

maybe I misinterpreted your statement, however dont tell me that profit driven actors in ancap society cant judge value when making decision on whether to acquire a valued resource.

I should have said this earlier, but “society” can’t do anything, including judge value; only individuals can. Further, it is impossible to compare the value different individuals assign to an object unless a trade is made.

Say that a community is made up of 100 individuals. An object, X, is owned by person A, who values it greatly. The market price for object X is 10 Y’s. 99 people in the community more or less agree that one X is worth 8-12 Y’s. Person A disagress. He values his X more than the others, and would not part with it no matter how many Y’s are offered. If his X is taken from him by force, for the betterment of the other 99 people, how are we to assess A’s loss? Without a willing trade, there is simply no way to determine how much A values his X, nor if he values it more or less than “society” does.

75

You need to seek clarification on my use of the term, as I stated if you are in doubt, dont assume. Otherwise your arguments is based solely on semantic diversions.

I apologise for assuming you used words correctly.

Namely, a valued resource must be defended if it is coveted by another individual, firm, or society.

So you admit you used the term value incorrectly now? As saying valued resource doesn’t equal your blanket of value.

Moreover, if that valued resource has not been effectively exploited for economic gain then the owner will not have the requisite capital needed to defend the resources with forces commensurate to its economic value.

This is just a poor assumption on your own part. 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.

again you are engaged in an exercise in semantics – in this case, you have incorrectly equated value with economically****valued resources.

No, that would be you in this case, as I actually made the point of drawing a distinction between economically valued resources (or “assets”) and value itself.

In sum, value judgments that dont lead to an effective and efficient economic exploitation of a valued resource will lead to less capital for defense, hence utilizing a valued resource for its aesthetic value versus it’s economic value will increase the likelihood that the resource will be annex by force since the less capital will be available for security.

You are just repeating the same refuted assertion. Do you have any proof?

using your logic, it is not important that a valued resources be defended – only that the owner appreciates the aesthetic or psychic value of the resource.

If the owner appreciated the psychic value of his resources he would undoubtedly defend it.

read my previous posts - the actor motivated by economic profit will have a stronger military.

I’ve read them, you’ve yet to actually prove your claim, its hollow.

absurd, by using this “logic” we dont need PDAs since every valued resource that was being wasted and denied to society frommaximum economic production could be prevented from attack by the “correct understanding” from pacifists.

Right, the perfect capitalist society world wouldn’t need PDA’s, nor would it need locks, chains, or keys. All of that capital sadly has to be allocated differently, resulting in less than maximum production. Theft is the antithesis of capitalism.

your interpretation of maximal-capitalism is wrong – it is not based on pacifism AND capitalism

You can try “semantic diversions if you wish”, but I never mentioned pacifists, I simply pointed out what capitalism is (by definition) and how it would be maximized. Nothing in

it is based solely on capitalism irrespective of the means used to obtain economic wealth.

Yes, the means are private property. Theft, destruction, and other forms of aggression are all anti-capitalist means.

however if an actor refuses to part with his inefficiently managed valued resource for economic reasons – he will soon see his property annexed by coercion since he has not the capital to defend it relative to its economic value.

Yet, as Rothbard pointed out, you don’t know that his valued resources are being managed inefficiently. In fact, him not exploiting his land may well be the more efficient thing to do at the time.

In sum, many of the ancaps on this site are of the mistaken opinion that maximal-capitalist society really means maximal-pacifist society or maximal-aestheticist society.

Your summation is, of course, a straw-man. It rests on a poor understanding of capitalism.
The basis of capitalism is the private ownership of capital. Annexing property undermines private ownership, therefore any idea that capitalism, no less maximal-capitalism, is essential or beneficial is a complete contradictio in terminis.

76

Rettoper,

You are clearly not studying the concept of the unhampered market. What have you read that caused you to go down the path you’re on? Do you have a favorite author? A favorite book that really opened the door for you?

I truly would like to know the source from which your knowledge sprang.

I disagree with everything you say, but I would like to know where all of this is coming from.

77

angurse,

I apologise for assuming you used words correctly

So you admit you used the term value incorrectly now? As saying valued resource doesn’t equal your blanket of value.

more semantic diversions

Moreover, if that valued resource has not been effectively exploited for economic gain then the owner will not have the requisite capital needed to defend the resources with forces commensurate to its economic value.–Rettoper

This is just a poor assumption on your own part.–angurse

the notion that it is a “poor assumption” to state that an ineffectively managed resource will provide less capital for defense is manifestly absurd.

No, that would be you in this case, as I actually made the point of drawing a distinction between economically valued resources (or “assets”) and value itself.

another semantic diversion

In sum, value judgments that dont lead to an effective and efficient economic exploitation of a valued resource will lead to less capital for defense, hence utilizing a valued resource for its aesthetic value versus it’s economic value will increase the likelihood that the resource will be annex by force since the less capital will be available for security–Rettoper

You are just repeating the same refuted assertion. Do you have any proof?–angurse

again, if you dont understand the basic concept that an inefficiently managed resource will lead to less revenue which in turn will lead to less capital for security — then I cant help you since it doesnt get any simpler than that.

If the owner appreciated the psychic value of his resources he would undoubtedly defend it.

strawman,

my assertions are based on economics.

irrespective of how much an owner “appreciates” his resource, if the owner does not effectively manage his resource for economic gain — that owner will have less capital available for defense.

read my previous posts - the actor motivated by economic profit will have a stronger military.–Rettoper

I’ve read them, you’ve yet to actually prove your claim, its hollow.-angurse

If you dont understand the simple concept that military power must be funded,

and that an actor motivated by economic goals as opposed to aesthetic goals will have more capital to provide for security all other factors being equal

then I cant help you.

Right, the perfect capitalist society world wouldn’t need PDA’s, nor would it need locks, chains, or keys. Theft is the antithesis of capitalism.

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.

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.

All of that capital sadly has to be allocated differently, resulting in less than maximum production.

not all valued resources are open for peaceful exchange. when an individual, firm, or society economically mismanages a valued resource then it is beneficial to overall societal economic productivity to have the inefficiently managed resource change hands to a more effective manager.

peaceful coercion is the preferred manner, however not all mismanaged resources will be available for peaceful exchange.

for example, an environmentalist who witholds billions of barrels of oil from society so he can enjoy his view has made society as a whole less economically productive than it would be otherwise. The investor who annexed the resource by force and reallocates it’s use to more economically productive enterprises has made society richer overall despite the *small military expenditure to annex the land by coercion.

  • small since the resource was grossly mismanaged and the previous owner did not have the economic means to provide any measure of defense commensurate to the economic value of the resource.

Theft is the antithesis of capitalism.

wrong, you are deluded.

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.

like many ancaps on this site, you have mistaken capitalism for moral, ethical goals.

This is precisely why I have presented this argument, namely that pacifists or moralists who think that successful actors will forego economic gain in a maximal-capitalist society are incredibly naive and deluded by other than capitalist goals – (pacifism, morality, ethics, egalitarianism, et al)

Moreover, I have offered arguments on how the pacifist or some other aesthetically motivated actor will economically misallocate and inefficiently manage valued resources by attempting to use the resource to promote non-economic goals.

this represents the problem of economic calculation for the “pacifist ancap poser”, namely you cant effectively manage a resource for economic gain if you throw non-economic intangibles (pacifism in your case) into your decision making process on how best to economically manage the resource.

Hence more economically motivated competitors will eventually acquire more capital and more power to coercive these aesthetically motivated actors.

You can try “semantic diversions if you wish”, but I never mentioned pacifists, I simply pointed out what capitalism is (by definition) and how it would be maximized. Nothing in — angurse

see my previous statement

Yes, the means are private property. Theft, destruction, and other forms of aggression are all anti-capitalist means.

wrong, you are not a capitalist – you are a pacifist

capitalism is about maximum economic profit/economic gain irrespective of the means employed to obtain profit/economic gain.

indeed, many like yourself have damaged capitalism’s efficacy by introducing economically incalcuable moral and ethical considerations that negatively impact societal economic productivity.

your not much different than the marxist who tries to introduce egalitarianism into the economy thereby resulting in the problem of economic calculation.

Yet, as Rothbard pointed out, you don’t know that his valued resources are being managed inefficiently.

wrong,

you will know when a resource has been mismanaged when a competitors tanks are parked on it or next to it.

In fact, him not exploiting his land may well be the more efficient thing to do at the time.

perhaps, but society does not immediately benefit if a valued resource is idle.

capitalism will insure that an idle resource is not long witheld from production.

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.

The basis of capitalism is the private ownership of capital.

a poorly managed valued resource that is annexed by coercion from a private investor or firm will still be held in private hands. THere is no government involved in this process.

Annexing property undermines private ownership, therefore any idea that capitalism, no less maximal-capitalism, is essential or beneficial is a complete contradictio in terminis.

wrong,

the valued resource will still be in private hands after it is annexed.

moreover, you are not a capitalist – you are a pacifist.

you and other ancaps have simply attacked a specific means by which actors in a maximal-capitalist society will use to obtain security, wealth, and power.

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.

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.

in truth, you are blinded by abject pacifism into seeking untenable solutions and answers to problems besetting society and the ancap model.

perhaps this is one of the factors that has made ancap dogma fringe and irrelevant.

in sum, I am sorry you dont understand the arguments I have made in this thread and others.

All I can offer is that you actually read the posts and I will respond when your questions/challenges are based on my assertions and not your misinterpretation of those assertions.

however, I dont have the time to engage in repeated corrections of strawmen arguments and semantic criticisms.

78

chloe732,

I am sorry that you dont understand or appreciate my arguments regarding the efficacy of capitalism to reallocate resources from mismanged enterprises to more effectively managed enterprises.

Btw, the arguments I have presented are my own based on my increased understanding of praxeology (though by no means complete).

I can thank grayson for providing me the fundamentals for continuing my study of praxeology, although we approach the study of this discipline from different viewpoints – his being pacifist-capitalist, mine being realist-capitalist.

nonetheless, I am glad that you are reading my posts – at least, I hope you are actually reading them thoughtfully and without rigid bias.

btw, my favorite book is “how capitalism saved America” by dilorenzo who I happen to disagree with on many issues.

79

in truth, you are blinded by abject pacifism.

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

80

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.”

Proposition #43 on why ancap society is not possible