AC Scenario

[JayTee]

Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[AWoodside]

Any time a large military-like force becomes pathological and hell-bent on enslaving a region it will suck for all parties involved regardless of whether the region is AC-land or a state. This should go with out saying. However, there are a few factors that will make this scenario suck less in AC-land.

1. ABC Defense's clients will stop paying for the service. Without a steady stream of income ABC Defense will rely on looting to sustain itself. While this might be theoretically possible, it's very difficult in the modern age, and will be more difficult than "free" money from sources like taxes.

2. ABC Defense cannot print it's own money. States can often sidestep the issue of huge taxes by stealing money in a sense from the current monetary supply by basically creating new money out of thin air at the expense of causing inflation. If taxes were raised in the US to a level that would be required to pay for the Iraq war, instead of the government borrowing the money, it would have been much less likely to happen.

3. ABC Defense will have a much more difficult time than the state keeping it's employees in line while they're running around raping and pillaging their fellow man. While I'm sure ABC Defense would be working hard to emulate the nationalistic brain-washing and conditioning the state does so well, thats much tougher to do with mercenaries. Result: Aggressive wars will cost ABC Defense more than they cost the state, at least payroll wise.

4. Is ABC Defense totally self-contained, or does it contract with other companies to produce it's weapons, ship it's equipment, run it's administrative buildings, train its doctors, etc. etc.? No Defense company is going to rise to prominence in a free-market without contract stipulations with other companies that make the agreements null and void if it decides to go on a murderous rampage. Would you hire ABC Defense if you knew from consumer reporting groups that there were no contractual disincentives to it pwning you? It would be ostracizing itself from most of the rest of the market by making this decision, meaning it would have to be truly monolithic in order for this to occur.

There are other reasons, but I"ve got to run to work so I'll let others fill in. All that being said, you could construct a really pathological scenario where ABC Defense had gotten so large that it controlled most of the means of war-industry itself so it could operate independent of the market, had run a campaign over the last 10 years indoctrinating its employees so effectively they would fight and die cheaply to further its goals, and had deals with the majority of the banks in the region that allowed it to sieze everyone's funds at will so they couldn't really stop paying it. Notice though that when you take pains to construct a completely pathological example of the worst-case scenario in AC-Land you get the statist status quo.

[valenzuela]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Statism scenario.
Adolp Hitler III takes over ABC country, the most powerful country in the world. How would the other countries stop him for taking over the world?

[GoodCallYouWin]

"
Statism scenario.
Adolp Hitler III takes over ABC country, the most powerful country in the world. How would the other countries stop him for taking over the world?
"

The bomb.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
Any time a large military-like force becomes pathological and hell-bent on enslaving a region it will suck for all parties involved regardless of whether the region is AC-land or a state. This should go with out saying. However, there are a few factors that will make this scenario suck less in AC-land.

1. ABC Defense's clients will stop paying for the service. Without a steady stream of income ABC Defense will rely on looting to sustain itself. While this might be theoretically possible, it's very difficult in the modern age, and will be more difficult than "free" money from sources like taxes. <font color="red">so they steal it </font>

2. ABC Defense cannot print it's own money. States can often sidestep the issue of huge taxes by stealing money in a sense from the current monetary supply by basically creating new money out of thin air at the expense of causing inflation. If taxes were raised in the US to a level that would be required to pay for the Iraq war, instead of the government borrowing the money, it would have been much less likely to happen. <font color="red">so they counterfeit it or steal it </font>

3. ABC Defense will have a much more difficult time than the state keeping it's employees in line while they're running around raping and pillaging their fellow man. While I'm sure ABC Defense would be working hard to emulate the nationalistic brain-washing and conditioning the state does so well, thats much tougher to do with mercenaries. Result: Aggressive wars will cost ABC Defense more than they cost the state, at least payroll wise. <font color="red"> so they steal the differential </font>

4. Is ABC Defense totally self-contained, or does it contract with other companies to produce it's weapons, ship it's equipment, run it's administrative buildings, train its doctors, etc. etc.? No Defense company is going to rise to prominence in a free-market without contract stipulations with other companies that make the agreements null and void if it decides to go on a murderous rampage. <font color="red">rofl. back to utopia. or they steal them </font> Would you hire ABC Defense if you knew from consumer reporting groups that there were no contractual disincentives to it pwning you? It would be ostracizing itself from most of the rest of the market by making this decision, meaning it would have to be truly monolithic in order for this to occur.

There are other reasons, but I"ve got to run to work so I'll let others fill in. All that being said, you could construct a really pathological scenario where ABC Defense had gotten so large that it controlled most of the means of war-industry itself so it could operate independent of the market, had run a campaign over the last 10 years indoctrinating its employees so effectively they would fight and die cheaply to further its goals, and had deals with the majority of the banks in the region that allowed it to sieze everyone's funds at will so they couldn't really stop paying it. Notice though that when you take pains to construct a completely pathological example of the worst-case scenario in AC-Land you get the statist status quo.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> unsupported assumption. In the statist situation you have 2 protections. A public official trying to accumulate that power still has to convince enough voters to get elected in the first place and has to convince the military to turn traitor on the country. A private individual/company trying to accumulate that power has the full financial resources of the state working against him, not whatever can be raised volunatarily . (and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected). You can create pathological situations in either scenario, it is the likelihood of them actually happening that is the issue. Any time you need quick reaction to a new, threatening situation, a state is likely to be more responsive.</font>

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankruptcy.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means. <font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]

[W brad]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand coalition run goverments? Even when no party receives a majority of the votes, the eventual prime minister or chancellor still is an elected leader. He was appointed chancellor with the support of a coalition of parties. Papen, his coalition partner, thought he could control him, but he was wrong. Definitely qualifies as the elected leader of the government by any standard.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand coalition run goverments? Even when no party receives a majority of the votes, the eventual prime minister or chancellor still is an elected leader. He was appointed chancellor with the support of a coalition of parties. Papen, his coalition partner, thought he could control him, but he was wrong. Definitely qualifies as the elected leader of the government by any standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand them. Hitler is an example of the breakdown of a coalition system. There was no majority coalition. Papen was fired, von Schleicher (sp?) quit, Hindenburg appointed Hitler only to avoid violence from Hitlers minority.

It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.