|
|
#31
02-11-2006, 06:45 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
OK, I'll grant you all that. Cheapest is not always best, and value is subjective. [/ QUOTE ] Glad we can agree that something you wrote earlier is completely bunk. [ QUOTE ] Well, like I said, businessmen are not guaranteed to make intelligent decisions. There is no way this was +EV for Lowes's if they just bought the places out and shut them down. [/ QUOTE ] There is absolutely NO way you can make that claim with any authority. Buying those businesses may only make Lowe's X amount of dollars more per year, but in a place like Fort Worth, Texas, where life is stable and things remain the same...removing a couple of reputable small hardware stores that lots of people who do home improvement projects shop IS +EV when you consider generations worth of such consumers. It may take 50 years for the move to BE +EV, but that doesn't mean it's not. You're not considering the long-term effects of NOT having competition in your localized market. [ QUOTE ] OK. Say you buy a 1 meter wide strip in front of my driveway from the road company in order to prevent me from crossing it and starve me out, rather than buying entire parcels. Here's what happens when you try to get a judgement against me for trespassing on your 1 meter wide strip in front of my driveway: The arbitrators will laugh in your face, dismiss the case and find that you have to pay the costs of arbitration. [/ QUOTE ] And what exactly causes Lowe's to submit to arbitration in this case? Why wouldn't they simply instruct their Justice Company to arrest the trespassers and imprison them for their property crimes? Once again you're "dropping the context." You want to remove the agency which holds businesses accountable to certain non-market standards yet assume that they will submit themselves to such standards anyway. It's completely irrational thinking on your behalf. [ QUOTE ] What you have to understand is that "property rights" are a set of societal norms that arise to resolve disputes. They are not a game of rigid rules that will allow one party to clearly infringe on the liberty and property of others via technicalities, like a scheme to "starve out" a competitor by denying him access to and use of his property. No reputable arbitrator will find in your favor in such a ludicrous scheme, and no judgement from a disreputable arbitrator will be respected. [/ QUOTE ] Wait.........hold the presses.........property rights are merely societal NORMS??? You mean they aren't grounded in natural law? They aren't rights that have been divined unto anyone who buys something? If that's so, then why isn't the societal norm of "all children should eat, no matter who has to pay" just as important as property rights? And if it is, why SHOULDN'T we have an agency to enforce those societal norms, just as you argue a totally-unregulated market would better enforce the societal norm of property rights? If property rights are not absolute extensions of our natural rights, then they're hardly worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater over. [ QUOTE ] As I said, no. Sorry. As I said, "property rights" are social norms for resolving disputes, and they butt up against each other all the time. Disputes would be resolved by rational judgements made by reputable arbitrators, and they would never find in favor of such a scheme. You'd simply be wasting your money. [/ QUOTE ] And again, anarchocapitalism provides no mechanism which requires any person or company to submit to any arbitration whatsoever, much less arbitration which tends to dis-favor their interests. [ QUOTE ] But it bears repeating that all of the potential problems people usually (erroneously) apply to anarchocapitalism not only exist under government, but are facilitated by it, or they downright couldn't exist in it's absence. Claiming that "Monopolies are bad" (correct) and that "anarchocapitalism would lead to monopoly" (incorrect) doesn't serve to differentiate anarchocapitalism from government when it is so easily shown that government fosters and encourages monopoly (not surprising, since government is monopoly by definition). So what's the point? [/ QUOTE ] I believe the point is clear. I'm not arguing that our current government has never created economic monopolies. What I am arguing is that in the absence of government, monopolies would be quite rampant. History makes this case for me, and if you don't believe it - pose the question to a random sampling of noted economists...the answer you receive will be quite different from the answer you wish to believe is true. [ QUOTE ] OK, you lost it here. Assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion. This is just ideological rhetoric, not logical argument. Produce some kind of logical argument here to replace the anti-market invective with and I'll respond. [/ QUOTE ] The passage you're referring to is in no way "ideological rhetoric." It's a critique of anarchocapitalists that I have personally encountered on this forum. Let me state such critique in plainer terms. People that I HAVE ENCOUNTERED (including to an extent yourself) have simultaneously... a) Expected me, as a statist, to defend the current status quo system of government in spite of the fact that I never pledged to be pleased with the way the US or any other country is governed... AND... b) at the same time as making such unreasonable demands, expected me to accept on principle the pragmatics of an AC society -- including, but not limited to, faith in market forces as a powerful-enough means of curtailing corporate abuse, trust in private corporations to provide logistical regional defense (even if different sovereign persons choose different private corporations), believe that competing justice firms can adequately regulate the criminal market (even when a criminal's justice firm has a vested interest in its own client's freedom).....and on and on. In fact, the only persuasive arguments I've seen in defense of these AC ideals is that the current system of government really sucks.....all of them without measuring the level of suckitude that would exist in an AC society. This is not rhetoric, and it's not ideological. It's a valid critique of the means AC'ists on this forum have used to respond to statists presenting their views. As for the rest of your post, I'll have to tend to that tomorrow...as my girlfriend has just made certain demands on me that I am quite happy to fulfill. Happy lives everyone...... 
|
|
#32
02-11-2006, 09:50 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
I believe the point is clear. I'm not arguing that our current government has never created economic monopolies. What I am arguing is that in the absence of government, monopolies would be quite rampant. History makes this case for me, and if you don't believe it - pose the question to a random sampling of noted economists...the answer you receive will be quite different from the answer you wish to believe is true. [/ QUOTE ] If history makes this case, then you should easily be able to provide one single example of a monopoly that was achieved without government intervention.
|
|
#33
02-11-2006, 09:59 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
If history makes this case, then you should easily be able to provide one single example of a monopoly that was achieved without government intervention. [/ QUOTE ] What? You mean you expect him to come up with a single fact to support generalized assertions? This is why ACers are suck pricks. Can't they just accept the doomsdayers without asking for some rationale better than "it's obvious"? [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
|
#34
02-11-2006, 03:06 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] OK, I'll grant you all that. Cheapest is not always best, and value is subjective. [/ QUOTE ] Glad we can agree that something you wrote earlier is completely bunk. [/ QUOTE ] Nice. OK, I granted your "quality of service" argument on principle. Now that you're just being an [censored], I'll just reiterate that apperently Moms and Pops can't generally compete with the "big box stores", because they go out of business left and right without having to be bought out, regardless of individual apocryphal instances. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] Well, like I said, businessmen are not guaranteed to make intelligent decisions. There is no way this was +EV for Lowes's if they just bought the places out and shut them down. [/ QUOTE ] There is absolutely NO way you can make that claim with any authority. Buying those businesses may only make Lowe's X amount of dollars more per year, but in a place like Fort Worth, Texas, where life is stable and things remain the same...removing a couple of reputable small hardware stores that lots of people who do home improvement projects shop IS +EV when you consider generations worth of such consumers. It may take 50 years for the move to BE +EV, but that doesn't mean it's not. You're not considering the long-term effects of NOT having competition in your localized market. [/ QUOTE ] Fine. I'll concede the point, since it's irrelevant. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] OK. Say you buy a 1 meter wide strip in front of my driveway from the road company in order to prevent me from crossing it and starve me out, rather than buying entire parcels. Here's what happens when you try to get a judgement against me for trespassing on your 1 meter wide strip in front of my driveway: The arbitrators will laugh in your face, dismiss the case and find that you have to pay the costs of arbitration. [/ QUOTE ] And what exactly causes Lowe's to submit to arbitration in this case? [/ QUOTE ] They don't have to. It's not a matter of submitting to arbitration. When you get sued you probably should defend yourself. If you choose not to that doesn't stop the process. [ QUOTE ] Why wouldn't they simply instruct their Justice Company to arrest the trespassers and imprison them for their property crimes? [/ QUOTE ] Because it wouldn't work that way. You can insure yourself against aggression against you by others. You cannot insure yourself against yourself aggressing against someone else. Security would be provided by the relevant insurers. Two things happen when you try to arrest me. 1) Your insurer refuses to comply, since they would go broke sending out security teams to enact their customers' nefarious schemes. So you'd have to basically resort to personal thugs. In that case 2) I am insured against your aggression and my insurance provider sends security forces to secure my release. Since my insurance company holds hundreds of billions of dollars in assets and has hundreds of billions of dollars worth of assets indemnified, I'd say the resources of my insurer will be superior to the resources of your thugs. In other words, you will lose. [ QUOTE ] Once again you're "dropping the context." You want to remove the agency which holds businesses accountable to certain non-market standards yet assume that they will submit themselves to such standards anyway. It's completely irrational thinking on your behalf. [/ QUOTE ] No, you simply haven't thought about how the market provides for such things. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] What you have to understand is that "property rights" are a set of societal norms that arise to resolve disputes. They are not a game of rigid rules that will allow one party to clearly infringe on the liberty and property of others via technicalities, like a scheme to "starve out" a competitor by denying him access to and use of his property. No reputable arbitrator will find in your favor in such a ludicrous scheme, and no judgement from a disreputable arbitrator will be respected. [/ QUOTE ] Wait.........hold the presses.........property rights are merely societal NORMS??? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [ QUOTE ] You mean they aren't grounded in natural law? They aren't rights that have been divined unto anyone who buys something? If that's so, then why isn't the societal norm of "all children should eat, no matter who has to pay" just as important as property rights? [/ QUOTE ] There could be. I never said there couldn't, did I? [ QUOTE ] And if it is, why SHOULDN'T we have an agency to enforce those societal norms, just as you argue a totally-unregulated market would better enforce the societal norm of property rights? [/ QUOTE ] Because that culture will produce much more poverty and violence than a culture based on a strong system of private property rights, freedom of exchange, and personal responsibility. Hey, if you think poverty and violence are good things, then by all means, support coercive monopolies. [ QUOTE ] If property rights are not absolute extensions of our natural rights, then they're hardly worth throwing out the baby with the bathwater over. [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what this means. Besides, I didn't say that property rights weren't an extension of natural rights. I think they are. But the exact details of the system of property rights that a society develops will be based upon cultural norms that can vary wildly. Many tribal cultures have recognized private property in consumer goods, but not in producer goods and resources. These cultures stayed in the stone age. Other cultures recognized private property rights in resources and producer goods, like ancient China, Europe, and the Inca, deceloped large civilizations. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] As I said, no. Sorry. As I said, "property rights" are social norms for resolving disputes, and they butt up against each other all the time. Disputes would be resolved by rational judgements made by reputable arbitrators, and they would never find in favor of such a scheme. You'd simply be wasting your money. [/ QUOTE ] And again, anarchocapitalism provides no mechanism which requires any person or company to submit to any arbitration whatsoever, much less arbitration which tends to dis-favor their interests. [/ QUOTE ] Not true. Companies and individuals "submit" to arbitration because well trained and well equiped security forces show up to enforce judgements. If you steal my car, for example, it doesn't really hurt me, other than inconvenience. My insurance company buys me a new car. Who gets hurt is my insurance company. They don't want to pay for my car. They want you to pay for my car. Therefore they investigate, develop a case, and take it to an arbitrator. A reputable arbitrator, because judgements from disreputable arbitrators are simply ignored. You can present your side to an arbitrator of your choice, but again, if you choose a disreputable arbitrator, his judgement will simply be ignored. In most cases the facts are clear and the judgements will be the same between the two cases. Then my insurance company will send security forces to enforce the judgement, by seizing funds, property, whatever is necessary. Your insurance company will not stop them, because you cannot insurance yourself against stealing other people's cars. Notice that the security forces of my insurance company are not intiating force against you. They are simple closing the force transaction that you initiated against me when you stole my car. Any handwaving about private security forces that are employed directly by you and not an insurer won't work either. I guarantee you that the resources that my insurance company can bring to bear will be far in excess of any resources that you could bring to bear. Trying to resist would be incredibly costly, you would go broke and possibly get killed. It is obviously much cheaper, simpler, and less risky to just comply with reputable judgements. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] But it bears repeating that all of the potential problems people usually (erroneously) apply to anarchocapitalism not only exist under government, but are facilitated by it, or they downright couldn't exist in it's absence. Claiming that "Monopolies are bad" (correct) and that "anarchocapitalism would lead to monopoly" (incorrect) doesn't serve to differentiate anarchocapitalism from government when it is so easily shown that government fosters and encourages monopoly (not surprising, since government is monopoly by definition). So what's the point? [/ QUOTE ] I believe the point is clear. I'm not arguing that our current government has never created economic monopolies. What I am arguing is that in the absence of government, monopolies would be quite rampant. [/ QUOTE ] By invoking kooky schemes that will not work in the free market. Conversations like this always degernerate into kooky pathological hypotheticals like "buying a meter of land around someone's business" that simply don't work. A far simpler strategy that is much more likely to work to put your competition out of business is to simply buy them out for a fair price, or better yet, simply outcompete them. [ QUOTE ] History makes this case for me, and if you don't believe it - pose the question to a random sampling of noted economists...the answer you receive will be quite different from the answer you wish to believe is true. [/ QUOTE ] If history makes this case for you, I suppose you can provide me with numerous examples of monopolies that were not created via government intervention. How about just one? Nice appeal to authority, but there many "noted economists" that understand that it is government intervention and not free markets that breed monopoly. The extent to which mainstream economics is populated with poor economists is easy to understand. Government funds most economics departments, and requires shoddy economic analysis to justify the shoddy economic policies it relies on. [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] OK, you lost it here. Assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion, assertion. This is just ideological rhetoric, not logical argument. Produce some kind of logical argument here to replace the anti-market invective with and I'll respond. [/ QUOTE ] The passage you're referring to is in no way "ideological rhetoric." [/ QUOTE ] Yes, it is. Try reading it again. [ QUOTE ] It's a critique of anarchocapitalists that I have personally encountered on this forum. Let me state such critique in plainer terms. People that I HAVE ENCOUNTERED (including to an extent yourself) have simultaneously... a) Expected me, as a statist, to defend the current status quo system of government in spite of the fact that I never pledged to be pleased with the way the US or any other country is governed... [/ QUOTE ] Again, I'm not asking you to defend the current status quo of government in the US or anywhere else. I am asking you to understand that the problems in government are inherent and logically inevitable because of human nature. [ QUOTE ] AND... b) at the same time as making such unreasonable demands, expected me to accept on principle the pragmatics of an AC society -- including, but not limited to, faith in market forces as a powerful-enough means of curtailing corporate abuse, trust in private corporations to provide logistical regional defense (even if different sovereign persons choose different private corporations), [/ QUOTE ] Why don't you show how they can't, or at least make some attempt to understand how market mechanisms might work first? [ QUOTE ] believe that competing justice firms can adequately regulate the criminal market (even when a criminal's justice firm has a vested interest in its own client's freedom) [/ QUOTE ] "Justice firms" that render to-the-highest-bidder judgements will have their judgements ignored. Hence no one will patronize such firms because their judgements are worthless. There is no financial incentive whatsoeve to render biased judgements, just like there is no financial incentive for Underwriter's Laboratories to simply give away their seal to the highest bidders, because then the seal is meaningless. Value is created by these services by redering fair and objective decisions and opinions. Without their reputations, their service is valueless and they will quickly go out of business. See? It's not hard. [ QUOTE ] .....and on and on. In fact, the only persuasive arguments I've seen in defense of these AC ideals is that the current system of government really sucks.....all of them without measuring the level of suckitude that would exist in an AC society. This is not rhetoric, and it's not ideological. It's a valid critique of the means AC'ists on this forum have used to respond to statists presenting their views. [/ QUOTE ] There are many threads where people have carefully explained market mechanisms. The entire explanation of free market security and justice I just gave you was explained in a thread just a few days ago. That you either haven't read them, or can't or won't understand them is not my or any other AC proponent's problem.
|
|
#35
02-11-2006, 03:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
...I'm not sure what this means. Besides, I didn't say that property rights weren't an extension of natural rights. I think they are. But the exact details of the system of property rights that a society develops will be based upon cultural norms that can vary wildly. Many tribal cultures have recognized private property in consumer goods, but not in producer goods and resources. These cultures stayed in the stone age. Other cultures recognized private property rights in resources and producer goods, like ancient China, Europe, and the Inca, deceloped large civilizations.... [/ QUOTE ] This doesn't affect the point you're making here, but IIRC, the Inca culture prior to European contact was highly 'statist', going so far as to move entire populations from one province to another. Could you provide a reference for private ownership of resources and producer goods in Inca times? Regards, C.T. Jackson
|
|
#37
02-11-2006, 05:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
"Justice firms" that render to-the-highest-bidder judgements will have their judgements ignored. Hence no one will patronize such firms because their judgements are worthless. There is no financial incentive whatsoeve to render biased judgements, just like there is no financial incentive for Underwriter's Laboratories to simply give away their seal to the highest bidders, because then the seal is meaningless. Value is created by these services by redering fair and objective decisions and opinions. Without their reputations, their service is valueless and they will quickly go out of business. See? It's not hard. [/ QUOTE ] So what happens when one particular pairing of "arbitrator" and "enforcement company" manage to achieve a significant market and resource dominance? You describe that it will be very costly and possible deadly ( wow, scary result for car theft ) because the "collection company"'s resources to enforce the judgement will outstrip the individuals ability to resist. So what happens when Uber-Arb and Uber-Collect have such market and resource dominance that it is too costly for other companies to protect their own clients? I guess the others go out of business, and then yet more pop up to fill the space. Um -- how? Uber-collect just buys out/blows up any new competitor.
|
|
#38
02-11-2006, 11:47 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] "Justice firms" that render to-the-highest-bidder judgements will have their judgements ignored. Hence no one will patronize such firms because their judgements are worthless. There is no financial incentive whatsoeve to render biased judgements, just like there is no financial incentive for Underwriter's Laboratories to simply give away their seal to the highest bidders, because then the seal is meaningless. Value is created by these services by redering fair and objective decisions and opinions. Without their reputations, their service is valueless and they will quickly go out of business. See? It's not hard. [/ QUOTE ] So what happens when one particular pairing of "arbitrator" and "enforcement company" manage to achieve a significant market and resource dominance? You describe that it will be very costly and possible deadly ( wow, scary result for car theft ) because the "collection company"'s resources to enforce the judgement will outstrip the individuals ability to resist. So what happens when Uber-Arb and Uber-Collect have such market and resource dominance that it is too costly for other companies to protect their own clients? [/ QUOTE ] Let's try an exercise. Think like me. How do you think I will answer this question? [ QUOTE ] I guess the others go out of business, and then yet more pop up to fill the space. Um -- how? Uber-collect just buys out/blows up any new competitor. [/ QUOTE ] Hint: this isn't it.
|
|
#39
02-11-2006, 11:50 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
So what happens when one particular pairing of "arbitrator" and "enforcement company" manage to achieve a significant market and resource dominance? You describe that it will be very costly and possible deadly ( wow, scary result for car theft ) because the "collection company"'s resources to enforce the judgement will outstrip the individuals ability to resist. So what happens when Uber-Arb and Uber-Collect have such market and resource dominance that it is too costly for other companies to protect their own clients? I guess the others go out of business, and then yet more pop up to fill the space. Um -- how? Uber-collect just buys out/blows up any new competitor. [/ QUOTE ] I suppose it's possible that one insurance company could grow to such a size that it dwarfs all of its competitors, but if it began to abuse this position, all of its customers would stop patronizing them and find new insurance companies. Without customers (and hence, cashflow), they won't be able to finance their offensive war. They can't just run raise taxes and run a deficit forever. Note also that even if one company crushes all of the competition in the insurance/security industry, they still would be puny when compared to all of the resources owned by everyone outside of that industry. Microsoft and Walmart combined couldn't take on the entire world in a military showdown.
|
|
#40
02-12-2006, 12:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 5 Questions for AC\'ists
[ QUOTE ]
I suppose it's possible that one insurance company could grow to such a size that it dwarfs all of its competitors, but if it began to abuse this position, all of its customers would stop patronizing them and find new insurance companies. Without customers (and hence, cashflow), they won't be able to finance their offensive war. They can't just run raise taxes and run a deficit forever. [/ QUOTE ] Um, why would "customers" switch to insurance companies that could not protect them against MEGA-insure? And why do you think that customers would switch en masse? There are huge, huge assumptions and unaswered questions here. [ QUOTE ] Note also that even if one company crushes all of the competition in the insurance/security industry, they still would be puny when compared to all of the resources owned by everyone outside of that industry. Microsoft and Walmart combined couldn't take on the entire world in a military showdown. [/ QUOTE ] Mega-Insure doesn't have to take everyone on at once. It can take people on a few at a time.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
