AC and power

[NT!]

RIDICULOUS

JESUS CHRIST THE WORD IS RIDICULOUS

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
RIDICULOUS

JESUS CHRIST THE WORD IS RIDICULOUS

[/ QUOTE ]
Your use of caps is so rediculous.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
RIDICULOUS

JESUS CHRIST THE WORD IS RIDICULOUS

[/ QUOTE ]
Your use of caps is so rediculous.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey give him credit, at least he can defeat me in a spelling contest [img]/images/graemlins/cool.gif[/img]

[NT!]

As far as I can tell, bk, I just had a lengthy last word on the topic that you've yet to address. I'm interested in hearing how a theory of the state necessarily includes the initiation of illegitimate force. I'm also interested in hearing you rebut my objections to market anarchism.

In particular, I think it's important to understand that the quality of life, or the merit of any social arrangement, needs to be looked at along several lines. I think one of the most important is the power/force spectrum. One thing to consider is that a country with an active government is not NECESSARILY further towards the force end of the spectrum than a weak state. A perfect example of this (not trotting it out as an example of AC in practice, just of the power/force spectrum) would be Somalia, where force is far, far more prevalent than power. Other countries with weak civil societies, low participation in social organization and government, etc - be they centralized states like North Korea or disputed territories like Iraq - are also good examples. While the prevalence of force is often correlated with a powerful state, it is not the only cause of this condition.

To me, the challenge for a market anarchist would be to convince me that force would be less prevalent in a stateless society than in an attainable system of government. As of now I fall on the 'nay' side, for reasons discussed in my last post (that you ignored while boasting of how hard you are to 'defeat').

[xorbie]

hmk,

Thanks for at least one interesting response. I take some issue with your point number three, and moreover I don't feel you've adressed my question precisely. A "company" doesn't need to get paid by X to attack Y, they simply can attack Y on their own and take Y's goods/money.

To look at it from a game theory POV, if everyone is willing to spend a very high amount of $ on security, then no thiefs will exist. But then, there's no reason to spend such a high amount on security in the first place. There will always be an equilibrium... some theft will always exist.

There are several things to look at then. Some people simply won't have enough $ to be able to adequetly defend themselves. I've heard the counter argument that someone too poor to afford security would be too poor to steal from, but that's patently absurd to me. If someone had money and I could continuously and easily take it from them, you'd better believe I would.

Since in AC land services generally require money, I'm concerned that the general attitude amongst the populace might be that if poor people are constantly getting stolen from, it's really just not the rich's problem. Whatever, you may all agree - not a problem. It's problematic to me.

What's more bothersome to me is something you've hidden away by framing this the way you have. The problem lies precisely in "defense". If there's one company in the area that provides the best defense, the obvious implication is that they are quite powerful, because they must be able to monitor the region and have enough armed forces to dissuade criminals.

What does this mean then? It means that they have, if not a monopoly on force, something quite near it. Near enough to constitute precisely the coercion that we attribute to the state. Certainly people in the region could stop funding this group, but if it had made enough profit and accrued enough guns/troops in the meantime, they would have the power to start charging "taxes".

You can counter that the people would now start paying some neighboring defense company, but it would be quite easy for such companies to form cartels, or for it to be not worth their time to enter into a state of violent warfare with one another (or really any sort of battle).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Taxation by consent does not necessitate any violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Duh. But if it's consentual, it's not really a tax, is it? Unless you think the price of an apple is a "food tax".

And read what boro wrote again:

[ QUOTE ]
Can it tax it's citizens against their will?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The original theory of democracy is that each citizen is both the law-giver and the subject of the law. He is not merely represented by the government (a process with well known flaws), he IS the government. Issues of scale, implementation and scarcity are just a few of the biggest reasons why it has never really occured.

[/ QUOTE ]

This "theory" is just another smoke-and-mirrors bamboozlement attempt, just slightly more sophisticated than the "social contract" that you've already agreed is BS.

[ QUOTE ]
In a sense, the government of 'me' is indeed the most legit government. But that doesn't necessarily make it effective.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which is more important to you? "Effective" can mean a lot of different things; and it's not necessarily a desirable outcome.

[ QUOTE ]
Market anarchists have it right when they object to force as the law of politics. What they don't do, from what I can tell, is talk about how power can supplant force, how it can be spread and developed in a sustainable way.

[/ QUOTE ]

Are you serious? "Market anachists" talk about this in spades. It's just in a different format than what you're expecting.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
pvn,

Or maybe I think the circumstances that would lead to a stateless America would be less desirable than other outcomes.

I said a stateless society could POTENTIALLY exist under those circumstances. However, there is no reason that a government could not also be founded on those principles.

This is pretty much SOP for you; any time someone disagrees with you, accuse them of supporting violence against innocents.

[/ QUOTE ]

Lets test your assertion:

PVN which color is better blue or yellow?

[/ QUOTE ]

Blue FTW.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
You could have an institution wherein living under this structure would be a compact between you and your fellow citizens. If you choose not to take part, you lose access to its services -- so don't expect to use community property like roads, courts, hospitals, etc. Under another construct, you could say "yeah, there's a fee for living in this state, if you don't want to pay it, you are free to leave."

[/ QUOTE ]

What do you mean by "leave"?

Do you mean "physically relocate"? If so, are you presupposing that this "compact institution" owns the property that its participants live on?

Or do you mean "abstain from" as I might "leave" a church or "leave" a golf club?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm interested in hearing how a theory of the state necessarily includes the initiation of illegitimate force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Does a "state", in whatever definition you're using, have exclusive control over a set of geographical points?

In other words, can I, living on one piece of property, freely move my property out of one "state" and into another, in the same way I might change my homeowner's insurnace from one company to another?

[ QUOTE ]
To me, the challenge for a market anarchist would be to convince me that force would be less prevalent in a stateless society than in an attainable system of government. As of now I fall on the 'nay' side, for reasons discussed in my last post (that you ignored while boasting of how hard you are to 'defeat').

[/ QUOTE ]

So you're saying that until somene convinces you that peace is good, you're going to default to violence?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
hmk,

Thanks for at least one interesting response. I take some issue with your point number three, and moreover I don't feel you've adressed my question precisely. A "company" doesn't need to get paid by X to attack Y, they simply can attack Y on their own and take Y's goods/money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't this be even *less* profitable?

[ QUOTE ]
To look at it from a game theory POV, if everyone is willing to spend a very high amount of $ on security, then no thiefs will exist. But then, there's no reason to spend such a high amount on security in the first place. There will always be an equilibrium... some theft will always exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course. Nobody has ever claimed otherwise.

[ QUOTE ]
There are several things to look at then. Some people simply won't have enough $ to be able to adequetly defend themselves. I've heard the counter argument that someone too poor to afford security would be too poor to steal from, but that's patently absurd to me. If someone had money and I could continuously and easily take it from them, you'd better believe I would.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow. Are you serious?

Anyway, so this person *has money*. If he's so poor he can't afford security, then you're probably lowering your hourly rate by attacking him. Not to mention the fact that other people with money probably don't like thugs in their neighborhood, so they very well might pay for security for this guy.

[ QUOTE ]
Since in AC land services generally require money, I'm concerned that the general attitude amongst the populace might be that if poor people are constantly getting stolen from, it's really just not the rich's problem. Whatever, you may all agree - not a problem. It's problematic to me.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you would be willing to do something about it, then? I would wager that other people would feel the same way.

[ QUOTE ]
What's more bothersome to me is something you've hidden away by framing this the way you have. The problem lies precisely in "defense". If there's one company in the area that provides the best defense, the obvious implication is that they are quite powerful, because they must be able to monitor the region and have enough armed forces to dissuade criminals.

What does this mean then? It means that they have, if not a monopoly on force, something quite near it. Near enough to constitute precisely the coercion that we attribute to the state. Certainly people in the region could stop funding this group, but if it had made enough profit and accrued enough guns/troops in the meantime, they would have the power to start charging "taxes".

You can counter that the people would now start paying some neighboring defense company, but it would be quite easy for such companies to form cartels, or for it to be not worth their time to enter into a state of violent warfare with one another (or really any sort of battle).

[/ QUOTE ]

How is forming a cartel "quite easy"? This is one of the biggest myths around. Cartels are notoriously unstable outside of a government framework; the economic incentives for cartel members to break ranks are huge.

Of course it is "not worth their time" to enter into a state of violent warfare - that's EXACTLY the point. Violence is expensive.