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

[Girchuck]

Borodog wrote:

"A system that does not depend on political allocation of resources and rewards. I.e., a system without politics. It's called the free market. "

But, that system is not possible. There will always be politics in allocation of resources. If one lives in a company town, one doesn't care if there is no federal government to pay taxes to, one still has to buy stuff from a company store.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Borodog wrote:

"A system that does not depend on political allocation of resources and rewards. I.e., a system without politics. It's called the free market. "

But, that system is not possible. There will always be politics in allocation of resources. If one lives in a company town, one doesn't care if there is no federal government to pay taxes to, one still has to buy stuff from a company store.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think you know what he meant.

[Dr. Strangelove]

[ QUOTE ]


I'd like to think we're not hearing the statist side because they've conceded defeat on this topic, but I doubt it [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

We won this debate already.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow what "the difference is" under AC.

You seem to be saying that with states, states engage in low-profit wars, but in AC land, groups of people will band together and engage in low-profit wars. Where is the difference?

[Brainwalter]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow what "the difference is" under AC.

You seem to be saying that with states, states engage in low-profit wars, but in AC land, groups of people will band together and engage in low-profit wars. Where is the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state can force everyone in their territory to pay for their (not low-profit) money-losing wars.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow what "the difference is" under AC.

You seem to be saying that with states, states engage in low-profit wars, but in AC land, groups of people will band together and engage in low-profit wars. Where is the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

The state can force everyone in their territory to pay for their (not low-profit) money-losing wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

The company can "persuade" their debt-ridden employees to work harder to pay for the campaign. The corporations built on a Japanese model with lots of corporate loyalty already instilled in their employees will have an advantage. We'll see a lot of low-intensity assasination campaigns waged by over-worked sararimen.

[Vagos]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I still don't follow what "the difference is" under AC.

You seem to be saying that with states, states engage in low-profit wars, but in AC land, groups of people will band together and engage in low-profit wars. Where is the difference?

[/ QUOTE ]

My advice is to pay attention to what I'm actually saying. I don't mean to be rude, but it's getting very frustrating that you're mangling my words and points so often.

So let me try again. First off, state's don't engage in "low-profit" wars. Wars such as Iraq result in a net loss. However the ability to subsidize the costs of said war onto the population is a HUGE ADVANTAGE. Quite clearly, this advantage does not exist in AC-land. That's a major difference, no?

In AC-land is it possible that people will band together to initiate a war similar to the one we're fighting in Iraq? I suppose it's POSSIBLE, but only if their collective goal is a brief period of death and destruction at the cost of their entire net worth.

Here's an example. Bill Gates, commonly regarded as the richest man in the world, has a net worth of roughly $50 billion. The Iraq War to date has cost over $350 billion. This means it would take the collection of not just rich guys, but a large collection of THE richest guys on the planet, to wage a war that has accomplished essentially nothing but death and destruction. Note that the result of said war would mean that those richest guys would be close to dead broke after four years.

Also see ShakeZula's Halliburton example.

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

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
He does seem to be confusing someone "controlling" his own money with "controlling" the market as a whole.

[/ QUOTE ]

As if the two could never happen together.

As if the Market Fairy will stop concentrated wealth from exploiting the disproportionate advantages of greater size that cause imperfect competition in the marketplace.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]

The company can "persuade" their debt-ridden employees to work harder to pay for the campaign. The corporations built on a Japanese model with lots of corporate loyalty already instilled in their employees will have an advantage. We'll see a lot of low-intensity assasination campaigns waged by over-worked sararimen.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is that nobody is forcing you to work for the company; you are there of your own free will. You are free to leave anytime you like (unless you signed a contract that restricts when you can leave, but then, you shouldn't have signed it). This is not the case with governments.

[mosdef]

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks, this makes more sense.

This was not stated clearly in your preliminary posts. They were worded more along the lines of "in AC there will be incentives to not engage in warfare because it's too costly" which is not the same thing as talking about the transference or wealth from one group to another.

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?