Statism, AC, and Corporatism- The End Result is the Same

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

O M G, you have got to be joking. It certainly does benefit a few - the haliburton's of the world, but the VAST majority of US citizens are significantly worse off thanks to the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expansion into Iraq isn't working too good, but the coercive business model has been around for millennia, so naturally there are a few failures to offset the "profitable" acts of aggression like, say, that committed against the native peoples of North America. No venture comes with a guarantee.

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To get to an AC condition requires widespread support among the population. A population that works to escape the state isn't going to just quietly roll over for the first tinpot wannabe who comes along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of...

Once you let AC run for a little while, things could conceivably get better overall if the markets do a better job of sorting things out than the state. I buy that.

But after some time, there will be (due to the nature of markets and just good ol' randomness) a group of people that aren't doing so well. Maybe they're dumb, maybe they're lazy, maybe they're unlucky, but there will be a group of people that will think that AC has been going badly simply because they're not getting what they want. This group could be very large, and this group would be highly succeptable to latching on to the first socialist promising them the fair world they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]


I assume this is the latest attempt to justify institutionalized violence?

Are you suggesting that the above 'reason' is why a certain group of people violently monopolized violence in a given territory? Is that the 'reason' why they shot people, why they enslaved people, why they extort people, why they extract money from people and wage foreign wars of aggression? Why they drop atomic bombs on foreign cities? All because of the above what-if reason?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Sure, but populations can be manipulated with time and effort. Just look at the US. At one time, having a government do the things it now does would be unthinkable to almost everyone. Now these things are supported by most.


[/ QUOTE ]

I think that the difference between now and what the american revolution set up is that we have many more times the capacity for communications. We have the internet now, its really hard to produce the picture that government propaganda requires. Who knows what technologies we will have in 50 years. Even recently we have seen the use of video cell phones to catch abusive police officers. When you can access these videos on the internet, its hard to paint a rosy picture of government force.

As for poverty, what little poverty there is in the developed nations will mostly be eliminated. I dont see how this small minority is going to gain access to the rich majorities wealth. People keep claiming that AC will revert back into government, but I have yet to see a detailed explanation.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
Incidentally, if the state is able to use force to take money from the population to engage in war, why wouldn't any private enterprise with sufficient forces be able to do so in AC land?


[/ QUOTE ]

The state doesnt have to use force to take peoples money. People voluntarily give their money over because they believe in the state. Its like saying that the pope could land in an athiest country and force the athiests to hand over all their money for the glory of god. Its not going to happen.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

O M G, you have got to be joking. It certainly does benefit a few - the haliburton's of the world, but the VAST majority of US citizens are significantly worse off thanks to the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expansion into Iraq isn't working too good, but the coercive business model has been around for millennia, so naturally there are a few failures to offset the "profitable" acts of aggression like, say, that committed against the native peoples of North America. No venture comes with a guarantee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on who you're asking. It's working out great for Halliburton (et al), just like colonization of India worked great for the East India Company. War is a racket, a transfer from the taxpayers to politically-connected contractors.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]


I think that the difference between now and what the american revolution set up is that we have many more times the capacity for communications. We have the internet now, its really hard to produce the picture that government propaganda requires.

[/ QUOTE ]
So that's why everyone is now in favor of AC or minarchy. The propaganda is even more successful today than ever. Even today, as big as government is, people are voting to make it bigger, spend more, and exercise more control over the economy.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]

The state doesnt have to use force to take peoples money. People voluntarily give their money over because they believe in the state.

[/ QUOTE ]
What state is this?

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Cliffnotes: The ability to subsidize the costs of war onto the population is a major difference between statism and AC.

[/ QUOTE ]

Oversimplification. The conquered people are often the ones who pay, while the citizens of the empire are beneficiaries.

[/ QUOTE ]

O M G, you have got to be joking. It certainly does benefit a few - the haliburton's of the world, but the VAST majority of US citizens are significantly worse off thanks to the war.

[/ QUOTE ]

The expansion into Iraq isn't working too good, but the coercive business model has been around for millennia, so naturally there are a few failures to offset the "profitable" acts of aggression like, say, that committed against the native peoples of North America. No venture comes with a guarantee.

[/ QUOTE ]

Depends on who you're asking. It's working out great for Halliburton (et al), just like colonization of India worked great for the East India Company. War is a racket, a transfer from the taxpayers to politically-connected contractors.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's for sure (for the aggressor), though don't forget the often much more lucrative transfer of wealth from the outlanders to the imperial center.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Ironically, it is the statists who favor violence, of the centrally-planned variety.

[/ QUOTE ]
Huh? I want to limit government power to only those powers that ACists believe private institutions should freely exercise. Do I therefore "favor violence, of the centrally-planned variety"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well how does it fund its operations? If it's by voluntary contributions or contract then I don't think many here would call you a statist at all.

[/ QUOTE ]
I assume that ACists refer to minarchists as "statists" even if the state were funded privately or with trust funds, or by charging for services (voluntarily). I thought the important aspect was the lawmaking power of government.

Even if this lawmaking power were limited to outlawing fraud and theft, and establishing contract law, isn't it still a state?

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
To get to an AC condition requires widespread support among the population. A population that works to escape the state isn't going to just quietly roll over for the first tinpot wannabe who comes along.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sort of...

Once you let AC run for a little while, things could conceivably get better overall if the markets do a better job of sorting things out than the state. I buy that.

But after some time, there will be (due to the nature of markets and just good ol' randomness) a group of people that aren't doing so well. Maybe they're dumb, maybe they're lazy, maybe they're unlucky, but there will be a group of people that will think that AC has been going badly simply because they're not getting what they want. This group could be very large, and this group would be highly succeptable to latching on to the first socialist promising them the fair world they deserve.

[/ QUOTE ]


I assume this is the latest attempt to justify institutionalized violence?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, just a direct contradiction of pvn's statement. He said "after the AC revolution, people won't revert to the state", which isn't true just because pvn wants it to be true.