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

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which again, goes to the politically-connected, not "the citizens" (who, again, are subsidizing the operations).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say they *wouldn't*, just that it's not some simple matter. Supposing that a population that figured out enough to decide to go without a state would suddenly let the wool get pulled over their eyes is obviously fallacious. But the fact that it's *possible* is no fatal flaw for AC, since it's also possible for a population to "revert" to statelessness (and in fact, is presupposed by your argument).

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Which again, goes to the politically-connected, not "the citizens" (who, again, are subsidizing the operations).

[/ QUOTE ]

Be that as it may, the citizens of an empire generally experience a net gain in value due to the imperial venture.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Be that as it may, the citizens of an empire generally experience a net gain in value due to the imperial venture.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ianlippert]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its not something thats going to happen over night. But there is definate progress. I think the war in Iraq is a lot less popular than it would have been without the internet. I remember reading chomsky about 10 years ago and how hard it was to talk to anyone about how corrupt the government actions over seas are. Nowadays we have shows like the daily show, which are basically chomsky lite. Is anyone ever going to convince us to go back to slavery, or put women out of the work force? I think once people realise the importance of freedom they rarely change their minds. I think society is still progressing in a positive manner. I'm not argueing that the internet would save an AC society 100% of the time, but our ability to communicate is magnitudes greater than it was 100 years ago which can only help stem the power of abusive givernments.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
What state is this?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ya sorry I was running on very little sleep last night. I knew what that sentence sounded like but I was too lazy at the time to come up with something coherent that wouldnt be misinterpreted.

What I meant was that the majority of people in north america accept democracy. Even when they lose an election they dont think its unfair for their tax money to be spent on issues that they might disagree with. Voluntary was a really bad word to use, acceptance is probably better.

If the majority of people did not accept democracy or taxation the government would not be able to force people to pay taxes. The government would have to wage a war against its own citizens, which couldnt last very long. Ultimately the population has the power not the governing institution. Acceptance of the government is crucial to its survival.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Be that as it may, the citizens of an empire generally experience a net gain in value due to the imperial venture.

[/ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

And don't forget:



And remember, we're talking about a country with basically zero organized resistance, and tons of valuable natural resources. If any scenario should produce the "net gain" you're talking about, this would be it, wouldn't it?

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]


I know the choices a lot of people have. I know that I have had more choices than most. Ultimately, they will act in their own best interest and if that involves being employed by someone else then so be it. Incidentally, the term "wage slave" is a total oxymoron. No slave has ever received a wage.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you cannot quit your job, because you have no savings, large debt and mortgage and you and your family will be homeless and hungry in short time after quitting, you are not much better off than a slave who cannot quit his job because he'll be hunted down. People in this situation usually know that it is in their best interest to work as hard as they can to keep their job. And to go along with whatever their employer orders.
[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If most people didn't spend carelessly, they'd be savers, wouldn't they? And then, what do you think would happen to our consumer economy? If few people spend, to whom would the companies sell? If the sales dropped, where would the jobs be? Spending carefully is one of those things where I can legitimately ask you what would happen if everybody was doing it? Everything would change.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. When people borrow to finance spending, they have to pay it back eventually, and that is when they won't be able to afford to buy things. You're giving one of the ultimate economic fallacies. A lot of people borrowing money to spend doesn't just magically improve everyone's standard of living.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, our present economy is doing great today precisely because most people are borrowing and spending today. The average savings rate in the country is -1%, people are actually tapping their assets to pay for things. Sure, they might not have access to credit tomorrow, but what corporation has luxury to think beyond next quarter's profits. If most consumers stopped spending today, corporate profits would fall now, and not in some future to which one has to survive by beating competitors today.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ditto with people not having children they cannot afford. Fewer children, fewer products sold, fewer jobs.
So, one graduates from college with debt, has to repay it, where would one find more money to hire lawyers to read and explain the contracts? Who would get the job first do you think, a candidate who hires a lawyer to argue fine points in the contract, or the candidate who signs right away? The market will make sure, that people are in position to do most everything their employer says, and always in fear of losing their job. So, the companies will have a lot of leverage to squeeze their employees. Most industries do not have labor shortage, so only the top talent will get better treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, for a lot of jobs, the employer has the leverage in the negotiation, but the employer cannot write anything totally outrageous into the contract because then nobody would agree. No employer is going to expect you to sign a contract without checking it out first. Heck, if I'm an employer, I wouldn't want an employee who signed a contract without checking it out first because that implies to me that they're a total f*cking moran.

The other point you are missing is that when the job market is poor, it puts the value of entrepreneurship up tremendously, and that is good for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a stiff competition for jobs, corporate loyalty goes up in value. People hold on to their jobs and will do a lot of things their employer tells them to do. Cultures, where corporate loyalty is a cultural value will produce more competitive corporations, and their cultural values will eventually spread. You'll end up with corporate domains populated by obedient subservient employees who will go along with a lot of restrictions on their freedom. Once one allows one's employer to restrict one's freedoms, one is much more likely to not mind some form of limited government or at least to be so exhausted from work and personal relationship as to pay no attention to politics at all.
Individual enterpreneurs are taking great risks, to which most people are not suited. Many enterpreneurs cannot even afford their health insurance, while taking their business out of the hole.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


I know the choices a lot of people have. I know that I have had more choices than most. Ultimately, they will act in their own best interest and if that involves being employed by someone else then so be it. Incidentally, the term "wage slave" is a total oxymoron. No slave has ever received a wage.



[/ QUOTE ]

If you cannot quit your job, because you have no savings, large debt and mortgage and you and your family will be homeless and hungry in short time after quitting, you are not much better off than a slave who cannot quit his job because he'll be hunted down. People in this situation usually know that it is in their best interest to work as hard as they can to keep their job. And to go along with whatever their employer orders.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place. Are you arguing that the government should do something to help them? Their bad choices or misfortune give no good reason to use force on others or their property.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

If most people didn't spend carelessly, they'd be savers, wouldn't they? And then, what do you think would happen to our consumer economy? If few people spend, to whom would the companies sell? If the sales dropped, where would the jobs be? Spending carefully is one of those things where I can legitimately ask you what would happen if everybody was doing it? Everything would change.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is wrong. When people borrow to finance spending, they have to pay it back eventually, and that is when they won't be able to afford to buy things. You're giving one of the ultimate economic fallacies. A lot of people borrowing money to spend doesn't just magically improve everyone's standard of living.


[/ QUOTE ]

And yet, our present economy is doing great today precisely because most people are borrowing and spending today. The average savings rate in the country is -1%, people are actually tapping their assets to pay for things. Sure, they might not have access to credit tomorrow, but what corporation has luxury to think beyond next quarter's profits. If most consumers stopped spending today, corporate profits would fall now, and not in some future to which one has to survive by beating competitors today.

[/ QUOTE ]

You can not use an empirical argument because you have no control. You don't know what the situation would be like if people did save more - it could be much better (I personally think it would be similar based on the arguments I have already given).

Though there is a lot of focus on the next quarters profits, companies plan for the long term. If you make any significant sacrifice of the long term for short term gain then you will get creamed by your competitors.

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]

Ditto with people not having children they cannot afford. Fewer children, fewer products sold, fewer jobs.
So, one graduates from college with debt, has to repay it, where would one find more money to hire lawyers to read and explain the contracts? Who would get the job first do you think, a candidate who hires a lawyer to argue fine points in the contract, or the candidate who signs right away? The market will make sure, that people are in position to do most everything their employer says, and always in fear of losing their job. So, the companies will have a lot of leverage to squeeze their employees. Most industries do not have labor shortage, so only the top talent will get better treatment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, for a lot of jobs, the employer has the leverage in the negotiation, but the employer cannot write anything totally outrageous into the contract because then nobody would agree. No employer is going to expect you to sign a contract without checking it out first. Heck, if I'm an employer, I wouldn't want an employee who signed a contract without checking it out first because that implies to me that they're a total f*cking moran.

The other point you are missing is that when the job market is poor, it puts the value of entrepreneurship up tremendously, and that is good for everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

If there is a stiff competition for jobs, corporate loyalty goes up in value. People hold on to their jobs and will do a lot of things their employer tells them to do. Cultures, where corporate loyalty is a cultural value will produce more competitive corporations, and their cultural values will eventually spread. You'll end up with corporate domains populated by obedient subservient employees who will go along with a lot of restrictions on their freedom. Once one allows one's employer to restrict one's freedoms, one is much more likely to not mind some form of limited government or at least to be so exhausted from work and personal relationship as to pay no attention to politics at all.
Individual enterpreneurs are taking great risks, to which most people are not suited. Many enterpreneurs cannot even afford their health insurance, while taking their business out of the hole.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, these works arrangements are entered into voluntarily. I don't see the problem here (except not paying attention to politics, which is a problem).

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, this is true. They shouldn't have put themselves in that situation in the first place.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not all people are in "bad situations" because they put themselves there.

[ QUOTE ]
Their bad choices or misfortune

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait, you know that some people are just unlucky. Okay.

[ QUOTE ]
give no good reason to use force on others or their property.

[/ QUOTE ]

You don't think so? If you acknowledge that some people end up poor just due to bad luck (i.e. not due to being stupid or lazy or evil) then that means that some people are not getting the opportunity to realize their potential contributions to society through no fault of their own. The basic concept behind wealth redistribution is to grant access to opportunity to these people because their contributions will be greater than if they did not have access. The reason why this is forced on the minority that don't want their wealth redistributed is that they still get to enjoy the benefits of the redistribution whether they contribute or not, which registers as "unfair" with most people.