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

[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. If it's by taxation then there's your "centrally planned force".

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, I think that anyone who supports a state at all would be referred to as a statist, regardless of how it's funded, or whether it has a central concentration of power.

That does bring up a point about the difference between libertarians and ACists. A lot of it is semantics about whether an institution that performs the same functions of a libertarian state would be a "state", a "state-like institution", a "quasi-state", etc.

It seems to me like the only real difference between a libertarian state, and an AC "state-like institution" is how the people who exercise the (limited) power are chosen.

The reason I'm not an ACist is I think that every adult should have an equal say in choosing the people who exercise the power required to protect our freedom.

[Al68]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. The ACists on here would call me a statist, and I made numerous replies. Although I'm against state interference in the economy, I'm in favor of a "government" for the purpose of protecting our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're next ya know.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Well, I'm already there as far as the capitalism aspect of AC. And I don't really oppose AC, I would consider it a huge improvement over most governments that have ever existed.
Most complaints that ACists have against the state would not even apply to an ideal libertarian state, except the possibility that it would eventually become oppressive.

But what would prevent people from forming a state in AC land?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'd add these audio (and some video) lectures by dilorenzo.

linky

They were all excellent.

(Scroll down to "The Myth of Natural Monopoly" and "The Protectionist Origins of Antitrust")

[/ QUOTE ]


Or watch them in streaming video:
http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.co...ch?q=dilorenzo

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. The ACists on here would call me a statist, and I made numerous replies. Although I'm against state interference in the economy, I'm in favor of a "government" for the purpose of protecting our freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're next ya know.

[/ QUOTE ]
LOL. Well, I'm already there as far as the capitalism aspect of AC. And I don't really oppose AC, I would consider it a huge improvement over most governments that have ever existed.
Most complaints that ACists have against the state would not even apply to an ideal libertarian state, except the possibility that it would eventually become oppressive.

But what would prevent people from forming a state in AC land?

[/ QUOTE ]

If it's a voluntary state, then nothing would stop them and no one would care.

If they tried to impliment a state based on forcing others("democracy"), then yes, there might be some bloodshed, but it would ultimately fail. Even without a massively funded defense system, things such as guerilla warfare would cause its failure. Just look at Iraq! We bombed all their fancy government bomb factories and radar towers in like one week. And now it's been almost 4 years and the U.S. still hasn't won the fight. The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an assumption, because any network of people could form with collective wealth to launch such a campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're making decisions about motive on behalf of someone else. If someone's utility curve rates conquest ahead of $s, then they could very well choose to pursue wasteful military campaigns despite the cost. The real debate should be whether or not there would be more such campaigns under AC versus a democratic state. To assume that they will disappear forever is not realistic.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an assumption, because any network of people could form with collective wealth to launch such a campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're making decisions about motive on behalf of someone else. If someone's utility curve rates conquest ahead of $s, then they could very well choose to pursue wasteful military campaigns despite the cost. The real debate should be whether or not there would be more such campaigns under AC versus a democratic state. To assume that they will disappear forever is not realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never assumed or said such campaigns would "disappear forever". Maybe you should refer to my entire post rather than cutting and snipping quotes out of context that you can best use for the strawman.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital

[/ QUOTE ]

This is an assumption, because any network of people could form with collective wealth to launch such a campaign.

[ QUOTE ]
or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI.

[/ QUOTE ]

Now you're making decisions about motive on behalf of someone else. If someone's utility curve rates conquest ahead of $s, then they could very well choose to pursue wasteful military campaigns despite the cost. The real debate should be whether or not there would be more such campaigns under AC versus a democratic state. To assume that they will disappear forever is not realistic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I never assumed or said such campaigns would "disappear forever". Maybe you should refer to my entire post rather than cutting and snipping quotes out of context that you can best use for the strawman.

[/ QUOTE ]

Easy there, neighbor. You can clarify my misunderstanding without going all crazy.

"The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI."

This line absolutely suggests that, under AC, there will be no entities with the combination of resources or objectives to wage war. If you aren't saying this, then you really aren't pointing out a "difference" between AC and not AC, IMO.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
Easy there, neighbor. You can clarify my misunderstanding without going all crazy.

"The difference is that in AC, no one has the capital or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign that results in no ROI."

This line absolutely suggests that, under AC, there will be no entities with the combination of resources or objectives to wage war. If you aren't saying this, then you really aren't pointing out a "difference" between AC and not AC, IMO.


[/ QUOTE ]

And this quote from original post that you ignored,
[ QUOTE ]
If they tried to impliment a state based on forcing others("democracy"), then yes, there might be some bloodshed, but it would ultimately fail.

[/ QUOTE ]

...suggests otherwise.

And when I said
[ QUOTE ]
no one has the capital or the motive to launch such an expensive campaign

[/ QUOTE ]

...I was clearly referring to the Iraq example, and I stand by that.

But you ignored these parts of my post and instead used the other quotes out of context.

[Girchuck]

Every large corporation has its own politics.
It appears that politics is inevitable, whenever a certain mass of people is agglomerated, and whenever a hierarchy is necessary to manage the company. How do you propose to abolish politics in a large company?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
How do you propose to abolish politics in a large company?

[/ QUOTE ]
Who's proposing that we do this?