What is AC?

[Propertarian]

We can know in advance that it won't be solved because it is a market failure, and all you don't have a state to solve the failure.

The only way market failures can be solved without the state is for humans to suddenly become perfect omniscent altruistic angels.

[valenzuela]

Poofler clearly indicated that the guy had called the fire company and that he refused to pay for it afterwards, that has nothing to do with the freerider problem.

Youre scenario has something to with the freerider problem.
Is it really that hard for you to find a solution?
How about the guy whose house was on fire has to pay for the
firemen services afterwards.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The supreme "rule" in Nature is that the stronger survives -- and, in the process, takes away as much as he pleases from the weaker. There are no human laws, no human morality, no constraints at all when adopting "natural law". Humans already (but briefly) experimented with the application of "natural laws" in politics. In economics, we have AC, where strength is measured by ownership and management of property.

Mickey Brausch


[/ QUOTE ]

Many critics complain that the free market, in casting aside inefficient entrepreneurs or in other decisions, proves itself an "impersonal monster." The free-market economy, they charge, is "the rule of the jungle," where "survival of the fittest" is the law. Libertarians who advocate a free market are therefore called "Social Darwinists" who wish to exterminate the weak for the benefit of the strong.

The free market, in fact, is precisely the diametric opposite of the "jungle" society. The jungle is characterized by the war of all against all. One man gains only at the expense of another, by seizure of the latter's property. With all on a subsistence level, there is a true struggle for survival, with the stronger force crushing the weaker. In the free market, on the other hand, one man gains only through serving another, though he may also retire into self-sufficient production at a primitive level if he so desires. It is precisely through the peaceful co-operation of the market that all men gain through the development of the division of labor and capital investment. To apply the principle of the "survival of the fittest" to both the jungle and the market is to ignore the basic question: Fitness for what? The "fit" in the jungle are those most adept at the exercise of brute force. The "fit" on the market are those most adept in the service of society. The jungle is a brutish place where some seize from others and all live at the starvation level; the market is a peaceful and productive place where all serve themselves and others at the same time and live at infinitely higher levels of consumption. On the market, the charitable can provide aid, a luxury that cannot exist in the jungle.

The free market, therefore, transmutes the jungle's destructive competition for meagre subsistence into a peaceful co-operative competition in the service of one's self and others. In the jungle, some gain only at the expense of others. On the market, everyone gains. It is the market—the contractual society—that wrests order out of chaos, that subdues nature and eradicates the jungle, that permits the "weak" to live productively, or out of gifts from production, in a regal style compared to the life of the "strong" in the jungle. Furthermore, the market, by raising living standards, permits man the leisure to cultivate the very qualities of civilization that distinguish him from the brutes.

It is precisely statism that is bringing back the rule of the jungle—bringing back conflict, disharmony, caste struggle, conquest and the war of all against all, and general poverty. In place of the peaceful "struggle" of competition in mutual service, statism substitutes calculational chaos and the death-struggle of Social Darwinist competition for political privilege and for limited subsistence.

[/ QUOTE ]

QFT.

[Propertarian]

This can go on forever, we should all realize, until we get to the absolute failure part:

I can get sued, but big deal? I don't have anything. I'm just a no money bum who spent a buck on a forest instead of a beer one day.

And why do I get sued? Why doesn't everyone else have insurance against "act of poor idiot"? Isn't it their fault for not buying all 4000 kinds of insurance in AC (which almost certainly would end up being higher than we pay in taxes right now; the gov't has monopoly power and "buying in bulk" power on the buying end, driving down the price of everything that they purchase from private companies drastically.).

[dvsfun1]

[ QUOTE ]
The supreme "rule" in Nature is that the stronger survives -- and, in the process, takes away as much as he pleases from the weaker. There are no human laws, no human morality, no constraints at all when adopting "natural law". Humans already (but briefly) experimented with the application of "natural laws" in politics. In economics, we have AC, where strength is measured by ownership and management of property.

[/ QUOTE ]

There will always be people who will take by force what is not theirs, and those who are motivated by the power to control others. With no constraints, this will become an almost endless cycle until the most powerful rules. How does a pure AC society address this problem?
Also, I was curious. How does the AC society compare(or differ from) the world of Ms. Rand's John Galt, or that of Snow Crash?

[Poofler]

[ QUOTE ]
Poofler clearly indicated that the guy had called the fire company and that he refused to pay for it afterwards, that has nothing to do with the freerider problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's still a free-rider issue. He could call for all sorts of reasons like: his kid is trapped inside, or he doesn't want the fire to burn down the town. But he could genuinely be broke and not be able to pay. It doesn't matter if he tells them that before or after the fire is put out, the firemen still must put out that fire for the saftey of everyone.

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
Poofler clearly indicated that the guy had called the fire company and that he refused to pay for it afterwards, that has nothing to do with the freerider problem.

Youre scenario has something to with the freerider problem.
Is it really that hard for you to find a solution?
How about the guy whose house was on fire has to pay for the
firemen services afterwards.

[/ QUOTE ] A) I was explaining why Poofler's problem was a free rider problem.

B) I asked whether or not private companies would be able to force people to pay for something that they did not contract to force people to pay for stuff. Seems like their might be some disagreement amongst the judges in AC on this one to, leading us back to the whole clear failure of having more than one authority in the same jurisdiction.

But an entity that can force someone to pay for something they did not voluntarily purchase is not a company really; it is a mafia or a government.

[valenzuela]

ARGGHHH.
Nobody will buy a forest for a dollar, because someone will decide he wants to pay 2 dollars for it, then another person will decide he wants to pay 10 dollars for it and so on.
Also what happens in statism if some poor idiot starts destroying everything?

[Propertarian]

[ QUOTE ]
There will always be people who will take by force what is not theirs, and those who are motivated by the power to control others. With no constraints, this will become an almost endless cycle until the most powerful rules. How does a pure AC society address this problem?

[/ QUOTE ] Listen to this: it is assumed away because, and I'm serious, several people have told me this is why AC will be peaceful:

"It isn't profitable to use violence or steal" !!!!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
We can know in advance that it won't be solved because it is a market failure,

[/ QUOTE ]

How does one objectively identify a market failure?

[ QUOTE ]
and all you don't have a state to solve the failure.

[/ QUOTE ]

How does the small number of human beings in the state "solve" the "market failure" when millions of people in the market apparently can't (according to your definition)? How can you tell if the state has failed to solve the "market failure"? What are the criteria for success for the human beings that make up the state? What do you think those human beings would do if they "solved" the "market failure"?

Isn't it in the interest of those employed by the state to identify "market failures" and hence continue to employee themselves providing "solutions"?

[ QUOTE ]
The only way market failures can be solved without the state is for humans to suddenly become perfect omniscent altruistic angels.

[/ QUOTE ]

How exactly are "market failures" solved by the human beings in the state? Are they perfect omniscient altruistic angels?

Isn't it true that private enterprises that don't satisfy the consuming public suffer losses and must then reform themselves or go out of business? Isn't it also true that the state, by its own definition, cannot suffer losses nor go out of business, because it can simply externalize all of it's losses onto the public via taxation and inflation?