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

[Mempho]

I think everyone here has probably taken one of the two-axis political quizzes that graph social beliefs on one axis and economic beliefs on the other axis. These quizzes have been commonly associated with the introduction to libertarian though. Certain quizzes seem to better reflect one's core beliefs than others, but that is not the substance of this post. (I will come back to the political map, the libergraph, later, though).

All of these various beliefs have big problems when we move to the fringes of the graphs and, yet, it is quite surprising how many people test on those three corners of the graph. There is one other corner, totalitarianism, in which very few people test.

If one moves to far towards:

1) Statism- I'll attack statism first. People who point to statism usually point to the state as a solution to the ills that affect the general populace. The massive problem with this is that statism is simply an instrument waiting to be abused by a non-benevolent power.

2) Corporatism- The U.S. is now heavily moving to the corporatist side of the graph. The only difference between corporatism and statism lies in mere formality of ownership. It matters NOT whether the government owns the companies or whether the companies own the government, the end result is still the same. It is an instrument just waiting to be abused by a nonbenevolent leadership.

AC- I test as a moderate libertarian, but there is a big problem with AC and that is that AC is so underregulated that the consolidation of power is inevitable. AC will always lead to corporatism (even if the corporation doesn't exist).

All of the above three lead to totalitarianism...and therein lies the problem. All socialist and fascist (corporatist) regimes are eventually abused because the hearts of men thirst for power over others. AC just becomes corporatism left unchecked. Therefore, the best approach is a very balanced approach.

All of the extremes lead to consolidations of power and consolidations of power, all of them, eventually lead to abuse.

Many people here used to worry about collusion in a poker game for a very good reason and that was because the threat was very real. If you don't think that people will collude in other things, then you are very naive. I used to laugh at all of the arguments against the presence of cheating and collusion in poker because the arguments completely dismissed the strong motivations that people had for cheating or that it was too complicated. According to accounts I've read and heard, it was neither.

Politics is the same way. If it hasn't already happened, it will eventually happen. With enough power, everything can be controlled: legislation, campaigns, media, etc. It's going to happen, sooner or later, because our Constitution left this door wide open.

Denial of this fact is the denial of basic human nature. Economies of scale was an awfully seductive term at one time, even to me.

Now, take a libergraph (political map), print it out and wrap it around a globe. Your political map is no different from a flat map of the earth. The extremes are in close proximity. That is the way to understand politics.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
All of the extremes lead to consolidations of power and consolidations of power, all of them, eventually lead to abuse.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of the three you're discussing, two do not "lead" to consolidations of power, they ARE consolidations of power.

As for AC "inevitably" leading to such a consolidation of power, please explain how you think this is going to happen and why it is inevitable.

[ QUOTE ]
Many people here used to worry about collusion in a poker game for a very good reason and that was because the threat was very real. If you don't think that people will collude in other things, then you are very naive.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. Which is why any arrangement in which people are forced to surrender autonomy to some other person is unacceptable.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
As for AC "inevitably" leading to such a consolidation of power, please explain how you think this is going to happen and why it is inevitable.

[/ QUOTE ]

1. Assume conclusion.
2. Wave hands.
3. QED.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]

Of the three you're discussing, two do not "lead" to consolidations of power, they ARE consolidations of power.

As for AC "inevitably" leading to such a consolidation of power, please explain how you think this is going to happen and why it is inevitable.



[/ QUOTE ]

The winners will in the game will eventually gravitate towards each other. After all, they live in the same great neigborhoods, belong to the same great golf courses, and travel together. In your estimation, how many people from 2+2 began cheating at poker from first getting to know another one of the winners here at 2+2? Why? Greed, thirst for power, hot chicks, etc. AC will lead to the same conclusion if left to its own devices. In essence, online poker was a microcosm of a society that was regulated too lightly and the amount of cheating escalated as time went on. That's because the winners tend to congregate together. A certain percentage of the winners will always decide to cheat in order to increase their part of the pie. It's human nature.

I should ask you, how would AC combat human nature? Or do you argue that I am wrong about human nature?

EDIT: I should add that I agree with you on the other two being "consolidations of power" rather than leading to them. Also, the main gist of what I'm saying is that eventually someone will end up with enough chips to dictate the outcome to the point that the probabilities get skewed. Think of the big-stack sharks in a poker tournament. Collusion is an implied concept here. Imagine a situation where such collusion can be assumed rather than implied due to human nature.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Of the three you're discussing, two do not "lead" to consolidations of power, they ARE consolidations of power.

As for AC "inevitably" leading to such a consolidation of power, please explain how you think this is going to happen and why it is inevitable.



[/ QUOTE ]

The winners will in the game will eventually gravitate towards each other. After all, they live in the same great neigborhoods, belong to the same great golf courses, and travel together. In your estimation, how many people from 2+2 began cheating at poker from first getting to know another one of the winners here at 2+2? Why? Greed, thirst for power, hot chicks, etc. AC will lead to the same conclusion if left to its own devices. In essence, online poker was a microcosm of a society that was regulated too lightly and the amount of cheating escalated as time went on. That's because the winners tend to congregate together. A certain percentage of the winners will always decide to cheat in order to increase their part of the pie. It's human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

As predicted, handwaving.

Q: How are they going to cheat?
A: They will CHEAT!!!

[ QUOTE ]
I should ask you, how would AC combat human nature? Or do you argue that I am wrong about human nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither! AC doesn't *do* anything. People will try to cheat, and other people will detect that cheating. Are you going to do business with a cheater?

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I should add that I agree with you on the other two being "consolidations of power" rather than leading to them. Also, the main gist of what I'm saying is that eventually someone will end up with enough chips to dictate the outcome to the point that the probabilities get skewed. Think of the big-stack sharks in a poker tournament. Collusion is an implied concept here. Imagine a situation where such collusion can be assumed rather than implied due to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

More handwaving.

Q: How does "someone" "eventually" "end up with enough chips"?
A: It just happens.

[Brainwalter]

what winning 2+2ers were colluding with each other, did I miss something here? Your online poker narrative does not jive with me.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]


As predicted, handwaving.

Q: How are they going to cheat?
A: They will CHEAT!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I should ask you, how would AC combat human nature? Or do you argue that I am wrong about human nature?

[/ QUOTE ]

Neither! AC doesn't *do* anything. People will try to cheat, and other people will detect that cheating. Are you going to do business with a cheater?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're making the assumption that "the people" will know about the cheating. Spoon-feed the masses, silence the most powerful threats, and discredit the rest (those crazy looney conspiracy theorists).

[ QUOTE ]
EDIT: I should add that I agree with you on the other two being "consolidations of power" rather than leading to them. Also, the main gist of what I'm saying is that eventually someone will end up with enough chips to dictate the outcome to the point that the probabilities get skewed. Think of the big-stack sharks in a poker tournament. Collusion is an implied concept here. Imagine a situation where such collusion can be assumed rather than implied due to human nature.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
More handwaving.

Q: How does "someone" "eventually" "end up with enough chips"?
A: It just happens.

[/ QUOTE ]

Therein lies the end of the AC fantasy. Totalitarian control resumes. We just hope he (or she's) a nice little dictator. I sure hope the heir is nice for the sake of my children. And the next heir for the sake of my grandchildren. On and on and on.

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
In essence, online poker was a microcosm of a society that was regulated too lightly and the amount of cheating escalated as time went on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a zero sum game, the economy is not, which leads to different incentives. When the size of the pie is finite you can only gain by taking from others (or preventing them from getting an unclaimed piece), in real life you can gain by baking a bigger pie through increased productivity and all its many blessings.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
1) Statism- I'll attack statism first. People who point to statism usually point to the state as a solution to the ills that affect the general populace. The massive problem with this is that statism is simply an instrument waiting to be abused by a non-benevolent power.

[/ QUOTE ]

The state is, as Thomas Paine called it, a necessary evil in that it makes possible what the individual must have but cannot accomplish alone. A favorite fallacy of the anarchist is that because top-down government is bad, all government is bad.

[ QUOTE ]
2) Corporatism- The U.S. is now heavily moving to the corporatist side of the graph. The only difference between corporatism and statism lies in mere formality of ownership. It matters NOT whether the government owns the companies or whether the companies own the government, the end result is still the same. It is an instrument just waiting to be abused by a nonbenevolent leadership.

AC- I test as a moderate libertarian, but there is a big problem with AC and that is that AC is so underregulated that the consolidation of power is inevitable. AC will always lead to corporatism (even if the corporation doesn't exist).

[/ QUOTE ]

What's being billed as "anarcho-capitalism" is really just plutocracy in disguise. The wealthy keep their essential advantages, while the middle class and poor lose their most effective forms of collective action, i.e. those manifested by means of a servant government.

[Mempho]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In essence, online poker was a microcosm of a society that was regulated too lightly and the amount of cheating escalated as time went on.

[/ QUOTE ]

Poker is a zero sum game, the economy is not, which leads to different incentives. When the size of the pie is finite you can only gain by taking from others (or preventing them from getting an unclaimed piece), in real life you can gain by baking a bigger pie through increased productivity and all its many blessings.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a key difference but it doesn't refute the consolidation argument. You give just enough people enough of the pie to shut them up. Increase barriers to entry in relation to productivity.