Tyranny in AC land - Page 2

Propertarian · #11 10-31-2006, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I tell my army they get a cut of whatever they conquer and pillage. Now it costs me very little.

[/ QUOTE ] You might not even have to do this...

Here's a little history: Prior to the 17th century, very few Europeans had a sense of loyalty and nationalism to the state; most people had this towards their small town or neighborhood, but not to a whole nation. Nationalism and patriotism were more or less inculcated in the populace by political leaders intentinally (sometimes government programs work [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]).

Now, most ACists think that the market is more efficient than government. Given that belief, it is inconsistent to say that private companies wouldn't be able to cause people to become "patriotic" and loyal towards the company (they are already excellent at influncing people's actions via advertising).

In other words, people might volunteer(!!!) for your army.

Propertarian · #12 10-31-2006, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The army of everyone else who collectively have a lot more money than he does.

[/ QUOTE ] Sounds more like civil war to me. Or at least a huge and unecessary waste of resources and time (perhaps we'd be better off with the state?).

Dan. · #13 10-31-2006, 09:20 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure why, but AC'er often claim that there is nonagression in AC land. But what's to stop one person from hiring the strongest army and enslaving the rest of the people?

[/ QUOTE ]

The army of everyone else who collectively have a lot more money than he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading your post in the other thread was interesting and has bearing on this topic as well. But let's just say--while we're always speaking in hypotheticals--someone amasses 51% of the known wealth. What stops him now?

TomCollins · #14 10-31-2006, 09:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure why, but AC'er often claim that there is nonagression in AC land. But what's to stop one person from hiring the strongest army and enslaving the rest of the people?

[/ QUOTE ]

The army of everyone else who collectively have a lot more money than he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading your post in the other thread was interesting and has bearing on this topic as well. But let's just say--while we're always speaking in hypotheticals--someone amasses 51% of the known wealth. What stops him now?

[/ QUOTE ]

A death star points its sights at Earth. What stops them from detroying us?

Brainwalter · #15 10-31-2006, 09:21 PM

LOL, what would happen under statism if someone amasses 51% of the known wealth?

hmkpoker · #16 10-31-2006, 09:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I'm not entirely sure why, but AC'er often claim that there is nonagression in AC land. But what's to stop one person from hiring the strongest army and enslaving the rest of the people?

[/ QUOTE ]

The army of everyone else who collectively have a lot more money than he does.

[/ QUOTE ]

Reading your post in the other thread was interesting and has bearing on this topic as well. But let's just say--while we're always speaking in hypotheticals--someone amasses 51% of the known wealth. What stops him now?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I'd say that everyone is pretty [penetrated] in that case. I see that as a pathologically unlikely condition though. Frankly, any society where someone has 51%+ of the wealth is totally doomed. The only real world example I can think of is Kim Jong Il.

WordWhiz · #17 10-31-2006, 09:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]

In other words, people might volunteer(!!!) for your army.

[/ QUOTE ]

ZOMG! People might volunteer for an army of a few hundred or a thousand, as opposed to the current situation, where they volunteer for armies numbering in the millions. It's like refusing to disarm a couple of gunfighters because you're afraid they'll then whip out their butter knives and use those to fight.

Dan. · #18 10-31-2006, 09:24 PM

So the basic AC answer is: we're [censored] if someone does it, and nothing is stoping that person. Correct?

Dan. · #19 10-31-2006, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL, what would happen under statism if someone amasses 51% of the known wealth?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not saying it's a good thing no matter what. I just think it'd be easier to amass that much wealth under AC.

WordWhiz · #20 10-31-2006, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The army of everyone else who collectively have a lot more money than he does.

[/ QUOTE ] Sounds more like civil war to me. Or at least a huge and unecessary waste of resources and time (perhaps we'd be better off with the state?).

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you think that there might possibly be some other outcome? Or is every country in the world currently at war with every other country? Might the existence of potential resistance to your plans for world domination be worth something?