Schlong of the OPPRESSOR

[Big Papa Goat]

Why would their funding be voluntary? And your competing firms are private armies of a sort, no? And how do armies compete?

[Sethomas]

So, the guy who doesn't have money for protection gets the same service unhindered, right? Otherwise it'd be extortion, right? So you support collectivism, right? That makes perfect sense?

[Mr. Vagiclean]

guys nobody really means what they say in this place lets just quit it, really

lets all quit

[mburbank]

You don't mean that.


It amazes me that OAO's ability to read, his vocabularly skills, and his ability to synthesize reasonably complicated ideas has done nothing for him excpet make him proud of himself. I would say he'd get crushed ike a bug when he gets to college and meets actual smart people, but I don't think he has enough self awareness to understnd he's been crushed. He'll keep prattling away, sure he's a genius, and they'll be enough lonely, dimmer, sycophants around to help him believe it (one would be enough) and eventually he'll become some sort of miniature, far less influential Grover Norquist type. He'll be one of those guys they do a segment on for the Daily Show, who know it's a comedy, but feel it's worth doing 'cause it 'get's their ideas out there.'

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Big Papa Goat

Why would their funding be voluntary? And your competing firms are private armies of a sort, no? And how do armies compete?

If a given PDA attempted to become a de facto State by extorting money, it's contituents would hire another firm to defend itself against the agressing company. Said company, now facing the threat of violence and loss of long-term profits, would be in a poor position to handle such a situation. Ultimately a rational entrepreneur would not want to engage in such activities in the vast, vast majority of cases, especially considering the possibility of an armed populace.

PDAs are closer to the police than the army in function. The matter of a large military structured for common defense is another question altogether.

Originally Posted by Sethomas

So, the guy who doesn't have money for protection gets the same service unhindered, right? Otherwise it'd be extortion, right? So you support collectivism, right? That makes perfect sense?

We support collectivist activities in so far as they are based on volunatary relations between individuals. In the case of the guy who is poor, while we of course oppose initiation of force against him by, say, a serial killer, we also oppose paying for his protection through forced asset seizure (i.e. taxation). That being said, there are many different measures which could be taken in market anarchism which would not require a violation of the non-aggression principle to defend said victim. Assurance contracts could ensure useful contributions to charities; PDAs could essentially loan out their services with an interest fee, perhaps even provide a service that looks for careers in order to reduce risk (or contract such a service out to a third-party); the possibilities are literally limitless. One must also take into consideration how unlikely such a person is to exist, assuming he is willing to take an available job.

Personally, I feel that in anarcho-capitalism corporations would internally structure themselves like markets for reasons of efficiency, resulting in a sort of modified syndicalism...

[Chojin]

War is profitable or we wouldn't have been doing it. Your argument is stupid because you're assuming that people aren't already greedy for some reason.

[mburbank]

All that hot gas for nothing but entropy. It's sad really. We should be generating electricity.

[GAsux]

Maybe I'm hyper sensitive to it habing spent the last 9 years in working in the "real world" but since returning to college this week I've noticed that all the upper division poli sci classes seem to be filled with OAO types. The 18-22 year old types who can spout every -ism or -archy you'd care to know, but have no practical application for the grown up thoughts they think they're thinking.

People like OAO can only exists on internet message boards and in campus coffee shops.

[mburbank]

The most fun part is, they don't even have the life experience to understand that practical and theoretical are different worlds. This is where Neo Cons come from.

But even in that arena I think OAO will prove to be a small fry. He won't know it though.

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Chojin

War is profitable or we wouldn't have been doing it. Your argument is stupid because you're assuming that people aren't already greedy for some reason.

War is profitable in Statist systems because they can coerce additional funding from it's citizenry in order to cover the additional costs added from loss of assets. In addition, there is no alternative to the State racket in so far as you remain in its domain. A PDA, by comparison, would have to raise prices for its services in order to pay for the war, which would of course lead to desertion by customers in favor of cheaper alternatives.

Now, you may counter that a private fractional-reserve bank might loan capital to a PDA engaging in war to be paid by interest. I'll put aside for a moment that fractional-reserve banking is considered fradulent by many anarcho-capitalists, since I don't share this view. One must consider the different circumstances under which "war" between PDAs would take place. Recall that since no territorial monopoly has been established, such an act of war would necessarily create conflicts with all other firms providing services in the area. The likelihood is, then, that those forces will create an alliance and eradicate the aggressing firm, for their combined capital is a far greater pool than that of the rogue PDA. In addition, what bank would ever loan capital to such an aggressive firm in the first place, for what assurance would said bank have of being repayed without any outside enforcement? At best, such arrangements would have to be short-term and with high interest, and the spoils of war could hardly be able to cover all liabilities in adequate time; for the beginnings of the State is that of marauders who realized that, if they kept their conquered peoples alive instead of just killing them and taking their possessions, they would ultimately profit more in the long run.

[Sethomas]

I clearly gave you the benefit of assuming you were reasonably intelligent, but that you can spit that out and expect to be taken seriously? You're so naive that I'm going to be out of character and not format for a diereses over the i. And no, it's not an umlaut, so don't even be so stupid as to protest that.

Look, not everyone wants to pay for an army. So if they don't have to pay for an army in an anarcho-capitalist system, they simply won't. This will piss off those who provide the service regardless of pay, since it's hard to keep the pillaging horde away from 5609 West Elm Street and not 5611 West Elm Street. So, bereft of any system that regulates arbitrarily, extortion would be inevitable.

Ergo, you suck. SUCK SUCK SUCK.

[Big Papa Goat]

Armed groups don't take voluntary payments from their clients. Assuming the PDA's are better armed then their clients, (making them as much like armies as anything) their clients will have no choice but to a) pay them b) violently neutralize them, either on their own, or with the help of a new PDA (for those playing the home game, thats what we call a state of war) or c) be robbed by them.

And as for an armed populace, why then the PDA's at all? And what if a serial killer is a paying customer? Couldn't criminals of any kind be paying customers? Wouldn't it be unprofitable for a PDA to prosecute its own customers? Wouldn't criminals neccesarily hire their own PDA's? And without laws (don't go all Hobbes on me here on this point now) wouldn't every competing company have a PDA to look out for its own interests? Ya, it wouldn't really be that profitable, but it would be the rational choice for a given group with its own interests to have its own armed group to look out for those interests. I mean, why would you choose to work under the same rules as people you are in competition with?

At the end of the day, I guess I do want you to get all Hobbes on me, and carefully explain to me the differences between your views and those expressed in the Leviathin.
(As an empirical aside, it may be noted that the development of modern market generally coincided with the development of the modern coercive state)

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Sethomas

I clearly gave you the benefit of assuming you were reasonably intelligent, but that you can spit that out and expect to be taken seriously? You're so naive that I'm going to be out of character and not format for a diereses over the i. And no, it's not an umlaut, so don't even be so stupid as to protest that.

PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST

Look, not everyone wants to pay for an army. So if they don't have to pay for an army in an anarcho-capitalist system, they simply won't. This will piss off those who provide the service regardless of pay, since it's hard to keep the pillaging horde away from 5609 West Elm Street and not 5611 West Elm Street. So, bereft of any system that regulates arbitrarily, extortion would be inevitable.

Ass-ur-ance cont-ract, oh oh assurance contract, oh oh yeah.

Please do understand what the fuck I'm saying before beating the dead horse of the free-rider problem.

Ergo, you suck. SUCK SUCK SUCK.

Ergo, you don't have a clue what the hell I'm telling you, do you?

Armed groups don't take voluntary payments from their clients. Assuming the PDA's are better armed then their clients, (making them as much like armies as anything) their clients will have no choice but to a) pay them b) violently neutralize them, either on their own, or with the help of a new PDA (for those playing the home game, thats what we call a state of war) or c) be robbed by them.

Christ, have you even read my post? The threat of retaliatory force from other PDAs and severe loss of capital would be enough to stop any rational entrepeneur from coercing those around them. I already went into great detail as to why.

And as for an armed populace, why then the PDA's at all?

Specialization and efficiency.

And what if a serial killer is a paying customer? Couldn't criminals of any kind be paying customers? Wouldn't it be unprofitable for a PDA to prosecute its own customers? Wouldn't criminals neccesarily hire their own PDA's?

A PDA would not defend serial killers, even if they are paying customers, because that would drastically increase liability costs and risk. A PDA would only have to prosecute its own customer in those cases where both offender and victim are constituents, in which case, it would, of course, it would be logical to side with the victim.

Also note that it would most likely be the case where offenders were taken to private courts for violations, as opposed to internal courts within the PDAs. After all, both PDAs would have to consent to the chosen court, and operating them internally would simply give too much of a bias.

And without laws (don't go all Hobbes on me here on this point now) wouldn't every competing company have a PDA to look out for its own interests? Ya, it wouldn't really be that profitable, but it would be the rational choice for a given group with its own interests to have its own armed group to look out for those interests. I mean, why would you choose to work under the same rules as people you are in competition with?

And do you think that the outrageous policies of said PDAs would hold up in court? And do you think that they would be sufficient to handle the larger PDAs used by the public, or the public itself? And do you think that companies will actually grow to a sufficient size for them to have PDAs of such strength in a free market environment?

(As an empirical aside, it may be noted that the development of modern market generally coincided with the development of the modern coercive state)

Depends on what you consider a market, and what you consider a State. "Coercive State" is redundant.

[Chojin]

Monopolies would form and someone would come out dominant, and they would become dictator. Human nature is what it is, and your society couldn't exist with it as an x factor.

Money is a controlling force for people only because it commands power. People who wanted more power would hang out with like-minded individuals and get said power whether it was immediately 'profitable' (which it would be anyway) or not.

Further, why would you need to get a bank loan to start an army? That's retarded, did the US get a bank loan to fight the revolutionary war? The civil war? All you need are material resources, time, and people on your side. Even assuming that everyone magically started from zero with no resources, it isn't exactly hard to make a gun or bullets.

This society would have the most hit-and-runs ever. People would just loot someplace then run to the next town, where they're no longer a criminal. Unless your Public Displays of Affection had franchises. In which case, they'd begin to form monopolies. Ipso facto rectum. Obligatory insult.

[mburbank]

There's a really great experimental anarchy going on right now in New Orleans. They're practically crying out for a clove smoking, epee wielding make out artist to lead them. I wish you get down there.

[The One and Only...]

Actually, I've switched back to foil as my primary weapon.

Choj and burb, I'll get back to this tomorrow-ish, most likely I won't have time today.

[mburbank]

Seriously, that's a major shame. You can't imagine my disapointment. I'm waiting with baited breath to skim another boatload of steamed rhetoric.

[Emu]

steamed rhetoric

[Big Papa Goat]

the public

[The One and Only...]

Originally Posted by Chojin

Monopolies would form and someone would come out dominant, and they would become dictator. Human nature is what it is, and your society couldn't exist with it as an x factor.

What makes you say that? The first part, that is.

Money is a controlling force for people only because it commands power. People who wanted more power would hang out with like-minded individuals and get said power whether it was immediately 'profitable' (which it would be anyway) or not.

You're missing the point. If you're losing revenue dramatically, you won't be able to sustain a conflict with those who are gaining it. You'll lose.

Further, why would you need to get a bank loan to start an army? That's retarded, did the US get a bank loan to fight the revolutionary war? The civil war? All you need are material resources, time, and people on your side. Even assuming that everyone magically started from zero with no resources, it isn't exactly hard to make a gun or bullets.

The bank loan was merely a possible counter to the point that revenue would be lost when the PDA's constituents left for greener pastures. I was trying to show why that wouldn't solve anything.

This society would have the most hit-and-runs ever. People would just loot someplace then run to the next town, where they're no longer a criminal. Unless your Public Displays of Affection had franchises. In which case, they'd begin to form monopolies. Ipso facto rectum. Obligatory insult.

1) Many anarcho-capitalists think that vigilante justice is a better alternative to large PDAs, and as such would probably support hit-and-runs against aggressors.

2) Just because they might have franchises doesn't indicate that they might form monopolies, and even if they did, only monopolies who maintain that position through coercion are illegitimate.

Originally Posted by mburbank

There's a really great experimental anarchy going on right now in New Orleans. They're practically crying out for a clove smoking, epee wielding make out artist to lead them. I wish you get down there.

My anarcho-primitivist friend and I were having a discussion about this. We decided that we're going to form a biker gang down there - we'll ride Jesus bikes, so to speak; they can run on water, you see - and we're going to manipulate competing anarchist factions there to our benefit. We're also going to get some looser bitch to make a documentary. The communists use sickles and hammers as weapons, the capitalists wear top hats and smoke cigars, and the primitivists use feces catapults. Our gang's symbol is an inverted cross made to look like a middle finger; we're devotes of Maddox's secret magnum opus. I fall in love the tranny leader of the primitivists, who happens to wear an eyepatch. There's also a commie orgy scene, not to mention the theoretical debate carried in ebonics. It ends with us spreading oil all over the water in New Orleans, and me setting it aflame from the helicopter with my ass and a lighter.

We're also going to market this as a MMORPG.

[ziggytrix]

wow, that last remark actually looked like you acknowledging anarcho-capitalism is a joke.

[The One and Only...]

Everything can be taken as a joke, even if you believe in it quite seriously.

[mburbank]

"My anarcho-primitivist friend and I were having a discussion"
-OAO


How is it possible that you can report this statement and not face the realization that you are a huge, rotting, beef anus? Seriously, I just hope there's a day out there when you are forced to actually read some of this stuff, maybe with your eyelids pinned open ala Clockwork Orange. I keep thinking that any instant your future self will come back in time and staple your lips shut out of shere anguish.

[Cybernetico]

This is fucking hysterical. GG guys, remind me later I'll take you all out for some steamed rhetoric.

[Emu]

Originally Posted by The One and Only...

The mafia is a racket; rackets cannot succeed in a free market.

Funny, here I was under the assumption that the "pay me or i'll shoot you in the fucking face" method would work pretty well in any environment.