AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[bisonbison]

I think this is a definition that should please EVERYONE

State-like parties (professional mobs running protection rackets) will spring up almost immediately after the creation of a significant site of ACness. Such mobs have been a fact of life since at least the creation of the city.

In order to combat the threat of extortion or theft from these mobs, ACers will form cooperative leagues for mutual self-defense. These two coalitions (ACers and Mobs), in all their local franchises, will eventually conflict and civilians not party to either that live nearby may suffer collateral damage. If the local ACers lose, it is likely to result in a local monopolistic proto-state, so they'll be sure to fight hard.

Now, before the ACness forms, you don't know who exactly would be at risk from collateral damage, you don't who would play 'Belgium' in this rendition of Recent European History. But in any thought about the possibilities of ACness, each and every person will deduce his risk of suffering in this collateral damage by assessing his entire life, weighting thousands of factors by their importance to him, and computing that to a result. He'll make an economic decision.

Anyone who feels less at risk in the current regime will favor stability over revolution, and will conform to the rules of the state to the degree he finds worthwhile.

ACers must argue that the average person underestimates the current level of threat he faces, or underestimates the savings he'll achieve with ACness. Anti-ACers must argue that ACers overstate the current level of threat people face on average, or overstate the ACness savings. That's fine.

But we should make more allowance for the current state of things, since each and every sane being is a perfect little personal capitalist.


By the by, this is also why I think ACers are particularly dumb: they claim to be capitalists, shouldn't they understand that the current situation is just economics? People don't want to revolt for much the same reason so many ACers still pay their federal income taxes: the gains aren't worth the price.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
People don't want to revolt for much the same reason so many ACers still pay their federal income taxes: the gains aren't worth the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most have come to the same conclusion. The state is +EV, and IMO, it's not even close.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
But we should make more allowance for the current state of things, since each and every sane being is a perfect little personal capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way you frame the argument, but there is no genetic or behavioral basis for this particular statement... in fact it's one of the most commonly used arguments for capitalism that is really wrong and relies on most peoples' ignorance of cultures and modes of production that are not capitalist. If everyone was 'naturally' a capitalist we wouldn't have to impose it by force on indigenous populations.

NT

[bisonbison]

I like the way you frame the argument, but there is no genetic or behavioral basis for this particular statement... in fact it's one of the most commonly used arguments for capitalism that is really wrong and relies on most peoples' ignorance of cultures and modes of production that are not capitalist. If everyone was 'naturally' a capitalist we wouldn't have to impose it by force on indigenous populations.

I'm using the term 'personal' to argue for a more expansive, non-financial meaning of capitalism.

Sane people are, by definition, rational emotional actors. Financial gain or hardship is just one factor in the multivariable emotional choices that underlie every decision and action we make.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]

I'm using the term 'personal' to argue for a more expansive, non-financial meaning of capitalism.

Sane people are, by definition, rational emotional actors. Financial gain or hardship is just one factor in the multivariable emotional choices that underlie every decision and action we make.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, this is much more reasonable.

Have you ever read Ulster or rational choice theory? I think some of it is garbage because assuming people make rational choices about their actions gives them credit for clearly understanding and thinking about them. 'Rational emotional choices' is problematic too but less so.

NT

[bisonbison]

Have you ever read Ulster or rational choice theory? I think some of it is garbage because assuming people make rational choices about their actions gives them credit for clearly understanding and thinking about them. 'Rational emotional choices' is problematic too but less so.

I think you'll find that if you qualify statements about people with: 'with what they can see about the present state of the universe' you can say that everyone in every situation always makes rational choices.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
I think you'll find that if you qualify statements about people with: 'with what they can see about the present state of the universe' you can say that everyone in every situation always makes rational choices.

[/ QUOTE ]

Holy [censored]! I agree!

[moorobot]

[ QUOTE ]

Have you ever read Ulster or rational choice theory? I think some of it is garbage because assuming people make rational choices about their actions gives them credit for clearly understanding and thinking about them. 'Rational emotional choices' is problematic too but less so.

I think you'll find that if you qualify statements about people with: 'with what they can see about the present state of the universe' you can say that everyone in every situation always makes rational choices.

[/ QUOTE ] You wear pants.

[cambraceres]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
But we should make more allowance for the current state of things, since each and every sane being is a perfect little personal capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way you frame the argument, but there is no genetic or behavioral basis for this particular statement... in fact it's one of the most commonly used arguments for capitalism that is really wrong and relies on most peoples' ignorance of cultures and modes of production that are not capitalist. If everyone was 'naturally' a capitalist we wouldn't have to impose it by force on indigenous populations.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

We don't force it on them, it is natural and had been damged by despotic rule. Let them go to anarchy, and still capitalism will emerge. Capitalism is the economics of the free, and other system is capitalism with a smaller freedom value

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
State-like parties (professional mobs running protection rackets) will spring up almost immediately after the creation of a significant site of ACness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you say so?

I've explained numerous times why this would not occur in a modern, technologically advanced capitalist society based on a high degree of the division of labor.

The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

The logic and the lessons of history are clear. If the state does not outlaw free competition in an industry organized gangs of criminals simply cannot compete with legitimate businesses. Witness what happens to every industry that is made black, and then witness what happens when it is made legal again.

Governments arose for particular reasons which are no longer applicable. Hence, if we could manage to get rid of them (without restoring the conditions that led to their emergence, which I am not at all sure is possible), they would not appear again.

Your whole post spins out of control from this false premise, and hence is totally invalid.

But it's nice to see you at least acknowledge that the state is nothing more than a large organized criminal protection racket.