AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[bisonbison]

I think this is a definition that should please EVERYONE

State-like parties (professional mobs running protection rackets) will spring up almost immediately after the creation of a significant site of ACness. Such mobs have been a fact of life since at least the creation of the city.

In order to combat the threat of extortion or theft from these mobs, ACers will form cooperative leagues for mutual self-defense. These two coalitions (ACers and Mobs), in all their local franchises, will eventually conflict and civilians not party to either that live nearby may suffer collateral damage. If the local ACers lose, it is likely to result in a local monopolistic proto-state, so they'll be sure to fight hard.

Now, before the ACness forms, you don't know who exactly would be at risk from collateral damage, you don't who would play 'Belgium' in this rendition of Recent European History. But in any thought about the possibilities of ACness, each and every person will deduce his risk of suffering in this collateral damage by assessing his entire life, weighting thousands of factors by their importance to him, and computing that to a result. He'll make an economic decision.

Anyone who feels less at risk in the current regime will favor stability over revolution, and will conform to the rules of the state to the degree he finds worthwhile.

ACers must argue that the average person underestimates the current level of threat he faces, or underestimates the savings he'll achieve with ACness. Anti-ACers must argue that ACers overstate the current level of threat people face on average, or overstate the ACness savings. That's fine.

But we should make more allowance for the current state of things, since each and every sane being is a perfect little personal capitalist.


By the by, this is also why I think ACers are particularly dumb: they claim to be capitalists, shouldn't they understand that the current situation is just economics? People don't want to revolt for much the same reason so many ACers still pay their federal income taxes: the gains aren't worth the price.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
People don't want to revolt for much the same reason so many ACers still pay their federal income taxes: the gains aren't worth the price.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think most have come to the same conclusion. The state is +EV, and IMO, it's not even close.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
But we should make more allowance for the current state of things, since each and every sane being is a perfect little personal capitalist.

[/ QUOTE ]

I like the way you frame the argument, but there is no genetic or behavioral basis for this particular statement... in fact it's one of the most commonly used arguments for capitalism that is really wrong and relies on most peoples' ignorance of cultures and modes of production that are not capitalist. If everyone was 'naturally' a capitalist we wouldn't have to impose it by force on indigenous populations.

NT

[bisonbison]

I like the way you frame the argument, but there is no genetic or behavioral basis for this particular statement... in fact it's one of the most commonly used arguments for capitalism that is really wrong and relies on most peoples' ignorance of cultures and modes of production that are not capitalist. If everyone was 'naturally' a capitalist we wouldn't have to impose it by force on indigenous populations.

I'm using the term 'personal' to argue for a more expansive, non-financial meaning of capitalism.

Sane people are, by definition, rational emotional actors. Financial gain or hardship is just one factor in the multivariable emotional choices that underlie every decision and action we make.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
State-like parties (professional mobs running protection rackets) will spring up almost immediately after the creation of a significant site of ACness.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you say so?

I've explained numerous times why this would not occur in a modern, technologically advanced capitalist society based on a high degree of the division of labor.

The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

The logic and the lessons of history are clear. If the state does not outlaw free competition in an industry organized gangs of criminals simply cannot compete with legitimate businesses. Witness what happens to every industry that is made black, and then witness what happens when it is made legal again.

Governments arose for particular reasons which are no longer applicable. Hence, if we could manage to get rid of them (without restoring the conditions that led to their emergence, which I am not at all sure is possible), they would not appear again.

Your whole post spins out of control from this false premise, and hence is totally invalid.

But it's nice to see you at least acknowledge that the state is nothing more than a large organized criminal protection racket.

[timotheeeee]

I'll tell you ahead of time that the ACists will deny that mobs/syndicates/good fellas will ever exist in an AC society because the reasons for their existance will have been wiped out along with the state. They deal in black markets to fund themselves; and barring a black market of illegal goods to exploit, they will lack funding to do anything. Then the ACists will end with a derisive "What, are they going to be a mob of purse-snatchers?"

I don't know much about the mob's actions (despite my extremely Italian-sounding last name), so I don't have anything to add in the way of the validity of the above.

edit: damnit, boro got to it first

[Borodog]

Bwahahaha!

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
I've explained numerous times why this would not occur in a modern, technologically advanced capitalist society based on a high degree of the division of labor.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
The logic and the lessons of history are clear.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Your whole post spins out of control from this false premise, and hence is totally invalid.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Because you say so?

[/ QUOTE ]

[bisonbison]

The only markets in which criminal mobs and gangs spring up are precisely those markets that are monopolized, i.e. made black, by the central mob, the state. Violence is not +EV when free competition is allowed. It is only when government outlaws free competition that the competition becomes populated with outlaws.

What is criminalization but enforced restriction of supply?

Syndicates will identify goods and services that they can corner the supply on, providing it only for a higher fee, introducing a price/extortion structure that appeases the majority but offends some. Or they can identify goods that physical force will allow them to steal and sell at prices below their value to the producer.

The gains from this will allow them to corner further markets until a counter-syndicate forms, either with the intent of preserving some markets for relatively free exchanges, or with the intent of competing for the same niche markets that the first syndicate is extorting.


Because you say so?

No. Because it makes sense. If the history of criminality throughout the entire span of human civilization doesn't mean anything to you, I'm sorry.

[Riddick]

Well argued, as always.