Economics Questions

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

excel — Wed, 30 May 2012 14:09:56 GMT

Autolykos:

triknighted:
I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree.

So there's your answer. The only thing I think you have left to abandon is the notion that there must be a territorial monopolist in settling disputes. Such a monopolist would have to resort to aggression to enforce its monopoly, which conflicts with the non-aggression principle.

triknighted:
One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates.

For one thing, my understanding is that the official British rules of engagement weren't as strict as the official US rules of engagement. For another, US military forces have broken their official rules of engagement many times over. I don't know about the British, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did as well.

triknighted:
There are no rules to war.

That depends on what you think the point of war is. Do you agree with Clausewitz, that war is politics by other means? Or do you take a more primitive view - that war is simply about trying to exterminate "the enemy"?

Also, my understanding is that wearing boxing gloves means your hands are protected far better than a pair of brass knuckles, and is one of the reason for the large increase in brain damage and fatalities and serious injuries compared to bare-knuckle boxing. (Which focuses far more on body hits.)

So basically, you give one guy these gloves, and as long as he has them on he can keep breaking faces of the guilty and innocent alike, without feeling any pain from it. Yeah, an apt analogy for warcrimes under the cover of humanitarianism.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Autolykos — Wed, 30 May 2012 13:34:28 GMT

triknighted:
I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree.

So there's your answer. The only thing I think you have left to abandon is the notion that there must be a territorial monopolist in settling disputes. Such a monopolist would have to resort to aggression to enforce its monopoly, which conflicts with the non-aggression principle.

triknighted:
One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates.

For one thing, my understanding is that the official British rules of engagement weren't as strict as the official US rules of engagement. For another, US military forces have broken their official rules of engagement many times over. I don't know about the British, but I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if they did as well.

triknighted:
There are no rules to war.

That depends on what you think the point of war is. Do you agree with Clausewitz, that war is politics by other means? Or do you take a more primitive view - that war is simply about trying to exterminate "the enemy"?

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

triknighted — Wed, 30 May 2012 01:55:35 GMT

Autolykos:

triknighted:
The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there's private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret "the law" differently.

Check out what the Afghani and Iraqi "insurgents" have done against the US and allied military forces over there. No, the latter haven't entirely left (yet), but they are pulling back quite a bit.

I think a counter-balance to interpreting "the law" differently is keeping "the law" as limited as possible. One could say that this is what classical liberals really meant by "limited government".

I would consider myself to be a classical liberal, and I agree. One thing you should take into account is that the Rules of Engagement have made U.S. forces equivalent of putting a huge guy in a street fight forcing him to wear boxing gloves and adhere to strict boxing rules while he's fighting a no-rules street fighter with brass knuckles. It's how to British lost and, unfortunately, it's how our military operates. There are no rules to war.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Autolykos — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:29:35 GMT

triknighted:
The AnCap model sounds nice, and I agree, businesses would function and on the whole, things would be really good for a while . . . until another nation decides to invade the territory/region/area (I know there's private ownership of weaponry, which is good, and private companies can develop weapons, which is even better . . . but I need evidence that it can compete with the technology and organization of an entire military or two that might attack us) and until people start having competing companies interpret "the law" differently.

Check out what the Afghani and Iraqi "insurgents" have done against the US and allied military forces over there. No, the latter haven't entirely left (yet), but they are pulling back quite a bit.

I think a counter-balance to interpreting "the law" differently is keeping "the law" as limited as possible. One could say that this is what classical liberals really meant by "limited government".

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Autolykos — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:23:52 GMT

triknighted:
What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have [not] yet heard an answer to.

With all due respect, I think you're trying to hold onto something that I call "the illusion of certainty". What I mean is that you seem to be assuming that, with a state, you would necessarily be rescued from such a situation, perhaps even within a certain amount of time. But how does that follow? Indeed, when it comes to the United States, there have been multiple court cases that have clearly explained that state agents have no legal obligation to protect individuals. I don't know for sure, but I imagine there have been similar court cases in other countries.

No serious anarcho-capitalist believes that abandoning the state will usher in Heaven on Earth. I think it's safe to assume that (what we see as) injustice will still occur even in the absence of the state. But I also think that abandoning the state will necessarily amount in less injustice occurring thenceforth, as the state cannot continue to exist without committing injustice.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Autolykos — Tue, 29 May 2012 16:17:16 GMT

triknighted:
I'm not an anarcho-capitalist, so I can answer unbiasedly.

So only anarcho-capitalists are biased?

triknighted:
He brings up a point about people being intelligent enough to own everything, but I say why not? If someone is so intelligent and capable that he or she can, in essence, have a foothold in every industry, then it's still not slavery. Like the alien said, "You are free to not work for me," something to that effect. In essence, it isn't slavery.

Agreed.

triknighted:
On a smaller scale, it is the same. What happens when you own a pizza [shop], and right next door someone builds another pizza shop that taste better for less money? That's competition. You need to adapt. What's keeping you from making an even better recipe or lowering your prices, or offering more supply for the same demand? Nothing is stopping you.

Agreed.

triknighted:
Now if the alien decided to build a wall in the design of a fence on land that he bought fairly, thus keeping everyone in . . . that's why I'm not an anarcho capitalist, because it could happen. Nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property, and if they wanted to avoid it, they would need private law enforcement, and who's to say the owner of the law enforcement agency isn't the property purchaser's grandkid.

Actually, I think this scenario is more likely when a state exists, because the state considers itself (so to speak) to be the true owner of all the land under its jurisdiction. But it has an interest in letting people believe that things are otherwise.

On the other hand, I'm confused by your statement that "nobody is there to enforce any law against purchasing private property". Why do you make that assumption? It seems to me that you're implicitly switching to your preferred definition of "anarchy", which is synonymous with "chaos". However, anarcho-capitalists neither desire nor advocate chaos.

triknighted:
Too many what ifs. I think a government is needed simply to preserve individuality, liberty and property, and such a thing would certainly intrude on liberty as it boxes people in. Liberty takes precedence over property. For instance, if a helpless heroine is locked in someone's car and the owner is holding her against her will and you see her trying to escape when she can't, absolutely destroy the property to help her get out. Liberty over property always (though I admit such a case where a distinction would be needed is rare).

I think reading about the self-ownership principle might help you here. To me, liberty requires respecting self-ownership. But that means respecting what's essentially a property right in one's own body. So there's no necessary dichotomy or dilemma between liberty on the one hand and property on the other.

Finally, if you were to ask me whether I think one or more states could arise from anarcho-capitalism, my answer would be yes. That might surprise you, but I see the rejection of (consistent) self-ownership as the founding principle for every state. Even today, a majority of people seem to reject consistent self-ownership, because they seem to think that parents own their children (in some cases, until the state-defined "age of majority").

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

MMMark — Tue, 29 May 2012 01:26:54 GMT

Mon. 12/05/28 21:28 EDT
.post #157

Buzz Killington:
I don't believe in government owned roads, I just am skeptical of having all roads be private (I would like there to be at least some voluntarily funded roads built by communities).

Perhaps there could be a mixture of "public" (community built) and private roads.

Seems like both of these are non-governmental, i.e., "private." Maybe the word "private" connotes, for you, something negative, exclusionary, and potentially "dictatorial." In some cases this might obtain. You can think of gated communities, for example, where access is restricted primarily or exclusively to members of the community and their invited guests or visitors. But, you can also imagine things like race tracks, large mall parking lots, roads or "ways" between townhouse-style condominiums, and even competitive, for-profit electronic-toll highways, such as this one:

407 Express Toll Route

Granted, this is not a true free market example (see financing and management), but it suffices to illustrate my point, namely, that "private" doesn't necessarily mean "exclusionary" or "dictatorial." These enterprises only survive by attracting customers, so their private owners have strong incentives (i.e. greed, and the desire to eat) to "play nice."

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalism

hashem — Tue, 29 May 2012 00:47:28 GMT

Too many fallacies, but I stopped at 3:57. His business "quickly becomes an astounding successs, consumers love his products and this drives millions of businesses out of the market."

Back to reality, that business is Google, and it has CREATED untold opportunities and market expansion, it has vastly improved the productivity of the entire world. Case closed.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Buzz Killington — Mon, 28 May 2012 20:19:04 GMT

MMMark:
Let's make things even worse.

In addition to doing all the rotten things you've mentioned, let's give this dictatorial corporation six more powers:

1. The power to make everybody pay for its roads, whether or not those people use the roads, without suffering any legal consequences;
2. The power to impose a money monopoly on all the people, grant the monopoly to itself, and then print as much money as it pleases. Now it can never go broke or bankrupt.
3. The power to assault, imprison, and kill any other competitors in the road business, without suffering any legal consequences.
4. The power to assault, imprison, and kill angry protestors, without suffering any legal consequences.
5. The power to do all these things anywhere in the world
(see, for example, Lew Rockwell: US enjoys sending Tomahawks, killing).
6. The power to do anything else, all without legal consequences.

In other words, let's turn this dictatorial corporation into...a government.

It seems to me that, even in the highly unlikely, worst-case scenario, the free market is preferable, and by a considerable margin.

I don't believe in government owned roads, I just am skeptical of having all roads be private (I would like there to be at least some voluntarily funded roads built by communities).

Perhaps there could be a mixture of "public" (community built) and private roads.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

Jack Roberts — Mon, 28 May 2012 14:24:17 GMT

What I mean is this: if I bought a property in the middle of what is no Kansas, let's say, and there's a lot of property around mine that I don't own so someone buys it and, say he's a sociopath, decides to build a 20 ft. wall I have no means of climbing over, and the wall surrounds my property, who comes to my aid if I can't defend myself? It's a legitimate question that I have no yet heard an answer to.

I was asked this question on reddit and attempted to answer it but my answer was ignored, was that you?

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalism

Conza88 — Mon, 28 May 2012 12:55:23 GMT

Good old Mr1001nights.. produces one of his most retarded videos yet.

Strawman after strawman.... first case [1] Intellectual Property... would be NOTHING to stop everyone else emulating the aliens 'inventions' etc.. down comes most of the OP's bs.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

gotlucky — Mon, 28 May 2012 02:24:47 GMT

Thanks for that link, JJ. Great read.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

John James — Mon, 28 May 2012 02:16:06 GMT

triknighted:
You aren't arguing for AnCap, you're arguing against statism.

"Ancaps aren't arguing for anything" or The Irrelevance of the Impossibility of Anarcho-Libertarianism

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

MMMark — Mon, 28 May 2012 01:58:31 GMT

Sat. 12/05/26 21:56 EDT
.post #156

Buzz Killington:
Competition: would it not take quite a bit of time for another company to emerge and create some new roads? What are the citizens supposed to do if they have to drive to work on a regular basis?

Protests: sorry angry protestors, I'm not allowing protests on my roads, and if you do it anywhere else why should I care? It's not as if I GAF whether or not you dislike my dictatorial corporation.

Mutual aid: let's just see how long you can survive without my roads

But surely when a certain system (private roads in this case) is proposed, you have to face the problems it creates!

Let's make things even worse.

In addition to doing all the rotten things you've mentioned, let's give this dictatorial corporation six more powers:

1. The power to make everybody pay for its roads, whether or not those people use the roads, without suffering any legal consequences;
2. The power to impose a money monopoly on all the people, grant the monopoly to itself, and then print as much money as it pleases. Now it can never go broke or bankrupt.
3. The power to assault, imprison, and kill any other competitors in the road business, without suffering any legal consequences.
4. The power to assault, imprison, and kill angry protestors, without suffering any legal consequences.
5. The power to do all these things anywhere in the world
(see, for example, Lew Rockwell: US enjoys sending Tomahawks, killing).
6. The power to do anything else, all without legal consequences.

In other words, let's turn this dictatorial corporation into...a government.

It seems to me that, even in the highly unlikely, worst-case scenario, the free market is preferable, and by a considerable margin.

Re: Alien Refutes Anarcho-Capitalsim

gotlucky — Mon, 28 May 2012 01:36:07 GMT

triknighted:

I read them, and customary law, frankly, seems flaky. It's undefined and too subjective.

There is no thing as objective law. Period. So what seems flakey about customary law?

triknighted:

There ought to be absolutes on law. I completely agree with Frederic Bastiat that law should protect individuality, liberty and private property--otherwise it is perverse. Those are absolutes.

Law is many things to many people. The only consistent, defining factor of law is that it resolves disputes nonviolently. No system of law, whether it is statutory, common, or customary (or whatever) will have all perfect laws. But the more centralized a system of law, the less people can experiment with law. If there is a bad law, that's it. But with decentralized law, if there is a bad law, it sticks to a local area. Good laws spread, bad laws won't.