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

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very nice, but there is one area, that is missed.
Weapons research. If no one is doing weapons research, existing weapons will become obsolete, and a technologically superior adversary will rout whatever defences the country can muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are market incentives for firms to develop weapons research. These firms are still competing for customers. With more advanced technology, a defense firm can project the same amount of force for less money, or more force for the same amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

Apparently only defensive warfare is profitable, while the aggressive theft of other people's resources is a money loser.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP,

I think you missed the point of Mempho's post. Military security has no value to an individual; you're no going to stand vs (insert bogeyman here). Like a number of things defense spending has value when done collectively but not individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same is true for printing presses, locomotives, factory machinery, roads, 757's, and every other capital good provided by the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are quite different. They create goods or services which are beneficial in and of themselves. They can be sold individually with no reduction in their effectiveness.

If I buy a defence contract then it's worthless unless either a substantial portion of my neighbours also buy into it or I am so wealthy that I can compete in military might with a country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Insurance works much the same way. If you are the insurance company's only customer, it's not very likely that they could fulfill their obligation to pay for whatever you have insured. And yet there are many insurance companies that compete with each other.

[ QUOTE ]
I guess the logical solution for an ACist state would be to have a volunteer force - the 'well armed militia' of the 3rd amendment, which alway seems to be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can forgive this since you're not an American citizen, IIRC. You're talking about the 2nd amendment. The third prohibits the government from quartering troops in your house. And I'm sure there probably would be such militias. There are quite a few gun owners in the U.S., many who take gun ownership as well as being able to defend yourself very seriously. I'm sure many of the type of people who go into the military would be able to find work with defense companies that could drill many of the same tactics. This would very likely not be the only defense "system".

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very nice, but there is one area, that is missed.
Weapons research. If no one is doing weapons research, existing weapons will become obsolete, and a technologically superior adversary will rout whatever defences the country can muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are market incentives for firms to develop weapons research. These firms are still competing for customers. With more advanced technology, a defense firm can project the same amount of force for less money, or more force for the same amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I thought war was too expensive for the companies. If there is no market for increased force projection, because it is already too destructive, there will be no money to develop more destructive weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Offense is more expensive than defense. If something is too expensive to defend, then it will most likely not be undertaken. Pretty straightforward.

[Girchuck]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Very nice, but there is one area, that is missed.
Weapons research. If no one is doing weapons research, existing weapons will become obsolete, and a technologically superior adversary will rout whatever defences the country can muster.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, there are market incentives for firms to develop weapons research. These firms are still competing for customers. With more advanced technology, a defense firm can project the same amount of force for less money, or more force for the same amount of money.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I thought war was too expensive for the companies. If there is no market for increased force projection, because it is already too destructive, there will be no money to develop more destructive weapons.

[/ QUOTE ]

Offense is more expensive than defense. If something is too expensive to defend, then it will most likely not be undertaken. Pretty straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am going to agree with this. You are right, defensive technologies are on the average cheaper to develop.
I am more concerned with military blackmail and bullying from the statists neighbours. Something along the lines of: "Give us some money, or we will covertly subsidize your competitors' military campaign against you."

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Offense is more expensive than defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The extra expense may or may not be worth it, depending on the theft.

[ QUOTE ]
If something is too expensive to defend, then it will most likely not be undertaken. Pretty straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case it will be stolen by someone who does have the means to defend it. Good point.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Offense is more expensive than defense.

[/ QUOTE ]

The extra expense may or may not be worth it, depending on the theft.

[ QUOTE ]
If something is too expensive to defend, then it will most likely not be undertaken. Pretty straightforward.

[/ QUOTE ]

In which case it will be stolen by someone who does have the means to defend it. Good point.

[/ QUOTE ]

Or it won't be produced in the first place.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
I am more concerned with military blackmail and bullying from the statists neighbours. Something along the lines of: "Give us some money, or we will covertly subsidize your competitors' military campaign against you."

[/ QUOTE ]

So Canada is going to blackmail Coke into paying money, or else Canada will fund Pepsi attacks against Coke?

Why would Pepsi do this? They might manage to wipe out Coke, but they'll probably lose all their customers in the process.

[mosdef]

[ QUOTE ]
So Canada is going to blackmail Coke into paying money, or else Canada will fund Pepsi attacks against Coke?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not exactly. We would provide universal health care to the Pepsi salesmen. The new and improved Pepsi Ubersalesmen will wipe Coke off the map in no time.

[Jamougha]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BCPVP,

I think you missed the point of Mempho's post. Military security has no value to an individual; you're no going to stand vs (insert bogeyman here). Like a number of things defense spending has value when done collectively but not individually.

[/ QUOTE ]

The same is true for printing presses, locomotives, factory machinery, roads, 757's, and every other capital good provided by the free market.

[/ QUOTE ]

All of these are quite different. They create goods or services which are beneficial in and of themselves. They can be sold individually with no reduction in their effectiveness.

If I buy a defence contract then it's worthless unless either a substantial portion of my neighbours also buy into it or I am so wealthy that I can compete in military might with a country.

[/ QUOTE ]
Insurance works much the same way. If you are the insurance company's only customer, it's not very likely that they could fulfill their obligation to pay for whatever you have insured. And yet there are many insurance companies that compete with each other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Again, this is not the same. If my house burns down then it doesn't matter if other people in the neighbourhood have insured their houses. It matters whether the company has enough money to pay for my house only, which it may have fom a body of contributions or from a few wealthy investors (Lloyd's or London operates mainly on the latter principle to insure a huge range of things.) To prevent Canada invading Alaska (lol) contributions form a large number of people would be required to fund a defence force. There is a strong 'incentive to defection' because any individual contribution is essentially irrelevant and, if such a force already exists and is being payed for, why put your own money towards it? They cannot possibly avoid protecting you in addition to others in the country.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I guess the logical solution for an ACist state would be to have a volunteer force - the 'well armed militia' of the 3rd amendment, which alway seems to be ignored.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think we can forgive this since you're not an American citizen, IIRC. You're talking about the 2nd amendment. The third prohibits the government from quartering troops in your house. And I'm sure there probably would be such militias. There are quite a few gun owners in the U.S., many who take gun ownership as well as being able to defend yourself very seriously. I'm sure many of the type of people who go into the military would be able to find work with defense companies that could drill many of the same tactics. This would very likely not be the only defense "system".

[/ QUOTE ]

Ah yes, my memory of which amendment is which is shaky, ty.

[TomCollins]

There are no negative externalities or free riders in ACland. Just compare those problems to other irrelevent analogies and the problems go away! Anyone want a $100 hot dog?