If an Anarcho-Capitalist society was ever established, wouldn't it require a state?

[AK]

If the state is the organ that is used by the upper class to enforce their will, wouldn't a state be existent under a supposedly "Anarcho"-Capitalist society? The Bourgeoisie have to enforce their will over the lower classes somehow. They would have to maintain the capitalist social hierarchy - presumably with the use of force. Inevitably, the Bourgeoisie would hire some sort of private military company or fucktons of security guards to enforce their will and maintain the status quo and private property rights in the absence of a legal entity. Would you not consider such an establishment to be a state?

[Muzk]

duh, yes, this is why their whole philosophy is utopian


sadly, they wont get it

[(A)narcho-Matt]

Well yeh because capitalism requires a state. What anarcho-capitalists want is a retrn to small scale free markets. This could for a while work without a state. However as the fight for greater and greater profits arose, it would require a state to subjugate the working class. An alternative would be that the state would have to exist all along to prevent individual capitalists becoming to big and causing market failure. Basically the whole things screwed from the start and is really in no way anarchist. Its just people who follow anarcho-capitalism wont listen when you explain to them in very simple terms why they arnt anarchists....

[AK]

I feel so stupid... only realising that Anarcho-Capitalism fails so fucking hard just now...

[Dean]

It depends on how you define a state, and if the capitalists are successful at achieving their ends via money.

We know the state serves the interests of capital, and that a primary reason for this is the bank purchase of legislators and executive branch officials. So the only question is, "will capitalists be able to pay people to serve similar functions in a free market?".

The answer is yes, of course. Capitalists who need certain services have the wherewithal to to purchase them from private firms or create organizations to serve these purposes. They'll do what it takes to maintain power, and the only thing it really takes is money.

So the only issue is, "is this a state"? Doesn't really matter, since it serves the same purposes. If it comes about via private means, you'll wish it was a state so it could be more apparent.

[Cal Engime]

If the state is the organ that is used by the upper class to enforce their will, wouldn't a state be existent under a supposedly "Anarcho"-Capitalist society? The Bourgeoisie have to enforce their will over the lower classes somehow. They would have to maintain the capitalist social hierarchy - presumably with the use of force. Inevitably, the Bourgeoisie would hire some sort of private military company or fucktons of security guards to enforce their will and maintain the status quo and private property rights in the absence of a legal entity. Would you not consider such an establishment to be a state?Lew Rockwell, who might be thought of as the leader of the anarcho-capitalist movement, defines the state as follows: "It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against person and property."

To the Marxist, it is the state that allows private property to come to be. To the libertarian, property is a natural relationship between people and things that precedes the state. If we want to exercise collective force to defend property instead of exercising individual force to defend our own property, law is established. The state claims a territorial monopoly on the law, but to the anarcho-capitalist, systems of law should compete just like other providers of services compete. It is reasonable to believe that the cost would be lower and the quality of service higher.

Why does the enforcer of the law not have to follow the law? The state prohibits theft, yet it robs its citizens at gunpoint and calls it taxation. The state prohibits murder, yet it murders on a grand scale and calls it war. Anarcho-capitalists believe the same moral code should apply to everyone. If the state can collect taxes, why can't I demand "taxes?" What would happen if I formed a "police force" and tried to seize my neighbour's house by "eminent domain?"

We can imagine a world where people individually purchase police protection, either with a monthly contract or on a case-by-case basis. Suppose someone steals my television set, and I send the police over to get it back. The thief, however, has hired a different police service, and they won't let my police come in and take his television. In such a case, the police services might agree on a private court to decide the matter: if the court rules in my favour, the thief's police will do nothing to stop mine.

How would this differ from the state? The aim of justice would be restitution to the victim, not some arbitrary "punishment" of the offender far above the damage done. There would be no one to prosecute victimless "crimes" like prostitution and drug use. There would be no district attorney who could prosecute a case that the victim wanted dropped, or to drop a case that the victim wanted pursued.

Furthermore, nobody would have the authority to collect taxes. You might think of payments made to the businesses that protect property rights as essentially the same thing, but nobody unwilling to pay would be forced to buy those services.

The important concept is that the ostensible purpose of the state is to protect property rights (the Lockean thing), but the state in modern society is the primary aggressor against property rights.

I leave you with a thought from St. Augustine. What are states but great protection rackets?
Justice being taken away, then, what are kingdoms but great robberies? For what are robberies themselves, but little kingdoms? The band itself is made up of men; it is ruled by the authority of a prince, it is knit together by the pact of the confederacy; the booty is divided by the law agreed on. If, by the admittance of abandoned men, this evil increases to such a degree that it holds places, fixes abodes, takes possession of cities, and subdues peoples, it assumes the more plainly the name of a kingdom, because the reality is now manifestly conferred on it, not by the removal of covetousness, but by the addition of impunity. Indeed, that was an apt and true reply which was given to Alexander the Great by a pirate who had been seized. For when that king had asked the man what he meant by keeping hostile possession of the sea, he answered with bold pride, "What thou meanest by seizing the whole earth; but because I do it with a petty ship, I am called a robber, whilst thou who dost it with a great fleet art styled emperor."

[F9]

This question cant be answered, basically because the key elements of this question cant be connected in any way.
If you put Anarchism Capitalism and State in the same sentence as something that happens together, then you dont know what you are talking about.
No state can exist under Anarchism, and fuck, there is no such thing as "anarcho"-capitalism.

[Skooma Addict]

Well yeh because capitalism requires a state. What anarcho-capitalists want is a retrn to small scale free markets. This could for a while work without a state. However as the fight for greater and greater profits arose, it would require a state to subjugate the working class. An alternative would be that the state would have to exist all along to prevent individual capitalists becoming to big and causing market failure. Basically the whole things screwed from the start and is really in no way anarchist. Its just people who follow anarcho-capitalism wont listen when you explain to them in very simple terms why they arnt anarchists....


Well maybe because that is a completely unconvincing case for why a state would arise under anarcho-capitalism.

[syndicat]

We can imagine a world where people individually purchase police protection, either with a monthly contract or on a case-by-case basis. Suppose someone steals my television set, and I send the police over to get it back. The thief, however, has hired a different police service, and they won't let my police come in and take his television. In such a case, the police services might agree on a private court to decide the matter: if the court rules in my favour, the thief's police will do nothing to stop mine.



And the "competing" security agencies would in fact be armed gangs. And the idea that they would continue to "compete" is a bit naive. In fact there would be an arms race between them and they would gain control of a block territory and destroy or exclude the other.

Also, this means that the gang would be controlled by the capitalists because they have vastly greater income and resources to "buy" its services. In effect, this is a proposal for a return to feudalism where the state's armed force is privately controlled by the elite. Either the gang would be like a mafia and be able to extort money out of the capitalists, or, the armed force will be a projection of the dominant capitalists...just as it is now, except without the meddlesome business of one person one vote elections of the state oligarchy. instead you'd have an even more direct "executive committee of the capitalist class" in charge.

but this won't happen because any viable state needs to project at least some semblance of legitimacy. and a state where influence over it is officially based on money power has less likelihood of gaining mass acceptance or tolerance than a state that is at least officially based on popular vote and official civil liberties.

The state is a hierarchical structure of power over society that has the monopoly of legitimate force in its territory but it also has the function of defending the interests of the dominant class in society, and their existing system of oppression and exploitation, but within the limits needed for legitimacy, these limits being the result of previous conflicts and struggles.

[Dean]

Well maybe because that is a completely unconvincing case for why a state would arise under anarcho-capitalism.

Hierarchical power structures would arise out of any for-profit system, since efficient methods of finance - that is derivatives, stocks and securities - consistently prove themselves to be better methods of financial management.

This may seem like a rather drab point, but as we see in economics, it is not the "great moral stances" that will explain market systems to you. It is the simple fact of economic structures and systems, as well as which interests guide them, and other characteristics.

The simple fact is that the above accumulation of wealth, be it defined as "exploitative" or not, will result in disproportionate buying power for the empowered firms and its owners. They can then manage systems of production and distribution.

There then develops a conflict between the stockholder and exclusively stakeholder populations. It should be noted that stockholders consist of all who own capital in the regime - be that capital the possession of privileged employment or direct ownership.

This disproportion disbursement of power creates very clear potential for exploitation, and in a for-profit paradigm, will always result in that. The interests of privileged parties will play out in a regime so long as their privilege is maintained.

Again, whether this is an explicit state structure is of little bearing. This regime will require security and maintenance of the population so as to keep them in conditions which serve the interests of the mores of capital. This is why false notions of "democracy" and "justice" are so crucial to any capitalist enterprise, and furthermore why a state is an inevitable structure - those the specific conditions of the state will always exist in the furtherance of the empowered milieu.

[Cal Engime]

And the "competing" security agencies would in fact be armed gangs. And the idea that they would continue to "compete" is a bit naive. In fact there would be an arms race between them and they would gain control of a block territory and destroy or exclude the other.Would some people and organisations turn criminal (against their own conscience, and at the risk of retribution) in the absence of the state? Probably, just as some turn criminal in spite of it. The point is that there would be no regular, legal mechanism for extorting the public.

[syndicat]

on the contrary, the relative monopolization of ownership of means of production by capitalists forces the working class majority to rent out their lives to employers, to do what their autocratic managerial hierarchies say, for the benefit of building up their profits. pumping profits out of the labor of others. capitalism is inherently a class system, built on oppression and domination and exploitation. no such system can survive without an armed force controlled by the capitalists to prevent the working class from rising up and seizing the means of production and expropriating the overlords.

[Dean]

Would some people and organisations turn criminal (against their own conscience, and at the risk of retribution) in the absence of the state? Probably, just as some turn criminal in spite of it. The point is that there would be no regular, legal mechanism for extorting the public.
:laugh: Great moralistic silliness. There are material reasons and systems by which people exploit each other, and it has nothing to do with "turning criminal," there is no "market-driven retribution" for it and there is every reason to believe that for-profit entities which can pay for advanced security and financial protection will have every incentive to exploit this position of power via "criminal and unconscionable" acts. :rolleyes:

[Skooma Addict]

Hierarchical power structures would arise out of any for-profit system, since efficient methods of finance - that is derivatives, stocks and securities - consistently prove themselves to be better methods of financial management.
"Hierarchical power structures" would arise since efficient methods of finance are better methods of financial management? I guess if you consider your average business a hierarchical power structure, then your right. But in that case hierarchical power structures are desirable since they allocate resources in the most efficient manner, as you yourself implied.


This may seem like a rather drab point, but as we see in economics, it is not the "great moral stances" that will explain market systems to you. It is the simple fact of economic structures and systems, as well as which interests guide them, and other characteristics.Well it is a drab point regarding whether or not a state would arise in an AnCap society.


The simple fact is that the above accumulation of wealth, be it defined as "exploitative" or not, will result in disproportionate buying power for the empowered firms and its owners. They can then manage systems of production and distribution.

There then develops a conflict between the stockholder and exclusively stakeholder populations. It should be noted that stockholders consist of all who own capital in the regime - be that capital the possession of privileged employment or direct ownership.

This disproportion disbursement of power creates very clear potential for exploitation, and in a for-profit paradigm, will always result in that. The interests of privileged parties will play out in a regime so long as their privilege is maintained.So far you haven't explained why a state would arise. But yea, some people will have more money than other people. That however obviously is not a sufficient condition for a state.


And the "competing" security agencies would in fact be armed gangs. And the idea that they would continue to "compete" is a bit naive. In fact there would be an arms race between them and they would gain control of a block territory and destroy or exclude the other.And you know this a priori? Who is funding these people by the way, and why have places where such deregulation occurred experience either improvements (Somalia) or just scenarios completely different from what you are presenting (California during the "Wild West".)

The idea is not that there will be your ideal PDAs, just that the situation without a state is better than one with a state.

Now, how about this....

The markets price system arises naturally and has arisen spontaneously on all corners of the globe. It even took hold in POW camps. In order to eliminate the markets natural money, a central authority is required. Therefore, Socialism requires either a central authority or a group of committed revolutionaries who will live in a socialist community regardless of the consequences in order to be implemented.

So in other words, socialism can only occur without a central authority if you have a group of die hard socialists who will live in their own socialist community regardless of the consequences.

[Dean]

"Hierarchical power structures" would arise since efficient methods of finance are better methods of financial management? I guess if you consider your average business a hierarchical power structure, then your right. But in that case hierarchical power structures are desirable since they allocate resources in the most efficient manner, as you yourself implied.
Nope, I said its a better method of financial management. Its not better for society and especially not workers and consumers.

Well it is a drab point regarding whether or not a state would arise in an AnCap society.
Interesting how you choose the most meaningless portion of my statement to "refute":

This may seem like a rather drab point, but as we see in economics, it is not the "great moral stances" that will explain market systems to you. It is the simple fact of economic structures and systems, as well as which interests guide them, and other characteristics.

So far you haven't explained why a state would arise. But yea, some people will have more money than other people. That however obviously is not a sufficient condition for a state.
I've explained (and you've agreed above) that capital will accumulate in some peoples' hands. I've also pointed out that having more wealth grants you more privileges in a capitalist market, specially in regards to finance and security.

I've also pointed out that the creation of a state is not itself a prerequisite for exploitative relations. This is important because it dispels the myth that having a de jure state is necessary for exploitative economic relations.

This is also important because it explains that real material relations are responsible for exploitation not vague categorical distinctions.



And you know this a priori? Who is funding these people by the way, and why did places where such deregulation occurred experience either improvements (Somalia) or just scenarios completely different from what you are presenting (California during the "Wild West".)
What?? Somalia is a defunct nation with little to no capital to speak of.

The industrialization under Stalin's rule was much more compelling than the minor gains in Somalia, so I should assume that this method of analysis fully backs the USSR model of economic development.

In addition, California was a fledgling economy with foreign capital and negligible state structure (important because every fledgling economy has substantial progress when it develops some economy - Somalia, again, is a notable example). California was unregulated, not deregulated.

In addition, a priori is a meaningless excuse (like an axiom) to take something as a universal truth. If you reject my argument, explain how and why its wrong, don't say "its wrong for wanting evidence" because I've not seen an online debate yet that has fully supporting evidence, except for limited, novel discussions (typically of the nuances of some minor policy).


The idea is not that there will be your ideal PDAs, just that the situation without a state is better than one with a state.
The state accounts for security. Without the state, there will be a pay to play system. Just as having more capital allows you better financial products, so too does more capital allow you better security. Security is a fundamental value for a competitive system - if its not "even," competition will be that much more slanted.


Now, how about this....

The markets price system arises naturally and has arisen spontaneously on all corners of the globe. It even took hold in POW camps. In order to eliminate the markets natural money, a central authority is required. Therefore, Socialism requires either a central authority or a group of committed revolutionaries who will live in a socialist community regardless of the consequences in order to be implemented.

So in other words, socialism can only occur without a central authority if you have a group of die hard socialists who will live in their own socialist community regardless of the consequences.
How about this...

The state system is natural and has arisen spontaneously on all corners of the globe. In addition, capitalism has only occurred under the auspices of a state.

So, again, lets follow your logic. Rather blind and conservative support for contemporary systems, but then, nobody really thinks you guys stand for anything but private property and control of society by a marginal population.

[Comrade Anarchist]

No. First off a state is a governing body that has a monopoly on force. Anarchist-capitalists are vehemently against these upper bourgeoisie classes. Private security would only be around to act as a loose police organization cause most people would protect themselves. A free market once established should never be perverted for higher interests and what you speak of is the subversion of a free market. A revolution would be against the state capitalists just as much as the state b/c their use of pull in the state is what has created these massive multinational corporations. If the upper echelons of money want to survive then they most be at the whim of the free market and not the other way around like what is commonality today.

[#FF0000]

Lew Rockwell, who might be thought of as the leader of the anarcho-capitalist movement, defines the state as follows: "It is the group within society that claims for itself the exclusive right to rule everyone under a special set of laws that permit it to do to others what everyone else is rightly prohibited from doing, namely aggressing against person and property."

Wow what a pointed definition. You can't have any sort of discussion over a state with this, because it is loaded from the get-go.

I mean, I know all of anarcho-capitalist philosophy is a series of adjusted goalposts and no-true-scotsmans but jesus christ Cal you are the most intellectually dishonest person in the world or something.

[#FF0000]

Well maybe because that is a completely unconvincing case for why a state would arise under anarcho-capitalism.

Yeah, there's a much better one.

Gather a bunch of utility providers that a cartel to muscle out competition in a certain geographical area. Toss in a private security company. Microwave on high for 1:30 minutes and let cool.

Insta-State.

[Skooma Addict]

Nope, I said its a better method of financial management. Its not better for society and especially not workers and consumers.

Oh, well the most efficient method of finance sort of implies that it uses resources in the most productive manner. But anyways, what you said actually is the most productive way to do finances.



Interesting how you choose the most meaningless portion of my statement to "refute":

Huh? I responded to your "drab point" at the very beginning. The point you were actually referring to (about finances).


I've also pointed out that the creation of a state is not itself a prerequisite for exploitative relations. This is important because it dispels the myth that having a de jure state is necessary for exploitative economic relations.

Nobody said otherwise. Nobody thinks things like fraud will end in the absence of a state. Now, if you just define "exploitation" as being something inherent in the market economy, then yea, there will be exploitation. But then we are just disagreeing on what constitutes exploitation.



This is also important because it explains that real material relations are responsible for exploitation not vague categorical distinctions.

The fact that you put strange meaningless statements in italics doesn't make them suddenly make sense.



What?? Somalia is a defunct nation with little to no capital to speak of.

But it improved after the government collapsed. That was the whole point.


The industrialization under Stalin's rule was much more compelling than the minor gains in Somalia, so I should assume that this method of analysis fully backs the USSR model of economic development.

I don't think the "industrialization" under Stalin was more compelling at all. Regardless you should be aware that you are not using the same "method of analysis" as me. You need to compare Stalin with what came before him, and even then then you can only conclude that the latter was better than the former (assuming it actually was).


In addition, California was a fledgling economy with foreign capital and negligible state structure (important because every fledgling economy has substantial progress when it develops some economy - Somalia, again, is a notable example). California was unregulated, not deregulated.

What?


The state accounts for security. Without the state, there will be a pay to play system. Just as having more capital allows you better financial products, so too does more capital allow you better security.

True.


Security is a fundamental value for a competitive system - if its not "even," competition will be that much more slanted.

False. Rarely has there ever been "even" security.


The state system is natural and has arisen spontaneously on all corners of the globe. In addition, capitalism has only occurred under the auspices of a state.

So, again, lets follow your logic. Rather blind and conservative support for contemporary systems, but then, nobody really thinks you guys stand for anything but private property and control of society by a marginal population.

I see you didn't attempt to refute what I said.

Modern Capitalism is fairly recent by historical standards. However, unregulated exchange of commodities precedes Modern States and it was going on in Africa/India/Middle East before any States arose.

So how do you plan to eliminate the market price system without a central authority?

[Publius]

Would some people and organisations turn criminal (against their own conscience, and at the risk of retribution) in the absence of the state? Probably, just as some turn criminal in spite of it. The point is that there would be no regular, legal mechanism for extorting the public.

Why do you think that the rich and powerful would have less influence over defense agencies than they do over government?

A key component of anarcho-capitalist thought is that defense agencies would compete, preventing any one from dominating others and thus securing a general amount of freedom for all (who purchase defense).

But now suppose that there are vast disparities of wealth, on par with what exists in modern America (it's easy to imagine the wealth disparities as greater or the same, impossible to imagine them less).

Lets now suppose that one defense agency tries to court the rich who, as in America, control the vast, vast majority of the wealth. You see rather quickly that this defense agency doesn't need to sway a lot of people, it just needs to sway a lot of money. One simple way of doing this is to provide those with money -- the rich -- a service they want, probably some means of increasing their wealth and power. Union busting is possible, extortion is always an option, and so on.

The parity that exists between defense agencies would be destroyed as soon as one started courting the rich which, of course, would be the best strategy for a defense agency.

And since the rich have a mutual interest, it would be in their selfish interest to collude as members of one particular defense agency rather than compete. Why war with each other when they can band together and use their vast wealth to create even more vast wealth, at the expense of everyone else?

It's almost a priori that disparity money will lead to outright extortion. In fact the only possible means of preventing this sort of thing in ANY capacity is a government of the sort we have now (only one that works better -- other governments in the world, like Sweden say, do a much better job than ours, so it is possible) that is to say a quasi-democratic one.

If you let dollars become votes even more directly than they are now, the only possible result is increased tyranny. Probably of a kind far worse than we can imagine.

[Publius]

No. First off a state is a governing body that has a monopoly on force. Anarchist-capitalists are vehemently against these upper bourgeoisie classes. Private security would only be around to act as a loose police organization cause most people would protect themselves.

How?

This isn't 1750 anymore, you can't "protect yourself" from the kinds of weapons that exist nowadays.

Maybe you could defend yourself from someone like you, a normal citizen armed with traditional weaponry, but you certainly couldn't defend yourself from anyone with power who wanted to control you.

They'd have tanks, machine guns, artillery, planes, tear gas, chemical weapons, all the way up to nuclear weapons.

This technology is not going to get un-invented, it's just going to be used or not used in certain ways.



A free market once established should never be perverted for higher interests and what you speak of is the subversion of a free market.

Well shit, why didn't you say so from the start?!

Don't worry guys, this JUST WOULDLN'T HAPPEN!



A revolution would be against the state capitalists just as much as the state b/c their use of pull in the state is what has created these massive multinational corporations. If the upper echelons of money want to survive then they most be at the whim of the free market and not the other way around like what is commonality today.

How are you going to revolt against the class which has the most money and, therefore, the most weapons, the most paid soldiers, the most capacity to engage in drawn-out warfare, and so on?

[Skooma Addict]

Why do you think that the rich and powerful would have less influence over defense agencies than they do over government?

A key component of anarcho-capitalist thought is that defense agencies would compete, preventing any one from dominating others and thus securing a general amount of freedom for all (who purchase defense).

But now suppose that there are vast disparities of wealth, on par with what exists in modern America (it's easy to imagine the wealth disparities as greater or the same, impossible to imagine them less).

Lets now suppose that one defense agency tries to court the rich who, as in America, control the vast, vast majority of the wealth. You see rather quickly that this defense agency doesn't need to sway a lot of people, it just needs to sway a lot of money. One simple way of doing this is to provide those with money -- the rich -- a service they want, probably some means of increasing their wealth and power. Union busting is possible, extortion is always an option, and so on.

The parity that exists between defense agencies would be destroyed as soon as one started courting the rich which, of course, would be the best strategy for a defense agency.

And since the rich have a mutual interest, it would be in their selfish interest to collude as members of one particular defense agency rather than compete. Why war with each other when they can band together and use their vast wealth to create even more vast wealth, at the expense of everyone else?

It's almost a priori that disparity money will lead to outright extortion. In fact the only possible means of preventing this sort of thing in ANY capacity is a government of the sort we have now (only one that works better -- other governments in the world, like Sweden say, do a much better job than ours, so it is possible) that is to say a quasi-democratic one.

If you let dollars become votes even more directly than they are now, the only possible result is increased tyranny. Probably of a kind far worse than we can imagine.

I suppose if you implemented Anarcho-Capitalism in a country where there is an huge divide in income and a culture of exploitation and violence, it would be inferior to certain forms of government. However, I still don't think defense is a "public good" as the term is usually defined.

[Cal Engime]

Wow what a pointed definition. You can't have any sort of discussion over a state with this, because it is loaded from the get-go.More loaded than "the organ used by the upper classes to enforce their will"?

He asked a question about anarcho-capitalist philosophy, and I answered it from the point of view of anarcho-capitalist philosophy.

[Publius]

I suppose if you implemented Anarcho-Capitalism in a country where there is an huge divide in income and a culture of exploitation and violence, it would be inferior to certain forms of government.

"I suppose if you implemented Anarcho-Capitalism in a place inhabited by human beings, it would be inferior to certain forms of government".

That's how I read that. Show me these egalitarian, non-violent human societies with their pet unicorns.

I mean, if you're waiting for income equality you have to be a Communist to be an anarcho-capitalist.



However, I still don't think defense is a "public good" as the term is usually defined.

It's a good, and it's publicly administered.

Am I misunderstanding your use of the term?

[Skooma Addict]

"I suppose if you implemented Anarcho-Capitalism in a place inhabited by human beings, it would be inferior to certain forms of government".

That's how I read that.

Well that is not what I meant. Even though I read some good critiques of Anarchism recently (all forms, not just AnCap) so idk.


It's a good, and it's publicly administered.

Am I misunderstanding your use of the term?

Public good as in non excludable and not rival in consumption.

[#FF0000]

More loaded than "the organ used by the upper classes to enforce their will"?

Yeah, way more loaded, because the Marxist's view on the function of the state applies to any class in power, be it royal, bourgeois, or working.

[Cal Engime]

Yeah, way more loaded, because the Marxist's view on the function of the state applies to any class in power, be it royal, bourgeois, or working.It doesn't matter. The question was, "Would you not consider such an establishment to be a state?" The answer is that an anarcho-capitalist would not. He does not divide society into classes, nor does he interpret history in terms of class struggle; he only thinks of the state as a group of people who have claimed special privileges for themselves by force.

[The Ben G]

In 'anarcho' capitalism, a state would almost immediately emerge. A feudal system would be placed in the 'anarcho' Capitalist society, because, Capitalism without restraint will allow slavery, long hours, small pay, etc..

Its a terrible ideology that can not and will not work.

[#FF0000]

It doesn't matter. The question was, "Would you not consider such an establishment to be a state?" The answer is that an anarcho-capitalist would not. He does not divide society into classes, nor does he interpret history in terms of class struggle; he only thinks of the state as a group of people who have claimed special privileges for themselves by force.

And that's fine but you have to acknowledge that it's a biased definition that is written in such a way to make "the state" look undesirable from the get-go and so it's really dishonest.

[mikelepore]

We can imagine a world where people individually purchase police protection, either with a monthly contract or on a case-by-case basis. Suppose someone steals my television set, and I send the police over to get it back. The thief, however, has hired a different police service, and they won't let my police come in and take his television. In such a case, the police services might agree on a private court to decide the matter: if the court rules in my favour, the thief's police will do nothing to stop mine.

At the present time, people get as much lawyer as they can afford to pay for. Your proposal would replicate that trend with a form where people would also get as much police and judge as they can afford to pay for.

The rich would have de facto permission to abuse the poor. I come from a poor family, too worried about buying bread to buy any police protection -- so feel free to rape my daughter if you want to.

People would be thrown back to a barbarism that even the oppressive Roman empire under the caesars was decent enough to avoid.

[Dean]

Oh, well the most efficient method of finance sort of implies that it uses resources in the most productive manner. But anyways, what you said actually is the most productive way to do finances.
No, it doesn't imply that. This is precisely why I point to derivatives and other financial systems which don't serve to produce commodities but do serve to accumulate and empower one's capital.


Nobody said otherwise. Nobody thinks things like fraud will end in the absence of a state. Now, if you just define "exploitation" as being something inherent in the market economy, then yea, there will be exploitation. But then we are just disagreeing on what constitutes exploitation.
So you believe that an advanced system of capital management, when incorporating fraud, won't be exploitative? :laugh:




The fact that you put strange meaningless statements in italics doesn't make them suddenly make sense.
I'm sorry if you're too ignorant to see that the state is nothing more than a categorical point, and it doesn't represent any unique material character from other "monopolies." It's very easy to point out that there is competition within the state (and between states!), so even the "monopoly on force" argument is just as applicable to centralized market forces in private control.


But it improved after the government collapsed. That was the whole point.
What, are you dense? The same argument can be used - much more effectively - in support of Stalin and Lenin.


I don't think the "industrialization" under Stalin was more compelling at all.
Yes it was, because it made an unadvanced agrarian nation a world power primarily via nationalist industrialization.


Regardless you should be aware that you are not using the same "method of analysis" as me. You need to compare Stalin with what came before him, and even then then you can only conclude that the latter was better than the former (assuming it actually was).

Oh we do. The capitalist and monarch systems before Lenin/Stalin were incredibly weak.



What?
-California had foreign capital to build a completely new economy.
-There was no regulation in the first place, not deregulation.

Why is this so hard for you? Not only do you not understand basic economics, but you don't know common-knowledge historical facts!



False. Rarely has there ever been "even" security.
Um, I think you mean "right." I'm the one making the point that security won't equally represent the interests of economic actors.




I see you didn't attempt to refute what I said.

Modern Capitalism is fairly recent by historical standards. However, unregulated exchange of commodities precedes Modern States and it was going on in Africa/India/Middle East before any States arose.

So how do you plan to eliminate the market price system without a central authority?

By consistently supporting localized power, rather than capitalist or state structures.

However, you really ignored my point - at that was to show that your conservative attitude about capital is just as readily applied to the state.

You discuss the state and capital as if they're two different things in opposition, but when the market creates something you don't like, you contend that it is solely the fault of the state. It's nonsense! There is no basis for this attitude of yours.

However, I've made some very obvious points - namely that those with more capital with be the managers of a pay-to-play society in any epoch - and you don't seem to have any response to that point. In fact, you've supported every logical basis for this argument except for the the coalescence of the points. This is important because you've refused to provide any explanation of why you think:
-a free market society will work for those who can pay for it (pay to play).
-security will be unequally distributed
-managing financial products like derivatives, rather than creating production-based economic models, will empower capitalists much more than those who rely on production
-and yet there simply "won't be exploitation." It just wont happen. Why? It's simple! No state! But don't make me even provide rudimentary arguments as to what makes the state so unique as to be the sole provider of exploitative systems which, like the market, have existed for all or nearly all of known human history.

[Skooma Addict]

So you believe that an advanced system of capital management, when incorporating fraud, won't be exploitative? :laugh:



I think fraud is "exploitative." I don't think "exploitative" acts would suddenly come to an end.


What, are you dense? The same argument can be used - much more effectively - in support of Stalin and Lenin.


Assuming that conditions improved, then yes, you are correct. I don't see what point you are trying to make.



Yes it was, because it made an unadvanced agrarian nation a world power primarily via nationalist industrialization.


As far as I am aware Lenin's plans ended in complete disaster and he was forced to adopt market reforms.


-California had foreign capital to build a completely new economy.
-There was no regulation in the first place, not deregulation.

Why is this so hard for you? Not only do you not understand basic economics, but you don't know common-knowledge historical facts!


I don't understand any economics? Have you ever taken a single econ class or read a single actual econ book in your life?

California had foreign capital to build an economy? What does this have to do with anything?

Ok, yes, there was no State involved regulation. Yet the rich did not wreak havoc on the poor.


Um, I think you mean "right." I'm the one making the point that security won't equally represent the interests of economic actors.

Correct. Can you point me to a single time in history where it has?


By consistently supporting localized power, rather than capitalist or state structures.

That wouldn't work. That would not eliminate the markets money. The only way you can eliminate it is by using a central authority, or by living in some isolated community with some other die hard socialists.


However, you really ignored my point - at that was to show that your conservative attitude about capital is just as readily applied to the state.

You discuss the state and capital as if they're two different things in opposition, but when the market creates something you don't like, you contend that it is solely the fault of the state. It's nonsense! There is no basis for this attitude of yours.

The market creates lots of things I don't like.


-and yet there simply "won't be exploitation." It just wont happen. Why? It's simple! No state! But don't make me even provide rudimentary arguments as to what makes the state so unique as to be the sole provider of exploitative systems which, like the market, have existed for all or nearly all of known human history.

There is nothing I can do if you are just going to define capitalism itself as exploitative.

But anyways, I am not really an AnCap anymore (has nothing to do with the terrible arguments you are making) since I don't see any ways to internalize some undesirable environmental externalities and the worry that the rich could prey on the poor might have some merit. But most of all the idea that PDAs would properly enforce private property with no state involved is not really backed by any historical evidence. Also, Hayeks claims about the inability of Man to rationally plan his society are pretty convincing.

Basically once I rejected the NAP and objective morality I began a very very slow but steady rejection of Anarchism to finally accepting a State. It was only a matter of time, and I was actually pretty aware that this was going on for a while.

In case you were curious the final nail in the coffin was when I re-read Anarchy and the Law which was the book that turned me into an anarchist in the first place. It contains a bunch of essays about why Defense/Law should be provided by the state, and then other essays which "rebut" those. After reading it again, I realized that the supposed "rebuttals" either weren't rebuttals at all or they themselves were rebutted.

[Skooma Addict]

At the present time, people get as much lawyer as they can afford to pay for. Your proposal would replicate that trend with a form where people would also get as much police and judge as they can afford to pay for.

The rich would have de facto permission to abuse the poor. I come from a poor family, too worried about buying bread to buy any police protection -- so feel free to rape my daughter if you want to.

People would be thrown back to a barbarism that even the oppressive Roman empire under the caesars was decent enough to avoid.

I just don't see how you could say this with such certainty. To me it would depend on hte societies culture and institutions. So in certain parts of the U.S. I think this would be a legitemate worry. But in other places, I don't think so.

[Dean]

I think fraud is "exploitative." I don't think "exploitative" acts would suddenly come to an end.
Noted.



Assuming that conditions improved, then yes, you are correct. I don't see what point you are trying to make.
Primarily, that the command economy of Russia improved conditions, just like Somalia under a no-state paradigm. Actually, it was much more compelling than Somalia's rather marginal "improvement" under "anarchy."


I don't understand any economics? Have you ever taken a single econ class or read a single actual econ book in your life?
You have contempt for any arguments about the economy that deal in real systems. For instance, you don't care about the effect of derivatives on the market, productionand distribution of wealth. You have no interest in the actual methods by which exploitation occurs. Your propertarian attitudes accept that the market can be exploited to work for a select few. You aren't interested in the economy, you're interested in enforcing a narrow concept of liberty which we have seen consistently allows for more efficient exploitation of the public. The fact is that you don't care about liberty; you care about property.


California had foreign capital to build an economy? What does this have to do with anything?
Namely the fact that any resource-rich region with foreign capital to exploit those resources will have a thriving economy, be that local or(more commonly now) a selective economy that only works for the firms in control of the extraction process.


Ok, yes, there was no State involved regulation. Yet the rich did not wreak havoc on the poor.
You clearly know nothing of the history of the oil market, railroad construction and the systematic genocide of the native population. No matter! You only care about property owners, and they didn't own enough for you to care about them :-)




Correct. Can you point me to a single time in history where it has?
The whole point is that this is correct! Security, insofar as it is pay-to-play (and the state represents this system in an obtuse, but ultimately market-driven way) will always represent the interests of those who can achieve graft (with a state) or greater capital to invest in security.

Wage laborers will always lose out, so the Pinkerton example will manifest in a much more acute manner.


That wouldn't work. That would not eliminate the markets money. The only way you can eliminate it is by using a central authority, or by living in some isolated community with some other die hard socialists.
You're becoming more of a nihilist every day, and more of an intense conservative. But the fact is that I haven't layed out the framework for a new society - I'm not qualified for that. What I do know is that the continuation of these economic relations will always result in the same crap that we have seen in the past - the free market will merely open the doors for a more acute manifestation of this. So you have no business saying something "won't work" when I've merely proposed an ideal.

If its unachievable, we will never be free. That's the simple fact - without having control over our own lives, we will not be free. Capitalism provides this control for a distinctly narrow portion of the population. Only by seizure of the means of production by the bulk of society can we become self-empowered. While people control systems, those systems will benefit them.




The market creates lots of things I don't like.



There is nothing I can do if you are just going to define capitalism itself as exploitative.
No, I've explained how its exploitative, and you've derided the notion of exploitation in order to shield yourself from criticism.

The fact is this:
-You accept that exploitation and fraud will occur in your utopia.
-You accept that security will be "unequal" (mmm, sounds more and more like a state every day - what was that about defining the state? ;))
-You accept that everything - security included - would be pay-to-play
-You accept that the aforementioned derivatives and the like more efficiently accumulate wealth by those actors which can engage in such systems
-You don't believe in redistribution of wealth
-You don't think this society will be egalitarian

What follows is obvious:
-Massive centralization of wealth will occur - an inevitable occurrence in a system within which cooperation of empowered economic forces is incentivized by nature of the profit motive
-This centralization of wealth will maintain a similar mode of production - that is that those who control critical economic functions will have power over people and firms who rely on that, and will subsequently be able to exploit all or nearly all of the public

Your one point to refute all of the above:
-The market does not primarily work for those with more money (buying power).

But that is a patently false notion, for obvious reasons.


But anyways, I am not really an AnCap anymore (has nothing to do with the terrible arguments you are making) since I don't see any ways to internalize some undesirable environmental externalities and the worry that the rich could prey on the poor might have some merit. But most of all the idea that PDAs would properly enforce private property with no state involved is not really backed by any historical evidence. Also, Hayeks claims about the inability of Man to rationally plan his society are pretty convincing.

Basically once I rejected the NAP and objective morality I began a very very slow but steady rejection of Anarchism to finally accepting a State. It was only a matter of time, and I was actually pretty aware that this was going on for a while.

In case you were curious the final nail in the coffin was when I re-read Anarchy and the Law which was the book that turned me into an anarchist in the first place. It contains a bunch of essays about why Defense/Law should be provided by the state, and then other essays which "rebut" those. After reading it again, I realized that the supposed "rebuttals" either weren't rebuttals at all or they themselves were rebutted.
Right, so me consistently explaining how the state works by basic market principles to fulfill the wishes of the highest bidder hasn't had an effect? Sure. It would have been better not to mention whether or not I had an "effect." ;)

I think its interesting that you now call for the one system that you before claimed as the "one sole provider of privilege." To be frank, I think you're completely intellectually dishonest. Throughout my life I've been very careful to critically assess things as they came my way... I slowly shrugged off such characters as Lenin, Minh, Mao and the like as "heroes" and others for their intellectual value. But I've never undergone such a radical, fundamental change as you mention - this is why I still base my communist ideology on individualist ideals.

The fact that you can switch from using the state as the sole pariah (by nature of linking all infidelity to it's activities) in your ideology to a "necessary system" says a tremendous amount about how:
-unrefined your ideas are (this is incredibly evident in your method of debate, too, becasue you consistently ignore basic premises of the arguments)
-confused and idealist your attitudes are about economics and the state.

Really, you read some academia about why a state may or may not be necessary? While don't you start reading investigative journalism that discusses the real mores of power? I'm serious. That theory is no substitute for consistent, daily readings of the sites I've linked to repeatedly. It really explains things that are happening, and helps you understand why they happen.

Idealist theory about the function of the state is like drivel compared to daily reports on state functions.

[Skooma Addict]

Primarily, that the command economy of Russia improved conditions, just like Somalia under a no-state paradigm. Actually, it was much more compelling than Somalia's rather marginal "improvement" under "anarchy."

As I said, Lenin's initial reforms proved to be a disaster. This required him to adopt market reforms.



You have contempt for any arguments about the economy that deal in real systems. For instance, you don't care about the effect of derivatives on the market, productionand distribution of wealth. You have no interest in the actual methods by which exploitation occurs. Your propertarian attitudes accept that the market can be exploited to work for a select few. You aren't interested in the economy, you're interested in enforcing a narrow concept of liberty which we have seen consistently allows for more efficient exploitation of the public. The fact is that you don't care about liberty; you care about property.

Stop making stuff up. I don't have contempt for arguments that deal with "real systems." We haven't even gotten into derivatives into any kind of depth, so your accusation is completely unfounded. Again you refer to "exploitation" but as I said what you consider "exploitation" I could consider a perfectly legitimate act. I am interested in the economy, and your accusation here is again unfounded. It is just one of your favorite slogans. I care about property for consequentialist reasons.


Namely the fact that any resource-rich region with foreign capital to exploit those resources will have a thriving economy, be that local or(more commonly now) a selective economy that only works for the firms in control of the extraction process.

Look at the African countries. This doesn't even refute anything I was saying.


You clearly know nothing of the history of the oil market, railroad construction and the systematic genocide of the native population. No matter! You only care about property owners, and they didn't own enough for you to care about them :-)


Red herring. Idk how you could possibly even know this, but then again that never stopped you before.


The whole point is that this is correct! Security, insofar as it is pay-to-play (and the state represents this system in an obtuse, but ultimately market-driven way) will always represent the interests of those who can achieve graft (with a state) or greater capital to invest in security.

Wage laborers will always lose out, so the Pinkerton example will manifest in a much more acute manner.

If you weren't so zealous you might have a point. Security will "represent the interests" of its clients. There will be rich and poor clients. However, if you remember you made an argument against Private security. You said it fails since the provision of security will not be dispersed equally. But there has never been a time in history where this has been the case. So this is hardly a faulty of private security alone.


You're becoming more of a nihilist every day, and more of an intense conservative. But the fact is that I haven't layed out the framework for a new society - I'm not qualified for that. What I do know is that the continuation of these economic relations will always result in the same crap that we have seen in the past - the free market will merely open the doors for a more acute manifestation of this. So you have no business saying something "won't work" when I've merely proposed an ideal.

If its unachievable, we will never be free. That's the simple fact - without having control over our own lives, we will not be free. Capitalism provides this control for a distinctly narrow portion of the population. Only by seizure of the means of production by the bulk of society can we become self-empowered. While people control systems, those systems will benefit them.

So my point that socialism on anything besides a tiny scale requires a central authority stands.



-You accept that exploitation and fraud will occur in your utopia.


Exploitation and fraud will always occur. Good luck ending it.



-You accept that security will be "unequal" (mmm, sounds more and more like a state every day - what was that about defining the state? ;))

Has it ever not been unequal?



-You don't think this society will be egalitarian


I don't see how a true egalitarian society is possible.


Right, so me consistently explaining how the state works by basic market principles to fulfill the wishes of the highest bidder hasn't had an effect? Sure. It would have been better not to mention whether or not I had an "effect." ;)


Putting things in italics doesn't make you right.


I think its interesting that you now call for the one system that you before claimed as the "one sole provider of privilege." To be frank, I think you're completely intellectually dishonest.

To be frank, I really don't care about what you think.


Throughout my life I've been very careful to critically assess things as they came my way... I slowly shrugged off such characters as Lenin, Minh, Mao and the like as "heroes" and others for their intellectual value. But I've never undergone such a radical, fundamental change as you mention - this is why I still base my communist ideology on individualist ideals.

*plays worlds smallest violin*

How beautiful :crying:


The fact that you can switch from using the state as the sole pariah (by nature of linking all infidelity to it's activities) in your ideology to a "necessary system" says a tremendous amount about how:
-unrefined your ideas are (this is incredibly evident in your method of debate, too, becasue you consistently ignore basic premises of the arguments)
-confused and idealist your attitudes are about economics and the state.

Stop misusing the word "idealist" already. What you said would be true if I suddenly switched my beliefs, but if you comprehended what I said, what really occurred was a slow process.


Idealist theory about the function of the state is like drivel compared to daily reports on state functions.


Your "daily reports" are interpreted differently by different people.

[mikelepore]

I just don't see how you could say this with such certainty. To me it would depend on hte societies culture and institutions. So in certain parts of the U.S. I think this would be a legitemate worry. But in other places, I don't think so.

Judgments about right and wrong aren't arguable in the same way that factual subjects are, but I'd consider it a barbaric society if the victim of a crime had to hire the police to respond to it.

***

Victim: "Hello, police department? My family was just beaten up by two hoodlums."

Customer service representative: "I'll read you our price list. To catch them and give a warning, that would be $65,000. Catch them take them to trial, that's $95,000 if there is no conviction and $140,000 in the event of a conviction. We can provide financing with your choice of a fixed or variable interest rate, and we also accept Visa and Mastercard. Thank you for calling the Time-Warner-Disney-Westinghouse-Police company."

***

Some people are so devoted to the idea of privatizing everything that they don't carry their ideas through to their absurd implications.

[LeftSideDown]

Judgments about right and wrong aren't arguable in the same way that factual subjects are, but I'd consider it a barbaric society if the victim of a crime had to hire the police to respond to it.

***

Victim: "Hello, police department? My family was just beaten up by two hoodlums."

Customer service representative: "I'll read you our price list. To catch them and give a warning, that would be $65,000. Catch them take them to trial, that's $95,000 if there is no conviction and $140,000 in the event of a conviction. We can provide financing with your choice of a fixed or variable interest rate, and we also accept Visa and Mastercard. Thank you for calling the Time-Warner-Disney-Westinghouse-Police company."

***

Some people are so devoted to the idea of privatizing everything that they don't carry their ideas through to their absurd implications.

Why would they charge so much? The costs certainly couldn't be that high and more customers > less. Even if they are poorer, if you make one cent profit off someone it is better than making 0 cents profit. Why don't capitalist industries do this for EVERY good? Why isn't bread 1000 dollars and milk 3000?

[mikelepore]

You're asking me why there's a higher price to hire mercenaries for a potentially violent battle, particularly when they use advanced training and equipment, than to buy a little bit of milk and bread. I'll let you think about that for a while. Too elementary. You will be able to figure it out. (I here demonstrate the educational method known as constructivism. The student will understand the principle better after having had to figure it out.)

[Dean]

Stop making stuff up. I don't have contempt for arguments that deal with "real systems." We haven't even gotten into derivatives into any kind of depth, so your accusation is completely unfounded. Again you refer to "exploitation" but as I said what you consider "exploitation" I could consider a perfectly legitimate act. I am interested in the economy, and your accusation here is again unfounded. It is just one of your favorite slogans. I care about property for consequentialist reasons.
Derivatives are important because they allow unproductive manipulation of finance for capital gain. This doesn't seem to be meaningful to you, which is unsurprising.


Look at the African countries. This doesn't even refute anything I was saying.
Yes, please do! This is why nearly 2 trillion dollars have been siphoned out of this poor region since the 70s. There is a thariving extraction economy - and it doesn't benefit the local population.


If you weren't so zealous you might have a point. Security will "represent the interests" of its clients. There will be rich and poor clients. However, if you remember you made an argument against Private security. You said it fails since the provision of security will not be dispersed equally. But there has never been a time in history where this has been the case. So this is hardly a faulty of private security alone.
"Fails"? More meaningless moralism! I was directly pointing out that this unequal security would disproportionally represent the interests of accumulated capital, thereby serving as an ever-centralizing force for an economic system.

The fact that you draw "failure" and other trivial ideals out of these arguments says a lot. What does "failure" mean exactly? Quit making these silly, vague arguments.



Red herring. Idk how you could possibly even know this, but then again that never stopped you before.






So my point that socialism on anything besides a tiny scale requires a central authority stands.



Exploitation and fraud will always occur. Good luck ending it.



Has it ever not been unequal?



I don't see how a true egalitarian society is possible.



Putting things in italics doesn't make you right.



To be frank, I really don't care about what you think.



*plays worlds smallest violin*

How beautiful :crying:



Stop misusing the word "idealist" already. What you said would be true if I suddenly switched my beliefs, but if you comprehended what I said, what really occurred was a slow process.



Your "daily reports" are interpreted differently by different people.

A string of meaningless, dismissive statements. Not surprising that this is an increasingly common tactic for you.

[Skooma Addict]

Derivatives are important because they allow unproductive manipulation of finance for capital gain. This doesn't seem to be meaningful to you, which is unsurprising.


What specifically is wrong with derivatives?


Yes, please do! This is why nearly 2 trillion dollars have been siphoned out of this poor region since the 70s. There is a thariving extraction economy - and it doesn't benefit the local population.

But that isn't what happened in California. So obviously foreign capital and plentiful resources is not enough for a thriving economy.


"Fails"? More meaningless moralism! I was directly pointing out that this unequal security would disproportionally represent the interests of accumulated capital, thereby serving as an ever-centralizing force for an economic system.

The fact that you draw "failure" and other trivial ideals out of these arguments says a lot. What does "failure" mean exactly? Quit making these silly, vague arguments.

I guess we have to add "moralism" to the list of words which you misuse. Also, it is hilarious that you of all people would criticize me for making vague statements. I don't think the "interests of accumulated capital" is a meaningful statement. "Accumulated capital" has no interests. Obviously, rich people would receive better protection than poor people, but whether or not such centralization would occur is anyone's guess. If the legal code just collapses then there could be a situation similar to Somalia rather than centralization.


A string of meaningless, dismissive statements. Not surprising that this is an increasingly common tactic for you.

When I discuss things with you, yes. So have you just accepted that socialism requires a central authority to implement? I see you aren't contesting me on the point.

[Dean]

What specifically is wrong with derivatives?
"unproductive manipulation of finance for capital gain."



But that isn't what happened in California. So obviously foreign capital and plentiful resources is not enough for a thriving economy.
Localized control of the capital is also required. Californian entrepreneurs / homesteaders / imperialists (depending on their contexts) controlled said capital. The same is rarely true in Africa, with some notable exceptions (typically urban centers with White populations - though they tend to control natural resources in the outlying country).



I guess we have to add "moralism" to the list of words which you misuse. Also, it is hilarious that you of all people would criticize me for making vague statements. I don't think the "interests of accumulated capital" is a meaningful statement. "Accumulated capital" has no interests. Obviously, rich people would receive better protection than poor people, but whether or not such centralization would occur is anyone's guess. If the legal code just collapses then there could be a situation similar to Somalia rather than centralization.
"interests of those who control accumulated capital," but its arguable that the system passively "controls" those who work for it.

"Fail" was vague because we haven't been talking about failure or success - simply the accumulation of capital into centrally controlled economic entities. If I felt that dynamic was good I would have no choice but to explain it the same way as I do now.


When I discuss things with you, yes.
Well, you still have to contend with the fact that I've consistently offered much more comprehensive explanations for my contradictions to your claims. You can flippantly and arrogantly claim that I'm "not worth the words" in so many words (as you have repeatedly, though I've never done that to you) but that doesn't say much for your debating style, the validity or reason in your arguments.

I still maintain that I eagerly await good explanations for your ideas, rather than dismissive one-liners as quoted above and throughout the thread.


So have you just accepted that socialism requires a central authority to implement? I see you aren't contesting me on the point.
Why should I? You've baselessly asserted this point, so I don't have much to contradict in a meaningful way.

[LeftSideDown]

You're asking me why there's a higher price to hire mercenaries for a potentially violent battle, particularly when they use advanced training and equipment, than to buy a little bit of milk and bread. I'll let you think about that for a while. Too elementary. You will be able to figure it out. (I here demonstrate the educational method known as constructivism. The student will understand the principle better after having had to figure it out.)

Capitalism works the same for everything; a firm that was able to provide the same or better service cheaper would be able to get more customers. Police, in proportion to other services provided the state, do not consume a very high proportion of the budget.

Doing some quick math: For 2001 the United States Federal Government spent "The United States spent a record $167 billion on policing, corrections, and judicial and legal activities in 2001". So, this includes some things that aren't policing, but even with them they account for 0.07133703545493378897906877402819% of the budget. Federal revenue for 2001 was 2341 billion dollars according to http://www.gpoaccess.gov/usbudget/fy01/pdf/guide.pdf.

"On December 5, 2001, the population was estimated to be 285,669,915". Lets just assume that everyone paid the same taxes for a second. That means that everyone paid an average of 8194 dollars in taxes (lets just assume its only an income tax). Of that .071337% went to all "policing, corrections, judicial and legal activities. So that translates to 584$ a year for federal policing per person per year.

Hardly extravagant, and I would say we have a pretty technologically advanced police state. This is all very rough though and probably rife to errors, but do your worst.

[Skooma Addict]

"unproductive manipulation of finance for capital gain."

Explain. You have explain why this is.


Localized control of the capital is also required. Californian entrepreneurs / homesteaders / imperialists (depending on their contexts) controlled said capital. The same is rarely true in Africa, with some notable exceptions (typically urban centers with White populations - though they tend to control natural resources in the outlying country).


Look at Hong Kong or Singapore for a counter example to this. Look, you are just trying to grasp any anything you can to refute my California example. But now you have drifted so far away from the topic that it is too difficult to even see the connection. The fact is that California did not experience what you said would happen (centralization and exploitation by the rich).



"interests of those who control accumulated capital," but its arguable that the system passively "controls" those who work for it.

They don't share interests.


Well, you still have to contend with the fact that I've consistently offered much more comprehensive explanations for my contradictions to your claims. You can flippantly and arrogantly claim that I'm "not worth the words" in so many words (as you have repeatedly, though I've never done that to you) but that doesn't say much for your debating style, the validity or reason in your arguments.

You have certainly offered very lengthy comprehensive posts. I will give you that. But as far as being convincing goes, that is where they fall short.



Why should I? You've baselessly asserted this point, so I don't have much to contradict in a meaningful way.

But I didn't just assert the point. I explained how the markets price system is natural, and that the only ways to eliminate it is through a central authority. But you don't seem to want to contest the point.