#1 |
#2 |
#3 |
Paste this URL into an email or IM: |
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
|
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
|
Free-Market Police: Better or Worse?
So, what would work out better. Having multiple police agencies so persons can chose to pay for the best protection, or is our current monopolized system safer and more dependable?
Much, much better...
Side Score: 103
|
Much, much worse...
Side Score: 90
|
|
The big question: Who watches the watchmen? This could create the very dangerous situation where coercive power falls into the hands of an inhumane corporate machine. The day our democratically elected government orders a company to do something and the company says, "No." is the day we're all seriously fucked. But if you could solve that problem then it might work. The important thing would be to make sure these companies can't become too powerful, so that they can be appropriately regulated. Let's say these companies can only have light weapons. Keep the tanks and SWAT teams in the hands of elected officials. And let's not let anybody take more than 10% market share. With appropriate safety measures in place, I do think free-market mechanisms could lead to much more effective law enforcement. Side: Much, much better...
>< And are these publically owned entities on the stockmarket? If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf? Can a Chinese investor buy the Oklahoma City police through money managers? How about if Wal-Mart starts a police branch who "just happen" to congregate around any Target store in the area with guns and tazers drawn. And when one of these cops-for-hire kills a kid eating a slurpy because he had a bad day, who arrests him? Call the 911 brought to you by 7-11? Maybe the Wal-mart police decide to arrest the BP police for false arrests on the coast. Now you have basically gang warfare with a badge. Private police aren't police,they're mercenaries. State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all. Side: Much, much worse...
Not a very constructive attitude if you ask me. Seems like you should be asking, "How can we make this work?" rather than saying, "This will never work." If I'm BP can I buy up all the cop shares and order them to arrest anyone who complains about all the oil in the gulf? Hmm, that could be a problem. Ok, so let's say no stocks. Let's say these entities must be funded via premiums paid by individuals within their service area. State and government police are hard enough to keep from being corrupted without a private industry free-for-all. Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption? Side: Much, much better...
goddamn CD, they logged me out. I already went through this. Here we go again: Not a very constructive attitude if you ask me. Seems like you should be asking, "How can we make this work?" rather than saying, "This will never work." I suppose I could, but I feel the anti-government pro-anarchy crowd has had quite enough time on the CD bully-pulpit without me offering their crazy notions quasi encouragement. There are instances of privately funded police, in third world countries. It has never worked. I don't believe it ever could so why give the crazies hypothetical reasons to continue their anti-government rantings in any form? Hmm, that could be a problem. Ok, so let's say no stocks. Let's say these entities must be funded via premiums paid by individuals within their service area. Well that would be great if you're in a rich service area. If you are in a poor area where crime actually happens then you're screwed. If you have to drive through a poor area you're screwed. And unfortunately areas with high crime breeds more criminals. It would only be a matter of time before this new generation of criminals seeps into the upper class neighborhoods. Eventually you would have a few walled castles complete with guards within each city, and hordes of peasants outside robbing and pillaging. Do you not think that competition would reduce corruption? Competition may lower prices when implemented fairly, it may improve service when back room deals aren't being made (which they almost universally are) but competition will never reduce corruption. Competition encourages corruption. Corruption can give companies a leg up on their competition, and companies only care about money, they're not designed to care about laws or people or anything of that nature unless it benefits them. Who is going to arrest corrupt police if there is no government entity? One could introduce oversite I suppose, but now you are spending just as much policing police as you would be on police. Plus the same crowd who cry privatize everything are the same who hate oversite. The whole thing is silly. Government is essential, and police are one of the essential functions of government. Without this type of social order we'd still be cavemen hitting eachother with clubs. I refuse to encourage it even hypothetically. Side: Much, much worse...
goddamn CD, they logged me out. I already went through this. I write my arguments in an external editor and just copy and paste them when they're done. Saves a lot of headaches. I feel the anti-government pro-anarchy crowd has had quite enough time on the CD bully-pulpit without me offering their crazy notions quasi encouragement lol, I guess you've got a point there. There are instances of privately funded police, in third world countries. It has never worked. Pretty sure that's not true. "The growth of private policing is a phenomenon that is occurring all over the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ If it never works, I think it would not be a growing trend. Well that would be great if you're in a rich service area. Premiums. Vouchers. There are ways of dealing with this problem. One could introduce oversite I suppose, but now you are spending just as much policing police as you would be on police. It would be drastically cheaper to police just the private police than to police everybody in the country. police are one of the essential functions of government. On what stone tablet is this written? I say go with what works. Private policing could bring many benefits, such as those listed in the Wikipedia article. Side: Much, much better...
Pretty sure that's not true. "The growth of private policing is a phenomenon that is occurring all over the world." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ If it never works, I think it would not be a growing trend. The article mentions no place where a State's Police force is replaced by one of these groups, only where a private industry has taken it upon themselves to hire additional security. This of course I have no problem with. The problem lies, again when one disolves a State run police force in favor of one which functions independant of government oversite and based on a capitalistic model. In any instance where one replaces the power of their vote in government (we elect Sherrifs) for the power of the dollar, it encourages a system where only those with money receive said benefits, in this case police protection. Why would a for-hire cop, whose boss is in no way beholden to the public but only those who fund them, waste their time with any citizen's problems who was not in a top-income bracket? There is no reason. Police over time would respond to a rich person's watch being stolen before they respond to a serial killer who only targets hookers. This is a fact of capitalism. Capitalism needs social programs to maintain any semblence of democratic government, and law enforcement is one of these social programs. Side: Much, much worse...
Historically, government is also full of corruption. The critical difference is that when corruption causes companies to provide inferior service, they lose business. This feedback cycle between producer and consumer is severely weakened when you introduce a layer of government bureaucracy. Also: regulation. Side: Much, much better...
Historically, government is also full of corruption. Right, that's why all sorts of government models have been developed to both stem this corruption and magnify it. What seems to work best at fighting corruption is a division of power and the ability of the citizens to choose their leaders and laws. The critical difference is that when corruption causes companies to provide inferior service, they lose business. Not always, sometimes they are monopolies. This feedback cycle between producer and consumer is severely weakened when you introduce a layer of government bureaucracy. It can be, but other times that bureaucracy protects us from business incompetence by providing a safety net, so to speak. Other times it keeps businesses in line. Side: Much, much worse...
I'm not sure whether corruption would be more commonplace in a competitive market than in a well-run government agency. I suppose in either case it would kept down to a reasonable level. But I do believe that for-profit agencies are much more competent than their government counterparts. And even if markets were somewhat more corrupt, I'd be willing to put up with that in return for higher quality of service. Not always, sometimes they are monopolies. Right, which is why I suggested not letting any private police agency take more than 10% market share. Seems like you're arguing against an unregulated market -- but what I'm advocating is a regulated market. Side: Much, much better...
... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line. And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not outarmed enough. Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic. Side: Much, much worse...
... right because a private company is going to spend all kinds of money looking for a guy who killed someone, that really helps their bottom line. Assuming their business IS investigation, then yes, yes it does. ...How do you not understand this? And just what we need, spend less money on cops as if they are already not out armed enough. No, you don't understand. In a free market there will be exactly the right amount of police as there needs to be. There is an equilibrium between supply and demand and however many police the supply is willing to pay for will be how many there are. So, as long as person want police protection, there will be an ample supply. Your ideas on this site are consistantly moronic. Yeah, that must explain why YOU'RE the one constantly backing down. =/ It's "consistently" by the way. Side: Much, much better...
1
point
Finally! I was beginning to think I was the only one with any sense around here! I mean, Jesse is on my side for this one too, but I can't honestly say I agree with him 100%. Then again, I can't say the same about you either. Is it just police specifically that you find could work without state intervention, or would you agree that one (a government) isn't needed at all and is in fact a hindrance to the economy? Side: Much, much better...
1
point
|
Well, let's see what private industry would do: -In the name of competition, corners would be cut, for instance in training and employee benefits. -Background checks wouldn't exist probably, since that wastes money and effort, so you'd have more thugs. -Police protection would compete for customers, like insurance, and devolve into a protection racket. Of course, we can always look at real-life examples: Side: Much, much worse...
Huh... and here I was beginning to think you were one of the good guys... =/ - In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service. "Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have. - Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market. - Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that. You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption. It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to. Side: Much, much better...
- In the name of competition, each agency would be forced to compete for customers, therefore strive to provide a better and less expensive service. A less expensive service means that the company spends less on training, uses cheaper technology for vests, guns, etc. When you're dealing with purely technology, like computers this can be a good thing. Smaller, faster, more efficient processes are devised. Police enforcement is limited to people, which means that they will bottleneck any efficiency, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere, for example not paying overtime or removing employee benefits. "Cutting corners" is easier and seen to a much larger extent when one company can operate on monopoly terms. Especially if it's a coercive monopoly like the one most governments have. Cutting corners applies to any business model, since capitalism and industry is a matter of thriftiness. - Supply and demand my friend. If background checks for employees are enough of a concern that the demand would sooner pay a company that does them, then that's what these companies will do in order to remain competitive on the market. Why don't you look at real-world examples of what companies do to save money. For example, in the food industry background checks are not made because it's too costly despite the handling of food. In business, employees receive few benefits unless there is union intervention or state intervention. They are also paid less without union coercion. Background checking would be in a long line of things cut. - Again, supply and demand. You're not the only person against such corruption. If rackets are such a worry amongst the populace then one of two things will happen (probably both). Either people will willingly opt out of an agency they fear are getting too big, or companies built for the sole purpose of investigating police agencies will arise and do just that. Look into insurance companies and how abusive they became towards customers, and how leaving it to economics didn't solve this. You can't opt out of the current system and you have nothing but the corrupt system itself to depend on for stopping it's own corruption. It works well, actually. I also wouldn't want a corporation with armed military capacity forming within our borders, it is a recipe for a coup. It's just simple logic. Companies that must strive to be the best will offer a better service than those that don't have to. And yet history reveals a different story, that it is actually more complicated. Side: Much, much worse...
A less expensive service means that the company spends less on training, uses cheaper technology for vests, guns, etc. When you're dealing with purely technology, like computers this can be a good thing. Smaller, faster, more efficient processes are devised. Police enforcement is limited to people, which means that they will bottleneck any efficiency, and you'll have to cut corners somewhere, for example not paying overtime or removing employee benefits. Would you pay for a half-ass police agency? Neither would anyone else. If cutting corners means cutting customers, then you can rest assured that the only companies able to remain competitive on the market will be the ones that provide the best services. ;) If they get less expensive, it Will be in response to the demand of the people, NOT the greed of the supply. Cutting corners applies to any business model, since capitalism and industry is a matter of thriftiness. You're ignoring my point. You can get away with a lot more if your company is the only one of its kind (monopoly). And you can get away with a hell of a lot more if your monopoly is coercive... like the ones we have now. =/ Why don't you look at real-world examples of what companies do to save money. For example, in the food industry background checks are not made because it's too costly despite the handling of food. In business, employees receive few benefits unless there is union intervention or state intervention. They are also paid less without union coercion. Background checking would be in a long line of things cut. Yeah, I'm not concerned with how sucky a business is while not on a free market. If you would be willing to pay a company that does background checks over a company that doesn't, then that's where the money would go. You don't have that option under a coercive monopoly. If a monopolized industry offers background checks, it is only because of crushing demand. If there's such crushing demand for background checks then companies will offer them under a free market as well... since that's what people want. Look into insurance companies and how abusive they became towards customers, and how leaving it to economics didn't solve this. You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive". It works well, actually. I also wouldn't want a corporation with armed military capacity forming within our borders, it is a recipe for a coup. You can only raise an army with a tax base. Customers aren't enough because customers tend to not pay companies that start to militarize. And yet history reveals a different story, that it is actually more complicated. Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ It's already been proven that things work better without a state. This isn't a matter of arguing logic anymore, but rather a matter of getting the facts out and talked about. Side: Much, much better...
For the sake that this is a debate site I will take the side opposing you... this will be fun! Would you pay for a half-ass police agency? Neither would anyone else. If cutting corners means cutting customers, then you can rest assured that the only companies able to remain competitive on the market will be the ones that provide the best services. ;) McDonalds is that a half-ass food service? To many yes, yet people buy from them despite them being half-assed and unhealthy... they do this by cutting corners to cut time and save money on products increasing profit. By your logic it should be out of business, it's not thanks to the fact that free enterprise doesn't care about quality, but about amount of money made. A robotized police force could go around some of these issues, but has a massive overhead cost. You're ignoring my point. You can get away with a lot more if your company is the only one of its kind (monopoly). And you can get away with a hell of a lot more if your monopoly is coercive... like the ones we have now. But in a free-enterprise system people can open up their own competing business and if people don't like the monopoly they can use your service... some people already use private companies for a police force (some gated communities, some resorts) so there is potential that a privatized police force could come into the mainstream (why hasn't it?). So the regular police force isn't as much of a monopoly as you think, but it still has a large share of the market. You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive". As a side note, they do take those policies to prevent themselves from being open to fraud like this therefore losing money. However some companies do overreact by putting up barriers to who can join (you know what I mean, who doesn't?), along with disadvantages of the unlucky (those who have the same thing happen multiple times). You can only raise an army with a tax base. Customers aren't enough because customers tend to not pay companies that start to militarize. Can you give an example of costumers stop paying a company that starts to militarize? The business plot is interesting, but unprovable. If anything a private police force would be the easiest company to mask a militarization, they could get more funding because more customers would like the 'sliding' level of protection (with the highest tiers having Assault rifles and such) with the higher cost for the better gear; so people would be paying for the militarization. Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time. Actually there were states, but micro-states with limited influence over the individual... so libertarianism it is then? Also there was law, but unwritten laws and societal expectations; which have a large influence over what you do. So it differs on the cultural background, and about size of the micro-states. In Somalia some areas were better off, like banking and industry... and others were worse off, like violence but due to warlords taking advantage of the situation, and wanting control of it all through war... It's already been proven that things work better without a state. This isn't a matter of arguing logic anymore, but rather a matter of getting the facts out and talked about. Prove it, why do states keep appearing? There is a reason. Get the facts out, I want to see them. I'm interested. side note also I think it differs per person what kind of state (or lack of) they would function best in, due to the way people act under different situations. So trying to find out what's best for all is never the way to go; if you conquer the whole world keep Australia open for the dissenters of your ideology, they would have no excuse really to not go if that way of life is not the way they roll. Side: Much, much worse...
For the sake that this is a debate site I will take the side opposing you... this will be fun! Ah, come on. It's already me vs. the world here! =p McDonald's is that a half-ass food service? To many yes, yet people buy from them despite them being half-assed and unhealthy... they do this by cutting corners to cut time and save money on products increasing profit. By your logic it should be out of business, it's not thanks to the fact that free enterprise doesn't care about quality, but about amount of money made. A robotized police force could go around some of these issues, but has a massive overhead cost. In this case it would depend on what is meant by "half-ass". Sure, the food isn't healthy, but people find it delicious and that's been enough to keep people coming back. I see no problem in it, they're supplying a demand and it's working for them. Any business can "cut-corners" to the extent that people don't care. People know McDonald's is unhealthy, but they don't buy their food for the health benefits, just the taste; so it doesn't matter. The same is true for privatized police. People won't care too much if they (the police agency) uses revolvers or go for the less expensive semi-automatics, so long as they do the best job for the price. Once a company starts cutting corners to the extent that it negatively affects their service (or product), you would see a drop off in customers. But in a free-enterprise system people can open up their own competing business and if people don't like the monopoly they can use your service... some people already use private companies for a police force (some gated communities, some resorts) so there is potential that a privatized police force could come into the mainstream (why hasn't it?). So the regular police force isn't as much of a monopoly as you think, but it still has a large share of the market. Very significant questions and points. First of all, for an organization to be considered a monopoly, it's not necessary for it to be the sole provider of the service, but rather just have sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it. You were thinking of a [monopsony] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The reason why privatized police agencies haven't become more popular is because governments have a coercive monopoly over this industry. Which means, you have to pay for the governments service (via taxation) whether you use it or not. You can see how this would heavily cripple the free-enterprise agencies as very few people are willing (or could even afford) to pay for two police agencies. The fact that there are entire communities (even if they're only small) that are willing to pay for protection from a privatized company on top of paying for the monopolized service really shows how bare-minimum and unsatisfactory the government's police system really is. Can you give an example of costumers stop paying a company that starts to militarize? The business plot is interesting, but unprovable. If anything a private police force would be the easiest company to mask a militarization, they could get more funding because more customers would like the 'sliding' level of protection (with the highest tiers having Assault rifles and such) with the higher cost for the better gear; so people would be paying for the militarization. Governments need two things to function. 1. a Tax base and 2. a military There are a lot more nuances and mechanisms in place, obviously, but ultimately you need only a tax base to fund your military and a military to expand and protect your government. The thing is, the foundation of a tax base cannot be founded on coercion alone. You have to actually convince the populace that they need you and are better off with you... which is hard to do when there are a bazillion other like-companies ready to serve you. If a company tries to start an "empire" or whatever, it would only be too easy for everyone to opt out of their business and invest in a less maniacal one. I don't know of any time where a free-market company was in such a position to militarize, but it's easy to see why. Actually there were states, but micro-states with limited influence over the individual... so libertarianism it is then? Also there was law, but unwritten laws and societal expectations; which have a large influence over what you do. So it differs on the cultural background, and about size of the micro-states. In Somalia some areas were better off, like banking and industry... and others were worse off, like violence but due to warlords taking advantage of the situation, and wanting control of it all through war... Understand, I'm not opposed to order and law; I'm very much for them, but only if it is emergent. Order that emerges from natural and free interaction is another example of the market, which really is simply people coming together in order to achieve more than they ever could alone. This is opposed to a top-down order meant to serve a few "elite" cowards which stems from heavy indoctrination... about 12 years worth. Prove it, why do states keep appearing? There is a reason. Get the facts out, I want to see them. I'm interested. Ah, now here is a question I am asked far too infrequently. It's no secret that ancient man was an insane ego-maniac... at least by our contemporary standards. Of course, man has become less insane over the ages due to changes in child-rearing. These changes have been labeled and divided into what's known as psycho-classes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Here's were it gets interesting. Each class correlates to a certain form of government and guess what it ends with. =p Government exists and will continue to exist so long as people believe society cannot function without it. People are starting to wake up. And the more they wake up, the faster the process becomes. Side: Much, much better...
Would you pay for a half-ass police agency? Neither would anyone else. If cutting corners means cutting customers, then you can rest assured that the only companies able to remain competitive on the market will be the ones that provide the best services. ;) I already explained how this happens. To use a familiar example, take broadband providers like Comcast. They provide a service that is good initially and competitive but after they crush their immediate competition they start to interfere in their customers' affairs with packet poisoning. Another example is how the providers stay competitive by inflating their available broadband, and penalise their customers by having a quota, and demanding that net neutrality be revoked. You're ignoring my point. You can get away with a lot more if your company is the only one of its kind (monopoly). And you can get away with a hell of a lot more if your monopoly is coercive... like the ones we have now. =/ All free market companies endeavour for monopoly. Yeah, I'm not concerned with how sucky a business is while not on a free market. Those are all market examples. Back when they were purely free market, there were NO employee benefits, and food could be laden with poison (and was in some cases, remember the arsenic-laden candies a couple centuries ago?). If you would be willing to pay a company that does background checks over a company that doesn't, then that's where the money would go. You don't have that option under a coercive monopoly. If a monopolized industry offers background checks, it is only because of crushing demand. If there's such crushing demand for background checks then companies will offer them under a free market as well... since that's what people want. People will buy what is affordable. This is why for example they buy cable when the employees are overworked and over-managed. Guess they don't want to pay 20$ a month more to improve this. You're going to have to do better than this. Show me an example of a free-market insurance agency being "abusive". Are you in the USA? All of them. Ranging from denial of claims to skyrocketing premiums when you actually use your insurance, to being dropped because you have one pet too many. You can only raise an army with a tax base. Customers aren't enough because customers tend to not pay companies that start to militarize. Look at Microsoft for an example of how wealthy a company can become, or an oil company. What if the police force is acquired by an oil company? Now you have a wealthy, strong force that can stand up to government. Really? Because the only free-market I can think of in recent history was Somalia... and crime went waaaaaaaaaay down in that time. You're joking, right? Or are you that ignorant? You can't live in Mogadishu safely, guns are fired frequently, warlords and militant factions are competing for power and land. Somalia is like a war zone, constant fighting between Islamists, Christians, and UN backed government. It's already been proven that things work better without a state. This isn't a matter of arguing logic anymore, but rather a matter of getting the facts out and talked about. You really are ignorant. Anarchy is a power vacuum. In small groups of people this leads to tribalism. In large, city-like populations you have tribes fighting each other, gang violence in other words. Then you have factions, which form based on race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc. They fight violently. Eventually you get a government again, that arises from the bloodshed. Anarchy cannot work because it is by nature ephemeral. You also don't want to live in that ephemeral stage because the mortality rates are high. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xeer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Free markets existed in the United States and Britain, there was severe social inequality and workers' rights were nonexistent. In developing nations across the world there are free markets, and what we see are sweatshops and child labour. Side: Much, much worse...
I already explained how this happens. To use a familiar example, take broadband providers like Comcast. They provide a service that is good initially and competitive but after they crush their immediate competition they start to interfere in their customers' affairs with packet poisoning. Another example is how the providers stay competitive by inflating their available broadband, and penalise their customers by having a quota, and demanding that net neutrality be revoked. Again, I'm not interested in the problems of companies that don't function on a free-market and this is why: http://www.youtube.com/ If there are no coercive monopolies or barriers to entry (things that can only happen under state rule) than all market problems can be solved simply by choosing to pay whomever provides the better service. All free market companies endeavour for monopoly. All companies. This is not something exclusive to free-market companies. Monopolies are very rare, even with a state oligarchies are easier to accomplish. The fact remains it's almost impossible to corner the market when it's free because as soon as you try to charge at the monopoly rate, people take their business elsewhere. Not so easy to do with our state-run coercive monopolies... =/ People will buy what is affordable. This is why for example they buy cable when the employees are overworked and over-managed. Guess they don't want to pay 20$ a month more to improve this. Affordability clearly isn't the only factor in the market. Sure, a go-cart is more affordable than a car, but people still buy cars. It's about providing the best service for the price. If that isn't being done, persons take their business elsewhere. If you don't approve of the working conditions for employees at a certain business, don't pay them. Go with a company you do approve of. Are you in the USA? All of them. Ranging from denial of claims to skyrocketing premiums when you actually use your insurance, to being dropped because you have one pet too many. So, again understand we live in a highly statist society that allows large business certain advantages in exchange for lining a few pockets. Insurance agencies will always have means of protecting themselves, it's only rational. But if what they supply doesn't meet the market demand when the market demand is the only economic force driving the supply, they'll lose their business. Again, problem solved. =) Look at Microsoft for an example of how wealthy a company can become, or an oil company. What if the police force is acquired by an oil company? Now you have a wealthy, strong force that can stand up to government. If Microsoft started using their income to conduct a fiat land claim and began a military campaign over it's customers, persons would simply (here it comes) stop paying for their service. It's that simple. If a company does something that it's customers don't like, it loses business. You're joking, right? Or are you that ignorant? You can't live in Mogadishu safely, guns are fired frequently, warlords and militant factions are competing for power and land. Somalia is like a war zone, constant fighting between Islamists, Christians, and UN backed government. I never claimed it was better off (more peaceful) than us, merely that it got better once the state collapsed. Which it did. =3 You really are ignorant. Anarchy is a power vacuum. In small groups of people this leads to tribalism. In large, city-like populations you have tribes fighting each other, gang violence in other words. Then you have factions, which form based on race, ethnicity, religion, political beliefs, etc. They fight violently. Eventually you get a government again, that arises from the bloodshed. Anarchy cannot work because it is by nature ephemeral. You also don't want to live in that ephemeral stage because the mortality rates are high. Again, an army can't be raised on customers alone. Persons must have some belief in the nobility of the state in order to support it. So long as persons are foolish in this manner, there will be states. Just because states exist and persons think the market can't function without them, doesn't mean they actually are good for us. Free markets existed in the United States and Britain, there was severe social inequality and workers' rights were nonexistent. In developing nations across the world there are free markets, and what we see are sweatshops and child labour. Child labor and sweatshops aren't so bad. =3 Show me one of these "free-markets" with sweatshops. Side: Much, much better...
Again, I'm not interested in the problems of companies that don't function on a free-market and this is why: I'll be more explicit: you can measure the outcome of a free market by observing how businesses behave when they have a level of freedom. The trend is always that a business will outcompete its rivals unethically when there are no prohibitions against this. If there are no coercive monopolies or barriers to entry (things that can only happen under state rule) than all market problems can be solved simply by choosing to pay whomever provides the better service. Except this never happens because reality is much more complicated. All companies. This is not something exclusive to free-market companies. Monopolies are very rare, even with a state oligarchies are easier to accomplish. Monopolies are naturally favoured by economy of scale and the unethical practices that follow from power. The fact remains it's almost impossible to corner the market when it's free because as soon as you try to charge at the monopoly rate, people take their business elsewhere. Not so easy to do with our state-run coercive monopolies... =/ Same as above. Affordability clearly isn't the only factor in the market. Sure, a go-cart is more affordable than a car, but people still buy cars. It's about providing the best service for the price. If that isn't being done, persons take their business elsewhere. If you don't approve of the working conditions for employees at a certain business, don't pay them. Go with a company you do approve of. It really isn't that simple. One business will acquire its rivals in a region, thus negating choice. The small companies will vanish as they are crushed by big ones or acquired. Then choice vanishes. So, again understand we live in a highly statist society that allows large business certain advantages in exchange for lining a few pockets. Insurance agencies will always have means of protecting themselves, it's only rational. But if what they supply doesn't meet the market demand when the market demand is the only economic force driving the supply, they'll lose their business. Again: private businesses evolved into the insurance behemoths you see today that screw their customers. What government intervention happened was the result of insurance companies buying favours from government. This is how business works. Reality trumps your text-book response. If Microsoft started using their income to conduct a fiat land claim and began a military campaign over it's customers, persons would simply (here it comes) stop paying for their service. It doesn't work that way. Since you seem to be oblivious to something really obvious, I'll just spell it out: businesses and politics is about creating false dilemmas to customers when a consumer or voter choice is involved. This is how power is achieved and then maintained. You give the consumer two or more choices that negatively affect him, so that no matter what he does, he is helping you despite his interest. Clear example: Palladium and PCs. Consumer advocates managed to cancel a proposed bill mandating the fritz chip. What later happened was that the design went into all motherboards sold, as it was taken up by manufacturers in the private sector, even though Palladium doesn't really serve our interests. The market created a situation such that no matter what PC you buy, you are supporting palladium, even if you don't want to. I never claimed it was better off (more peaceful) than us, merely that it got better once the state collapsed. Which it did. =3 No, it didn't get better. Again, an army can't be raised on customers alone. Persons must have some belief in the nobility of the state in order to support it. So long as persons are foolish in this manner, there will be states. Try observing ancient history, and also tribes, and lower primates. People band together to war without a state, it is merely about a different motivation. Just because states exist and persons think the market can't function without them, doesn't mean they actually are good for us. Knowing, not thinking. Child labor and sweatshops aren't so bad. =3 You're a fucking retard. Show me one of these "free-markets" with sweatshops. The developing nations. Side: Much, much worse...
I'll be more explicit: you can measure the outcome of a free market by observing how businesses behave when they have a level of freedom. The trend is always that a business will out compete its rivals unethically when there are no prohibitions against this. Kinda like how the growth of a paraplegic child is comparable to that of an able-bodied one.... oh wait, no it isn't. =/ Companies behave differently depending on their situation. Free-markets must be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their highly-statist counterparts. You say "unethically", but I know you understand that ethics and morals are subjective. Saying "unethically" means nothing to me. All I care about is if the business is supplying the demand or not. If it is, it does well. If it doesn't, it fails. Nothing is better at "regulating" than the market itself. Except this never happens because reality is much more complicated. This is a cop-out. You've provided no argument but merely denied my own, so I'll repeat... Supply and demand. If there is a demand, then a supply will arise because persons see there is money in it for them. If the demand is For good quality products at fair prices, but also good working conditions for the employees then that's what the most successful businesses will look like. So long as persons behavior reflects their own rational self interest, which can be shortened to... - so long as there are persons; free-market enterprise will be a booming success. Monopolies are naturally favored by economy of scale and the unethical practices that follow from power. Again, "unethically" means nothing to me. If you fins a particular companies methods to be repulsive, then just don't do business with them. Monopolies are NOT naturally occurring. Anyone can start up a business and under-sell a company that charges monopoly rates. In order to keep a monopoly you must make it exponentially more difficult to get ahead for new businesses and the only way to do that is to appeal to the government and create barriers to entry. Same as above. Ditto. ;) It really isn't that simple. One business will acquire its rivals in a region, thus negating choice. The small companies will vanish as they are crushed by big ones or acquired. Then choice vanishes. I see no problem here. If one company is sooo amazing at doing their job that it actually makes the need for competition obsolete, then it means everybody is happy with their service. If they start abusing their position by charging monopoly rates or militarizing etc. etc. then another person will simply open up a like business and under-sell the first one. Problem solved. =3 Again: private businesses evolved into the insurance behemoths you see today that screw their customers. What government intervention happened was the result of insurance companies buying favors from government. This is how business works. Reality trumps your text-book response. This is factually not true. Show me one insurance agency that started pre-United States and still exists today. Better yet, show me an insurance agency started pre-United States (or,any company that began in free-enterprise) that still exists today AND became less corrupt post-U.S (or any government for that matter). You can't, because they don't exist. Governments cannot halt corruption because governments are corruption. The only time government steps in is to expand their own influence over the market. It doesn't work that way. Since you seem to be oblivious to something really obvious, I'll just spell it out: businesses and politics is about creating false dilemmas to customers when a consumer or voter choice is involved. This is how power is achieved and then maintained. You give the consumer two or more choices that negatively affect him, so that no matter what he does, he is helping you despite his interest. Clear example: Palladium and PCs. Consumer advocates managed to cancel a proposed bill mandating the fritz chip. What later happened was that the design went into all motherboards sold, as it was taken up by manufacturers in the private sector, even though Palladium doesn't really serve our interests. The market created a situation such that no matter what PC you buy, you are supporting palladium, even if you don't want to. Again that wasn't under a free-market. You're comparing the behavior of a paraplegic to an able-body. Who knows what could of happened had the market not been so heavily influenced by the state. But, whatever. Lets say a natural monopoly did occur even under a free market. Lets say it tried to pull off something akin to your example. Lets even go so far as to say that absolutely no-one else had any interest in opening up their own business and providing a better service. All these things are astronomically improbable, but lets say it happened. If it was such a big deal that their customers would rather go without their service than have their money go towards a business they don't want to support, then that's what would happen. And when this company faces bankruptcy, it will have to change its ways to meet market demand. If that doesn't happen, then it wasn't such a big deal in the first place. With a free-market, you have natural fallback measures after fallback measures that you just can't have under state rule. You can't not pay for a government monopolized service and you can't compete with a government monopolized service. In a way you can, yes, but only if it ultimately is in the interest of the state. No, it didn't get better. yes, yes it did. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ You'll also do well to read up on stateless Iceland and Ireland, which held together for over one-thousand (1000!) YEARS! http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/ http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/ Try observing ancient history, and also tribes, and lower primates. People band together to war without a state, it is merely about a different motivation. The chest-beating alpha-male bouts of lesser primates is hardly comparable to the warring nature of monolithic governments. XD Again, check the links on anarchic Ireland and Iceland. There are guerilla armies, I'll give you that, but YOU must also understand that these armies come into existence in response to state armies and tend to disband when they're no longer needed. Oh, and by "tend to", I mean they do. Knowing, not thinking. Thinking, not knowing* you mean. =3 Show me otherwise. You're a fucking retard. There's no need to get so upset, avesk. If children want to work, then the market will resemble this demand. A sweat shop is (and I quote) "a working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous", but what constitutes as "difficult" and "dangerous" is subjective. If the persons working in the sweat shop don't find their working conditions poor than there is no problem. If you personally don't like their conditions, then express your demand and only buy non-sweatshop clothing. Governments don't stop sweatshops, the market does. The developing nations. Name one. Side: Much, much better...
Kinda like how the growth of a paraplegic child is comparable to that of an able-bodied one.... oh wait, no it isn't. =/ Science works by taking observations of natural behaviours as they appear in conditions mimicking the desired scenario. In other words, if you want to know how a business will behave under unregulated conditions you observe it unregulated. We have had this in our society when a new market emerges, like internet access, and laws haven't caught up. Quit running from the truth. Companies behave differently depending on their situation. Free-markets must be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their highly-statist counterparts. Free markets have no merits, as was plainly obvious during the industrial revolution. You say "unethically", but I know you understand that ethics and morals are subjective. Saying "unethically" means nothing to me. All I care about is if the business is supplying the demand or not. If it is, it does well. If it doesn't, it fails. A business requires ethics, quit being stupid. This is a cop-out. You've provided no argument but merely denied my own, so I'll repeat... Examples of you being wrong are everywhere. Fast food, for example, selling well despite being lower quality; Comcast ISP still existing despite poisoning its customers' packets for bittorrent, homeopathy selling despite being distilled water with no chemical, Record and Motion Pictures industries suing their customers left and right but still surviving. So long as persons behavior reflects their own rational self interest, which can be shortened to... - so long as there are persons; free-market enterprise will be a booming success. Success is subjective, so while you ignore ethics I will ignore success. Again, "unethically" means nothing to me. If you fins a particular companies methods to be repulsive, then just don't do business with them. Industrial revolution. Quit being a dumbass. Monopolies are NOT naturally occurring. Anyone can start up a business and under-sell a company that charges monopoly rates. In order to keep a monopoly you must make it exponentially more difficult to get ahead for new businesses and the only way to do that is to appeal to the government and create barriers to entry. Lookup economy of scale. While you're at it, look up FUD, proprietary technology and vendor lock-in. You may also want to look into Intellectual Property. I see no problem here. If one company is sooo amazing at doing their job that it actually makes the need for competition obsolete, then it means everybody is happy with their service. Not amazing, shrewd and efficient at killing competition. See above. If they start abusing their position by charging monopoly rates or militarizing etc. etc. then another person will simply open up a like business and under-sell the first one. Problem solved. =3 Economy of scale, dummy. This is factually not true. Show me one insurance agency that started pre-United States and still exists today. Better yet, show me an insurance agency started pre-United States (or,any company that began in free-enterprise) that still exists today AND became less corrupt post-U.S (or any government for that matter). It doesn't work that way. Insurance companies acquire each other, change names, etc. You can't, because they don't exist. Governments cannot halt corruption because governments are corruption. The only time government steps in is to expand their own influence over the market. Dumbass talk ignored. Look into the RIAA and MPAA's influence on government law and regulation. This is an example of you being wrong. Oh, also ACTA. Again that wasn't under a free-market. You're comparing the behavior of a paraplegic to an able-body. Who knows what could of happened had the market not been so heavily influenced by the state. Let's compare this to a creationist: Again that wasn't an example of evolution. A bacteria is STILL a bacteria, it didn't evolve into a person. When a bacteria evolves into a cat, I'll listen. In other words moving the goalpost instead of accepting that you are wrong. But, whatever. Lets say a natural monopoly did occur even under a free market. Lets say it tried to pull off something akin to your example. Lets even go so far as to say that absolutely no-one else had any interest in opening up their own business and providing a better service. All these things are astronomically improbable, but lets say it happened. All this happened under the industrial revolution, in a completely unregulated market. The monopolies were kept because ECONOMY OF SCALE prevented competitors from damaging them, a small business cannot harm a small business, especially when it depends on goods sold to it by another monopoly. Price fixing occurred too. If it was such a big deal that their customers would rather go without their service than have their money go towards a business they don't want to support, then that's what would happen. And when this company faces bankruptcy, it will have to change its ways to meet market demand. If that doesn't happen, then it wasn't such a big deal in the first place. See: industrial revolution. The customers were kept poor be monopolies and couldn't choose anything else because not buying oil or coal meant freezing, and it doesn't work like that anyway because the point of a monopoly is to acquire the market for an important good. With a free-market, you have natural fallback measures after fallback measures that you just can't have under state rule. You can die, true. That is your only fallback measure since you can't prosecute your employer or seller under a free market. Maybe in the industrial revolution customers should have died more, then the monopolies would have lost their market. It's so obvious. yes, yes it did. Don't take my word for it, look it up yourself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ You'll also do well to read up on stateless Iceland and Ireland, which held together for over one-thousand (1000!) YEARS! http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/ http://fringeelements.ning.com/forum/ More dumbass talk. When you decide to actually study your claims with depth instead of only looking superficially into what anarchy is and how Somalia is at present, get back to me. A state ruled by warlords and religious factions is not healthy. The chest-beating alpha-male bouts of lesser primates is hardly comparable to the warring nature of monolithic governments. XD Again, check the links on anarchic Ireland and Iceland. There are guerilla armies, I'll give you that, but YOU must also understand that these armies come into existence in response to state armies and tend to disband when they're no longer needed. More obliviousness. War is human nature. Primates make war. Forming rival factions is part of human nature, we are hierarchical animals, and government is the product of this. The only reason you support anarchy is because you're naive and think that it would be oh-so-cool to have no accountability. You seem oblivious to the fact that without a state, one eventually forms but not until many small factions emerge, killing each other. There's no need to get so upset, avesk. If children want to work, then the market will resemble this demand. A sweat shop is (and I quote) "a working environment considered to be unacceptably difficult or dangerous", but what constitutes as "difficult" and "dangerous" is subjective. If the persons working in the sweat shop don't find their working conditions poor than there is no problem. More retarded talk. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. It defeats itself because you made yourself look supremely dysfunctional calling sweatshops subjective. If you personally don't like their conditions, then express your demand and only buy non-sweatshop clothing. Can't really, sweatshop goods occupy most of the market. Industrial revolution MkII Governments don't stop sweatshops, the market does. Industrial revolution: free market, all sweatshops and child labour. Government intervention: these were abolished on US soil. Name one. Side: Much, much worse...
Science works by taking observations of natural behaviors as they appear in conditions mimicking the desired scenario. In other words, if you want to know how a business will behave under unregulated conditions you observe it unregulated. We have had this in our society when a new market emerges, like Internet access, and laws haven't caught up. Quit running from the truth. Understand, sort of regulate =/= unregulated. If you want an example of what happens to an economy free of a government, look at Somalia or America. http://www.youtube.com/ Free markets have no merits, as was plainly obvious during the industrial revolution. Then you admit you're only comparing regulation to regulation, since a business lacking in regulation has no merits. ;) All you have to do to understand which economy is better, stateless or state, is to look at a country that had a state and then no longer did. Like Somalia. You don't even actually have to understand the logic behind it, it's plainly visible. A business requires ethics, quit being stupid. You know, you're not as mature as I thought you were... A business requires nothing but revenue. The CEO of a business could be a moral-nihilist and still have a business so long as it meets the markets demand. Examples of you being wrong are everywhere. Fast food, for example, selling well despite being lower quality; Com cast ISP still existing despite poisoning its customers' packets for bit torrent, homeopathy selling despite being distilled water with no chemical, Record and Motion Pictures industries suing their customers left and right but still surviving. I've already debunked half of these. Don't be a fool, merely re-stating your argument and ignoring my counter-argument doesn't make you right. =/ If there's something specific about anarcho-capitalism that you don't understand, fine, lets talk about it. There's no need to get so upset. Success is subjective, so while you ignore ethics I will ignore success. Grow up, avesk. =/ Relative to the market, success means to sustain a business competitively. This is what I mean when I say "success" relative to economics. Now you know. =/ Industrial revolution. Quit being a dumbass. Again, relax. I'm not trying to make you look foolish or anything. There is no reason to be so impertinent. Tell me what exactly it is about the industrial revolution that makes it impossible for you to not pay for products made by a company you don't approve of. Lookup economy of scale. While you're at it, look up FUD, proprietary technology and vendor lock-in. You may also want to look into Intellectual Property. Economy of scale... yeah, yeah big companies get bigger. It doesn't matter. Please, just try to understand. If a monopoly occurs naturally on a free-market it could ONLY be because that particular company did a better job than all the other like-companies. As soon as it begins preforming worse than it's competition (e.g. charges at monopoly rates, cheats its employees) persons will take their business to another company. Would you continue to pay a business whom offers a lesser service to a like-business? I doubt it. Not amazing, shrewd and efficient at killing competition. See above. There are only two real ways to kill competition. Provide a service better than the competition or through barriers to entry. That's it. You can either out preform them, or cripple their productivity. The later is only possible with a state. Economy of scale, dummy. Why are you so angry? =/ Under a free-market there is absolutely nothing stopping a person from opening a business and under-selling the competition. But lets say there was, just for the sake of argument. If the company with the cheapest product continues to have the cheapest product but cuts back on quality or something like that, persons will STILL take their business no another like-company because there's more to consider than just affordability. It doesn't work that way. Insurance companies acquire each other, change names, etc. Then connect the dots. Show me something, avesk. Come on. =/ Dumbass talk ignored. Look into the RIAA and MPAA's influence on government law and regulation. This is an example of you being wrong. Oh, also ACTA. Is this your "thing" now? Telling me to look things up rather than actually making a counter-argument? Look, I'm not going to spend hours re-reading things I already know in an attempt to guess exactly how you think an economy cannot be sustained without regulation. I mean, I think you're trying to use these organizations influence over the government as an example of how a free-market economy can't be sustained... But that's just such a stupid thing to say that I don't want to believe that's what you mean... I mean, you're directly connecting something you don't like to the government and using it as an example of how we need government. I'll just say it again. A company that does not cater to the demand of the market will not succeed on a commercial basis. A company that does, will. If people want good products, fair prices and good working conditions, then the market will reflect these demands because it's in the interest of the suppliers to do so. Let's compare this to a creationist: Again that wasn't an example of evolution. A bacteria is STILL a bacteria, it didn't evolve into a person. When a bacteria evolves into a cat, I'll listen. In other words moving the goalpost instead of accepting that you are wrong. No, that's not what I'm saying at all and you know it. Do you think I don't understand my own position? Do you think you can fool me into submitting to a straw-man? Obviously I'm saying that a free market is a free market and using non-free market examples as evidence against a free market doesn't work because its NOT a free market. It's not as though a regulated market is like the primordial cell of a free market... that analogy doesn't follow at all. All this happened under the industrial revolution, in a completely unregulated market. The monopolies were kept because ECONOMY OF SCALE prevented competitors from damaging them, a small business cannot harm a small business, especially when it depends on goods sold to it by another monopoly. Price fixing occurred too. Alright, since you refuse to listen to reason, listen to history instead. http://www.youtube.com/ http://theuklibertarian.com/2010/05/15/ http://www.youtube.com/ See: industrial revolution. The customers were kept poor be monopolies and couldn't choose anything else because not buying oil or coal meant freezing, and it doesn't work like that anyway because the point of a monopoly is to acquire the market for an important good. See: the links above. You can die, true. That is your only fallback measure since you can't prosecute your employer or seller under a free market. Maybe in the industrial revolution customers should have died more, then the monopolies would have lost their market. It's so obvious. I don't believe you have so little understanding of what I'm saying. There's no reason to play a fool, I know you at least sort-of get what I'm saying. You can have courts and contracts without a state. More dumbass talk. When you decide to actually study your claims with depth instead of only looking superficially into what anarchy is and how Somalia is at present, get back to me. A state ruled by warlords and religious factions is not healthy. Simply ignoring the facts doesn't make you right either. Look, you and everyone else can clearly see that Somalia became a better place to live after the fall of the state. I would sure as hell prefer to live in anarchic Somalia than the state-run Somalia that preceded it and if you have any intellectual honesty you will admit the same. If you don't agree, explain why using facts and logic. Not insults and ignorance. More obliviousness. War is human nature. Primates make war. Forming rival factions is part of human nature, we are hierarchical animals, and government is the product of this. The only reason you support anarchy is because you're naive and think that it would be oh-so-cool to have no accountability. You seem oblivious to the fact that without a state, one eventually forms but not until many small factions emerge, killing each other. Competition is nature. You can give it an ugly name like "war", but it is only one side of the coin. So, again, if the population values good products at fair prices etc. over war, then that's what the market will reflect. Go door-to-door right now and try to convince even 10 people to pay a tax to you and to militarize for you. You'll find it's terribly difficult. In fact, it's much more difficult than going door to door and trying to sell them a product that they want. This is because the demand is for productivity, not war. Large-scale war is purely a government quality. Oh, an anarchism IS all about accountability. Without the state there is no welfare to fall back on. there is no appealing to the state for barriers to entry, everything you accomplish a product of your own ability. Anarchism is all about getting your shit together. More retarded talk. I'm not even going to bother addressing this. It defeats itself because you made yourself look supremely dysfunctional calling sweatshops subjective. How do you expect to convince me of anything when you're dismissing my arguments rather than countering them? =p You're not a very good debater. I'm not saying this as an insult, I'm saying it as a factual observation. What constitutes as dangerous and hard is based on an individuals opinions (i.e. subjective). Are you really going to say otherwise? Industrial revolution: free market, all sweatshops and child labour. Government intervention: these were abolished on US soil. Again, see the links above. It's worth noting that the only reason for the government to do something "good" for the economy is if there is such crushing demand from the public that it threatens the power of the state. The government caters to it's own interests, and it's interests is expanding it's power, which means throwing you a bone once in a while so you stay obedient. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Great, you know how to copy/paste. Though, this doesn't in any way fulfill my request for you to name a current free-market with sweatshops. So again I find myself making the request; Name one. Side: Much, much better...
Understand, sort of regulate =/= unregulated. If you want an example of what happens to an economy free of a government, look at Somalia or America. A new market, like ISP, started without regulations and immediately followed with unethical practices like filtering what content customers could see. Somalia has a government, the Transitional Government, and it has the ICU who are fighting it. It is a state of warring factions. Before them, there were Islamists and Christians fighting each other. Then you admit you're only comparing regulation to regulation, since a business lacking in regulation has no merits. ;) Random comment inapplicable to what I said. All you have to do to understand which economy is better, stateless or state, is to look at a country that had a state and then no longer did. Like Somalia. Somalia is a hellhole now. Over twenty years it has seen the rise and fall of numerous factions grasping for power. Islamists, terrorists, Christians, gangs, and so-on. Welcome to anarchy. Of course, there was no crime, because there were no police and no laws. You don't even actually have to understand the logic behind it, it's plainly visible. Of course, idiots who advocate anarchy just look at a distorted image of Somalia and say "omg freedom!" You know, you're not as mature as I thought you were... A business requires nothing but revenue. The CEO of a business could be a moral-nihilist and still have a business so long as it meets the markets demand. A business without ethics devolves quickly into worker exploitation, consumer exploitation and management power struggles. I've already debunked half of these. Don't be a fool, merely re-stating your argument and ignoring my counter-argument doesn't make you right. =/ These are facts. They are not assertions. What you did was deny the evidence like a good little crackpot. If there's something specific about anarcho-capitalism that you don't understand, fine, lets talk about it. There's no need to get so upset. There is one thing. I don't understand how people could support such an obviously corrupt system. Just like fascism and dictatorships, there are people who support these too strangely. I have two hypotheses for how they gain support: Opportunists who want power support them because they think they could be a ruler in such a system. Really, really dumb people who get wrapped up in the propaganda from the former support the system, and are masochists for it. So, which are you? The dumb guy or the opportunist? Or the troll. Grow up, avesk. =/ Relative to the market, success means to sustain a business competitively. This is what I mean when I say "success" relative to economics. Now you know. =/ Then a regulated market is successful by your definition and it has ethics, too. Again, relax. I'm not trying to make you look foolish or anything. There is no reason to be so impertinent. I have an aversion to stupidity. Tell me what exactly it is about the industrial revolution that makes it impossible for you to not pay for products made by a company you don't approve of. Monopoly on an important good or service. Vendor lock-in. Having a wage that gives you no choice. Economy of scale... yeah, yeah big companies get bigger. It doesn't matter. Please, just try to understand. If a monopoly occurs naturally on a free-market it could ONLY be because that particular company did a better job than all the other like-companies. As soon as it begins preforming worse than it's competition (e.g. charges at monopoly rates, cheats its employees) persons will take their business to another company. Economy of scale means that the bigger the company gets, the cheaper it is for it to produce its goods. A smaller company becomes more and more disadvantaged towards it and obviously cannot undersell it since it needs that profit for growth. Would you continue to pay a business whom offers a lesser service to a like-business? I doubt it. Industrial revolution. People were forced to pay. There are only two real ways to kill competition. Provide a service better than the competition or through barriers to entry. That's it. You can either out preform them, or cripple their productivity. Also FUD, vendor lock-in. Under a free-market there is absolutely nothing stopping a person from opening a business and under-selling the competition. But lets say there was, just for the sake of argument. If the company with the cheapest product continues to have the cheapest product but cuts back on quality or something like that, persons will STILL take their business no another like-company because there's more to consider than just affordability. A big business can afford to undersell competition, a small business cannot. Then connect the dots. Show me something, avesk. Come on. =/ I'm not doing your homework for you. Is this your "thing" now? Telling me to look things up rather than actually making a counter-argument? Look, I'm not going to spend hours re-reading things I already know in an attempt to guess exactly how you think an economy cannot be sustained without regulation. If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't be so painfully ignorant in the first place. I mean, I think you're trying to use these organizations influence over the government as an example of how a free-market economy can't be sustained... But that's just such a stupid thing to say that I don't want to believe that's what you mean... In anarchy a government will form and businesses will strike deals with that new government. Then you have monopolies that form because of this, and years later reforms happen and we get a stable market that is fair and a bloated government. You are advocating starting from square one because we live in square four, and you dislike government. What seems to elude you is the plain fact that human nature leads to this progression, and anarchy is not a solution, but a prelude. If people want good products, fair prices and good working conditions, then the market will reflect these demands because it's in the interest of the suppliers to do so. History disagrees supremely. Obviously I'm saying that a free market is a free market and using non-free market examples as evidence against a free market doesn't work because its NOT a free market. Behaviours exist in a regulated market that follow into a free market. Likewise we can look at existing free markets in developing nations to see what happens. We also have history. They all disagree with your conclusion so you dismiss them as not free enough. I don't believe you have so little understanding of what I'm saying. There's no reason to play a fool, I know you at least sort-of get what I'm saying. You can have courts and contracts without a state. Without a state there is no law. There are competing factions with their own ethics but no common law exists, which is why war breaks out. Simply ignoring the facts doesn't make you right either. Look, you and everyone else can clearly see that Somalia became a better place to live after the fall of the state. I would sure as hell prefer to live in anarchic Somalia than the state-run Somalia that preceded it and if you have any intellectual honesty you will admit the same. Please move there or shut the hell up. I hate stupid people. An intelligent person wouldn't pretend that warring factions make a place better to live. Competition is nature. You can give it an ugly name like "war", but it is only one side of the coin. So, again, if the population values good products at fair prices etc. over war, then that's what the market will reflect. How to put this in a way that even a stupid person can understand... A market is worthless for stopping war in anarchy because a faction can emerge at any time deciding that it wants to control everyone else. It can take ownership of the market. Oh, an anarchism IS all about accountability. Without the state there is no welfare to fall back on. there is no appealing to the state for barriers to entry, everything you accomplish a product of your own ability. I'm not even going to address this. I will bold it instead because it falls under its own stupidity. My friend's going to laugh so hard when I tell him some of the things you said today. How do you expect to convince me of anything when you're dismissing my arguments rather than countering them? =p You're not a very good debater. I'm not saying this as an insult, I'm saying it as a factual observation. When someone argues that the earth is flat and held up by a giant tortoise, you can't really debate them seriously. In fact I'm surprised I made it this far with you. You're hysterical, a parody of libertarianism. No one takes you seriously except jessald. Great, you know how to copy/paste. Though, this doesn't in any way fulfill my request for you to name a current free-market with sweatshops. So again I find myself making the request; Name one. Try following the link. Most of them have unregulated markets and sweatshops. Side: Much, much worse...
A new market, like ISP, started without regulations and immediately followed with unethical practices like filtering what content customers could see. Somalia has a government, the Transitional Government, and it has the ICU who are fighting it. It is a state of warring factions. Before them, there were Islamists and Christians fighting each other. OMG! ISP's filtered information during the antiquity of the internet? Well, you've convinced me. Society would collapse if not for the small group of people monopolizing all the most vital social services... If the internet was filtered, then not filtered, it was because there was demand for it to be unfiltered. Somalia has a government NOW but it didn't from 1991-2006. It lasted that long without the persons of Somalia being ancaps AND with every major political power looking to establish a government during that time. The only warring factions were from other governments trying to establish power. It's insanely hard to establish a government. Anarchic Ireland had no government for one-thousand years (!) despite England's best efforts and they (the Irish) weren't anarchists either. Imagine how hard it would be to establish a state amongst ancaps without a tax base. Random comment inapplicable to what I said. You've said an unregulated market has no merits, therefore you are only comparing the regulations of one market to the regulations of another, since an unregulated market has no merits it cannot be compared. Or, do you admit free-markets have merit? Somalia is a hellhole now. Over twenty years it has seen the rise and fall of numerous factions grasping for power. Islamists, terrorists, Christians, gangs, and so-on. Welcome to anarchy. Of course, there was no crime, because there were no police and no laws. Why do you insist on telling me to look things up when you clearly haven't read the links I've sent you? Let's assume crime didn't go down (it DID, but lets just say it didn't) anarchic Somalia CRUSHED statist Somalia in all other feilds, such as (but not limited to) - Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse? - Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent. - Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4. - Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none. - Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9. - Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100. - Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26. - Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8. - Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2. - Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5. - Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9. - TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7. - Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600. Now tell me, would you rather live in anarchic Somalia, or what Somalia was before the fall of the state? =3 Of course, idiots who advocate anarchy just look at a distorted image of Somalia and say "omg freedom!" Distorted? Are you calling every world historian whom has studied Somalia distorted? Are you calling the Mises institute distorted? Are you calling the Austrian school of economics distorted? You've denied the reason and logic, you've denied the studies and you've denied the history all while instructing me to look into things (without providing so much as a relative link) in lieu of an actual counter argument. If anyone is looking at the world through distortion, it's you. A business without ethics devolves quickly into worker exploitation, consumer exploitation and management power struggles. This ethics appeal you're making makes less and less sense every time you propose it. =/ Are you saying that the government is the most ethical entity in the market? Really? I'll explain again. If workers want good working conditions, then companies offering good working conditions will naturally have an easier time finding and keeping competent employees. A manager doesn't have to believe in the "ethics" of good working conditions and benefits to be convinced into offering them. These are facts. They are not assertions. What you did was deny the evidence like a good little crackpot. What evidence? You haven't provided a link... you didn't provide little if any reasoning behind your examples AND you've re-stated several ones you've brought up before that I've debunked already. Fast food sells well because persons buy it for the taste, not the nutrients. If Com cast provided a poor service on a free market, person would take their business elsewhere. If they don't it's because it's not that big of a deal. I'll take your word about the water, but if it's still selling then either barriers to entry are in place (which I already know there are) or there is a demand for the water despite the low quality. Motion picture industries are able to do these things because of the laws that are in place now... thanks to the government. =3 We can play the ad-hoc explanation game for the next several months if that's what you really want to do... There is one thing. I don't understand how people could support such an obviously corrupt system. Just like fascism and dictatorships, there are people who support these too strangely. I have two hypotheses for how they gain support: Opportunists who want power support them because they think they could be a ruler in such a system. Really, really dumb people who get wrapped up in the propaganda from the former support the system, and are masochists for it. So, which are you? The dumb guy or the opportunist? Or the troll. As opposed to the government, which isn't corrupt at all... =/ How exactly is there more corruption without a small-group-with-a-fiat-land-claim-and- Competition sees to it that only the best make it to the top. the worst runner cannot win the race unless there is some entity he can appeal to in order to get some advantage. Without that entity, only the best can emerge. Then a regulated market is successful by your definition and it has ethics, too. A regulated market is successful to the extent that it is allowed to behave free of regulation. All that's needed for a market to survive is supply and demand. Any perversion on this will hinder it. No god could manage evolution better than it has managed itself. I have an aversion to stupidity. You see? Just like this. There's no reason for you to talk to me if you can't stand it so much. Relax, there's nothing important at stake here. Monopoly on an important good or service. Vendor lock-in. Having a wage that gives you no choice. You've got it all wrong: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0993e.asp Economy of scale means that the bigger the company gets, the cheaper it is for it to produce its goods. A smaller company becomes more and more disadvantaged towards it and obviously cannot undersell it since it needs that profit for growth. As I've said time and time again, there's more to the market than affordability. If Company-A does a better job than company-B, then comp-a will grow, thus be able to provide an even better, more affordable service. Great, nothing wrong with that. If Comp-A suddenly decides to over-charge on it's product, then it will be easy for other companies that haven't yet changed their prices to undersell Comp-A. Problem solved. Perhaps instead of higher prices, Comp-A removes it's employee's benefits. Since it's a large company, it's going to piss off a lot of people. If the cut-backs are bad enough, the company runs the risk of it's employees striking. During this strike period persons will have to take their business to comp-B, or -C, or -D etc. Again, problem solved. Industrial revolution. People were forced to pay. Check the links above. Also FUD, vendor lock-in. FUD happens with a state, so that is in no way an argument FOR government. There are hundreds of third party reviews one can go to so they can find out more about a particular product now, would they all stop existing just because the government does? Also, vendor lock-ins also still exist even though there is a state... so once again you've shown nothing to support the idea of a state. Mostly, lock-ins aren't a big deal. It's only rational for a business to want return customers and if doing so is as simple as making their product non-compatible with that of their competitors, then obviously that's what will happen. Switching costs aren't that big of a deal either. If it's bad enough that persons would rather take their business to another company, then that's what will happen. Especially now in the age of the internet where word of a poor service can be seen by millions in only a few moments. I'm sure you've noticed many companies (especially phone services) are beginning to drop switching costs already because of this. I'm not doing your homework for you. No, this is YOUR homework. An event =/= an argument. If you can't postulate economic theory based on historic events, fine, but don't act as though simply naming a period in time is a competent substitute. Especially when I've already sent you links on how the industrial revolution in no way proves the economy would collapse without a state. If you bothered to read it, you wouldn't be so painfully ignorant in the first place. Now only have I read about it, but I've sent you links on it. So, either you're a liar or you've merely been ignoring everything I've been saying to you. In anarchy a government will form and businesses will strike deals with that new government. Then you have monopolies that form because of this, and years later reforms happen and we get a stable market that is fair and a bloated government. You are advocating starting from square one because we live in square four, and you dislike government. What seems to elude you is the plain fact that human nature leads to this progression, and anarchy is not a solution, but a prelude. Before beginning, it's worth noting that again none of what you said proves government is beneficial to the market. You say anarchy is the prelude and government is the solution. I find this humorous as no government has survived until now since it's antiquity. Governments inevitably collapse. they aren't solutions, but rather periods in between anarchy. The only way to initiate a government is if the population already believes in the necessity of the state, and even then and even with a tax base already in place it could take upwards of 15+ generations to establish. History disagrees supremely. Show me. Go on, show me a a free-market where the population wanted good products, working conditions, etc. and that wasn't what the market reflected. Again, look at Somalia. It got better without a state and it continued to get better for years even with several other governments trying to establish power. This is the power of the market. Behaviours exist in a regulated market that follow into a free market. Likewise we can look at existing free markets in developing nations to see what happens. We also have history. They all disagree with your conclusion so you dismiss them as not free enough. Show me these free-market nations. I've already proved that history shows a strong stability in anarchic nations. here, I'll show you again: http://fringeelements.flux.com/ Scroll down to the parts about Iceland and Ireland... actually, skim through the whole thing since it addresses and debunks literally everything you've said thus far. Without a state there is no law. There are competing factions with their own ethics but no common law exists, which is why war breaks out. Check the link above. Please move there or shut the hell up. I hate stupid people. An intelligent person wouldn't pretend that warring factions make a place better to live. Ah, the old "fuck off to Somalia" argument. Like I haven't heard that one before. =/ So you're going to sit there and tell me that you'd rather live in pre-anarchic Somalia which had more crime, less doctors, more sickness, higher mortality rates both amongst infants and non-infants, less disposable income per home AND less drinking water/food? I don't think so. =3 How to put this in a way that even a stupid person can understand... A market is worthless for stopping war in anarchy because a faction can emerge at any time deciding that it wants to control everyone else. It can take ownership of the market. Check the link above, I've grown tired of explaining this to you... =/ I'm not even going to address this. I will bold it instead because it falls under its own stupidity. My friend's going to laugh so hard when I tell him some of the things you said today. Yes, yes; I`m sure your friends know more about economics than, say - the Austrian school of economics... Once again you've dismissed my argument without ever making one of your own. If it's so stupid, it should be easy for you to say why. Otherwise, it's clear you can't. When someone argues that the earth is flat and held up by a giant tortoise, you can't really debate them seriously. In fact I'm surprised I made it this far with you. You're hysterical, a parody of libertarianism. No one takes you seriously except jessald. That's factually not true. You're acting as though I'm the only one whom believes a stateless society could not only work, but would work better than a state run one. There are entire schools that teach the economic theory I've been proposing to you. Ludwig Von Mises predicted the stock market crash of the 1930's down to the month it happened when no one else could. Somalia did better without a state than it did with a state. Ireland lasted without a government for over 1000 years. That’s far longer than any government in history (with the possible exception of the Roman Empire, if you count Byzantium as the continuation of a single line of government). So who's really claiming the earth can be held by a tortoise? I've answered and debunked everything you've brought up thus far while you have not done the same. Try following the link. Most of them have unregulated markets and sweatshops. Why is it so hard for you to name one? Just one. Show me one free-market with sweatshops. Side: Much, much better...
OMG! ISP's filtered information during the antiquity of the internet? Well, you've convinced me. Society would collapse if not for the small group of people monopolizing all the most vital social services... If the internet was filtered, then not filtered, it was because there was demand for it to be unfiltered. Actually it was never unfiltered totally. You see what happened was, in some areas people disliked it and pressured companies to change. In other cases people liked content filtering and so created a market for it. But what's really disturbing is the bit about net neutrality. The net is/was like a free market in almost every way, anarchy, each site is equal in principle, the small sites could become bigger than corporate sites, etc. What happened? You're gonna love this... The ISPs, complaining that users were using up more bandwidth than the ISP could provide (because the ISP had limited bandwidth, but oversold it to consumers calculating that the overall user average would fit their budget), decided that it was time to push for a tiered internet (net neutrality, being what it was meant that as long as you covered bandwidth costs you were every bit as equal as the next guy) but tiered internet would change that, you'd have to pay for premium bandwidth to your site, and competing ISPs could serve slower speeds for rival website hosts, etc. So in an unregulated market (ISP and internet are new and were virgin territory for law) businesses overpromised, then used their money to buy government favours against our wishes. The government wasn't the active pursuer to this, but the nanny that business called upon. Somalia has a government NOW but it didn't from 1991-2006. It lasted that long without the persons of Somalia being ancaps AND with every major political power looking to establish a government during that time. The only warring factions were from other governments trying to establish power. It's actually not like that, but I'll get to that in a moment. It's insanely hard to establish a government. Anarchic Ireland had no government for one-thousand years (!) despite England's best efforts and they (the Irish) weren't anarchists either. Imagine how hard it would be to establish a state amongst ancaps without a tax base. An anarchy is a state of no government, no law, and no oversight. There is no such thing as a crime. What you used as examples are places with informal or transitional governments. Authorities that act as law and police. So they cannot be anarchies. You've said an unregulated market has no merits, therefore you are only comparing the regulations of one market to the regulations of another, since an unregulated market has no merits it cannot be compared. Misconstruement of what I said. - Life expectancy increased from 46 to 48.5 years. This is a poor expectancy as compared with developed countries. But in any measurement of welfare, what is important to observe is not where a population stands at a given time, but what is the trend. Is the trend positive, or is it the reverse? - Number of one-year-olds fully immunized against measles rose from 30 to 40 percent. - Number of physicians per 100,000 population rose from 3.4 to 4. - Number of infants with low birth weight fell from 16 per thousand to 0.3 — almost none. - Infant mortality per 1,000 births fell from 152 to 114.9. - Maternal mortality per 100,000 births fell from 1,600 to 1,100. - Percent of population with access to sanitation rose from 18 to 26. - Percent of population with access to at least one health facility rose from 28 to 54.8. - Percent of population in extreme poverty (i.e., less than $1 per day) fell from 60 to 43.2. - Radios per thousand population rose from 4 to 98.5. - Telephones per thousand population rose from 1.9 to 14.9. - TVs per 1,000 population rose from 1.2 to 3.7. - Fatalities due to measles fell from 8,000 to 5,600. You lack a context. The period up to the collapse of Somalia's government was full of oppression and strife. It also never degenerated into complete anarchy, as factions formed in the power vacuums that followed. So really what we're looking at is ongoing civil war over decades between factions, some improvements happening as unrest falls and foreign aid comes, and never a solid, stable government because of so many groups wanting different types of government. Now tell me, would you rather live in anarchic Somalia, or what Somalia was before the fall of the state? =3 Neither. Both are screwed up. http://www.freedomhouse.org/ Please select Somalia from that list and read the summary. Then tell me that you think it's peachy there. Distorted? Are you calling every world historian whom has studied Somalia distorted? Are you calling the Mises institute distorted? Are you calling the Austrian school of economics distorted? I'm calling your view and pro-anarchists' views distorted. Are you saying that the government is the most ethical entity in the market? Really? Government holds businesses accountable and we hold government accountable. It historically doesn't work when you force us to hold business accountable because they are very large compared to us and we can't serve them violations, only reduced patronage. I'll explain again. If workers want good working conditions, then companies offering good working conditions will naturally have an easier time finding and keeping competent employees. Since when does a company voluntarily offer good working conditions? They offer what they can get away with. That's why unions came along, a single worker lacks power. Look into modern sweatshops for your answer. Fast food sells well because persons buy it for the taste, not the nutrients. No. They buy it for convenience. Hence why it is of inferiour quality usually. If Com cast provided a poor service on a free market, person would take their business elsewhere. If they don't it's because it's not that big of a deal. Which didn't happen. The best we could do was sue them, which failed. Big company > small consumers. Motion picture industries are able to do these things because of the laws that are in place now... thanks to the government. =3 Who bought those laws in the first place? Wealthy IP owners. Government had no stake in it. I'll take your word about the water, but if it's still selling then either barriers to entry are in place (which I already know there are) or there is a demand for the water despite the low quality. Homeopathy is a pseudoscience that essentially sells distilled water with claimed properties because supposedly water has a memory. Despite not producing a service besides the placebo effect, it has gained a significant market. Competition sees to it that only the best make it to the top. the worst runner cannot win the race unless there is some entity he can appeal to in order to get some advantage. I'll solve your problem for you: Best is a word with ambiguity like fitness in mainstream understanding of evolution. What best means is closer to fitness in evolution. In other words the most fit business makes it to the top, where fitness means most adapted to the constraints of the market. It does not mean quality, price, cleanliness, or safeness. The environment of the capitalist market requires maximum profits at minimal investment costs. That is the most concise description. It is actually a lot like biological evolution but with money replacing food and ideas and names replacing genes. Therefore, like evolution, corporate empathy and responsibility only emerges when it is profitable and in most cases it is more profitable to be thrifty, like in biological evolution. This means cutting corners like cleaner factory emissions and wastes, and worker salaries. The only way this can change is by altering the environment of the market to pressure different behaviours. Individuals lack the power to do this, so we need unions and authorities big enough that can listen to individuals, but make that change themselves. This is where unions and governments come in. Ha capito? Now let's do a comprehension check: is the best (most fit) company always the best (most desirable to you)? A regulated market is successful to the extent that it is allowed to behave free of regulation. All that's needed for a market to survive is supply and demand. Any perversion on this will hinder it. It depends on what we want. Ethical behaviour and responsibility? Can't have a free market for that. No god could manage evolution better than it has managed itself. Untrue. To extend your metaphor, we the gods made natural things like aurochs, wild fowl, grasses, and fruits much better through selected evolution (cows, chickens, corn, bananas). Just like how we made a free market better (for everyone) through selected legal evolution. You've got it all wrong: http://www.fff.org/freedom/0993e.asp Sure, quote more libertarian/free market websites, that always helps. As I've said time and time again, there's more to the market than affordability. If Company-A does a better job than company-B, then comp-a will grow, thus be able to provide an even better, more affordable service. Great, nothing wrong with that. If Comp-A suddenly decides to over-charge on it's product, then it will be easy for other companies that haven't yet changed their prices to undersell Comp-A. Problem solved. Perhaps instead of higher prices, Comp-A removes it's employee's benefits. Since it's a large company, it's going to piss off a lot of people. If the cut-backs are bad enough, the company runs the risk of it's employees striking. During this strike period persons will have to take their business to comp-B, or -C, or -D etc. In the last part of this you hit a wall. In the free market labour strikes are prohibited through violence against strikers (and especially unions). So the workers just have to shut up and accept the reductions. FUD happens with a state, so that is in no way an argument FOR government. Example of fitness not better. There are hundreds of third party reviews one can go to so they can find out more about a particular product now, would they all stop existing just because the government does? That requires a literate populace and modern infrastructure and technology. Sweatshop workers (who will be the primary workforce in your free market) won't have access to many personal computers. Mostly, lock-ins aren't a big deal. It's only rational for a business to want return customers and if doing so is as simple as making their product non-compatible with that of their competitors, then obviously that's what will happen. Which is unfair to consumers and hinders creativity (try looking for legal applications that can play all media formats, for example). Another example of fitness over better. Now only have I read about it, but I've sent you links on it. So, either you're a liar or you've merely been ignoring everything I've been saying to you. I provided links on the industrial revolution and Somalia. Both contradict your fantasy of lack of government descending into market-managed law and order. Instead we see warring factions and in the case of the industrial revolution we see that without government factories could simply use force to keep their underpaid workers in line. Show me these free-market nations. I've already proved that history shows a strong stability in anarchic nations. here, I'll show you again: http://fringeelements.flux.com/ Scroll down to the parts about Iceland and Ireland... actually, skim through the whole thing since it addresses and debunks literally everything you've said thus far. Singapore was a sweatshop country before recently. Malaysia, India, Pakistan, most South American and Central American countries have had and continue to have sweatshops or comparable conditions, most are or were unregulated markets, or minimally regulated. They are experiencing what we had a century ago. I skimmed the book and found it full of pleading, amateur style, essentially what one expects from crackpots. Yeah I know you'll say "you just dismissed it" well maybe. Why am I so confident? Because I have no political alliance, I look at history and the present day and have little need to fit what I see into how I think the world ought to work. I saw what happened in the industrial revolution, I have seen periods of anarchy, I have seen modern industrial revolutions. Do you know what it tells me? You cannot trust free trade to dole out ethics, morality, or act according to your ethics and morality unless it must submit to something bigger or equal. I learned that humans are social and will form governing bodies on their own. But perhaps most damning is that I'm very good at spotting bad arguments and nothing reads like one more than this pro-anarchy and pro-free trade tirade (except, well Young Earth creationism). You are revising and spinning history much like the Christian Reconstructionists do when they try to say the US is a Christian Nation. That is, history is taken out of context (the IP laws of the MPAA and RIAA for example) and in some cases one point is emphasised or downplayed to support a political agenda. Ah, the old "fuck off to Somalia" argument. Like I haven't heard that one before. =/ So you're going to sit there and tell me that you'd rather live in pre-anarchic Somalia which had more crime, less doctors, more sickness, higher mortality rates both amongst infants and non-infants, less disposable income per home AND less drinking water/food? You're the one advocating for anarchic Somalia. So go live there and tell us how anarchy/transitional government feels firsthand. Yes, yes; I`m sure your friends know more about economics than, say - the Austrian school of economics... Once again you've dismissed my argument without ever making one of your own. If it's so stupid, it should be easy for you to say why. Otherwise, it's clear you can't. Basically, despite the billions of dollars invested into free market research and advocacy, it's still wrong for a healthy, egalitarian society. Why? Because without restrictions a business will amass wealth and continue to do so at the cost of workers (history vouches for this), the cost of consumer safety (again vouched for), government integrity (another time vouched for) and environmental safety (BP oil spill anyone?). Regulations attempt to and succeed fairly well at holding this behaviour accountable where we cannot. That's factually not true. You're acting as though I'm the only one whom believes a stateless society could not only work, but would work better than a state run one. There are entire schools that teach the economic theory I've been proposing to you. Ludwig Von Mises predicted the stock market crash of the 1930's down to the month it happened when no one else could. There are biblical historians that say the old testament predicted Jesus. In neither case does it make the doctrine (yours or theirs) any more authoritative. I don't know, maybe it's hard for normal people like yourself to comprehend my arrogant dismissal of something you obviously spent some time with. I'd ask that you consider how an authority need not be right, and that a theory must be wrong if it contradicts data, irregardless of the men behind the theory. Your "theory" proposes an ideal economic and stateless utopia that has been contradicted by modern and historical example. Instead of amending the "theory" it tries to spin history. Somalia did better without a state than it did with a state. Not really. Look at the big picture. Look at it during the years leading to anarchy and the history that followed and follows. Ireland lasted without a government for over 1000 years. That’s far longer than any government in history (with the possible exception of the Roman Empire, if you count Byzantium as the continuation of a single line of government). There can be tribes and small factions that form a prototypical government, but not a concrete state. Anarchy implies a lack of this. Governments inevitably collapse. they aren't solutions, but rather periods in between anarchy. The only way to initiate a government is if the population already believes in the necessity of the state, and even then and even with a tax base already in place it could take upwards of 15+ generations to establish. Anarchy lasts for short periods, then factions and leaders form, then a proto-government forms (basic law and order with no state) then a government forms. Anarchy is the shortest period. So who's really claiming the earth can be held by a tortoise? I've answered and debunked everything you've brought up thus far while you have not done the same. You just denied the evidence, said the problems were okay, and spun history. I wish I could dump you off at Mogadishu and then you could tell me how great it is. Knowing my luck though a solid gold asteroid would then hit the city and the ensuing wealth would create a paradise. Side: Much, much worse...
So in an unregulated market (ISP and internet are new and were virgin territory for law) businesses overpromised, then used their money to buy government favours against our wishes. The government wasn't the active pursuer to this, but the nanny that business called upon. It takes two to tango, buddy. Businesses are greedy things, I'm not arguing against this. In fact, that reason above all else is why I say the government is the most dangerous thing possible to the market. The event you've just given is a perfect example of barriers to entry. You must understand, appealing to the government for a special advantage is only possible if there is a government. And the government is always happy to permit these advantages since it means they get to tighten their grip on the market further. If there wasn't a government, what would of happened? Well, the same thing that happens to all businesses that can't provide a service good enough to meet market demand. They loose out to the competition and life goes on. An anarchy is a state of no government, no law, and no oversight. There is no such thing as a crime. What you used as examples are places with informal or transitional governments. Authorities that act as law and police. So they cannot be anarchies. "Law" isn't something unique to government. You can have "laws" in a free-market. Perhaps law isn't the best word. call it, agreements. By living in a certain area you agree to not steal or kill. If you are caught doing these things, you will be shot/ostracized/whatever. If two persons voluntarily make an agreement, agree on a particular court should anything go wrong and they sign a contract then you have both law and anarchy. See what I mean? Order is emergent. It comes from the bottom up, not the top down. You believe in evolution, don't you? So, did God build the DNA of animals, or did they emerge? Misconstruement of what I said. Then free-enterprise societies do have merits? You lack a context. The period up to the collapse of Somalia's government was full of oppression and strife. It also never degenerated into complete anarchy, as factions formed in the power vacuums that followed. So really what we're looking at is ongoing civil war over decades between factions, some improvements happening as unrest falls and foreign aid comes, and never a solid, stable government because of so many groups wanting different types of government. This made me laugh. Not because I find what you've said stupid, just the opposite, it's absolutely brilliant. Somalia was not a country of anarcho-capitalists, yes. There were many governments trying to establish power, yes. But, it STILL outperformed Somalia back when it had one, big central government. Don't find that strange? Don't find that hilarious? Neither. Both are screwed up. http://www.freedomhouse.org/ Please select Somalia from that list and read the summary. Then tell me that you think it's peachy there. I wasn't asking you which you would rather live in relative to where you do live. Obviously it's still a third world nation and doesn't hold a candle to the much more capitalistic first world nations. But, out of the two it's clear post-collapse Somalia would be a much better place to live than pre-collapse Somalia for all (and many more) of the reasons I listed above. I'm calling your view and pro-anarchists' views distorted. My views reflect the views of the organization I've listed. If I am distorted, then so are they. If they are distorted, then distortion is the best form of economics. Government holds businesses accountable and we hold government accountable. It historically doesn't work when you force us to hold business accountable because they are very large compared to us and we can't serve them violations, only reduced patronage. Actually, we are the large ones. Think about it, does it even make sense that something weaker than us can control something stronger than us? If this is what you've been told, somebody has lied to you. Businesses exist because of the demand from us. They control the supply, but not the demand. Since they don't control the demand they can either submit to our demand, or fail. Since when does a company voluntarily offer good working conditions? They offer what they can get away with. That's why unions came along, a single worker lacks power. Look into modern sweatshops for your answer. I support unions. =3 You're absolutely right. Companies offer what they can get away with, which is only so much before they start loosing employees to the competition, of whom has recently upped their dental plan to better accommodate their employees. Which didn't happen. The best we could do was sue them, which failed. Big company > small consumers. And... there was no government in existence when the "power of the people" failed? I would point to this exact same situation as evidence of how solving a rather simple market problem has failed thanks to the states existence. No. They buy it for convenience. Hence why it is of inferiour quality usually. Perhaps, I don't buy much fast food, so I can't say I speak for everyone on the reasons for buying it. But, convenience or taste, the fact remains that it exists because their is a demand for it. And that alone is enough to keep it in existence. Who bought those laws in the first place? Wealthy IP owners. Government had no stake in it. You can't "buy laws" from a government without a government. =3 Without a government, it's based on agreements. I don't know about you, but I never signed anything agreeing to use government services. I've never signed anything stating that I agree to these laws bought by wealthy IP owners. Don't you find it stupid that you should be tethered by the agreements of others? Homeopathy is a pseudoscience that essentially sells distilled water with claimed properties because supposedly water has a memory. Despite not producing a service besides the placebo effect, it has gained a significant market. Well, most persons aren't very smart. The thing is, this problem can only be solved by people learning about it. This problem still exists even though the government exists, see? the government won't do anything about it unless there is demand for something to be done about it. That's why government seems like something we need. they take take over things persons are already doing are are trying to make happen so to keep us dependent on them. Look at welfare. What a cluster-fuck that is! The only reason why welfare exists is because there is a demand for the poor to be taken care of. But, if persons already want to give money to the poor... why do we need welfare? Wont persons start up charities and the like to accomplish this? Of course they would and the hilarious part about this is that the government's "charity" (welfare) works so terribly that persons still come together to organize mass charities. My point is, government is like a retarded version of the market. I don't mean this as an insult to the government, but merely as a factual observation. It's retarded in a very definitional manner. Government is taking things persons already would do on their own and sending it through a looong struggling process just so it can meet a lesser end and call itself a success. The only way this can change is by altering the environment of the market to pressure different behaviours. Individuals lack the power to do this, so we need unions and authorities big enough that can listen to individuals, but make that change themselves. This is where unions and governments come in. Then you ARE saying God could manage evolution better than it has managed itself. =( (p.s. I still support unions) Thriftiness is in the best interest of evolution, yes. But you're body doesn't start dumping all your muscle tissue simply because its calorically expensive. It keeps that which is needed for you to survive. Understand? It depends on what we want. Ethical behaviour and responsibility? Can't have a free market for that. And why not? When the demand is great enough, even the neck of a giraffe will extend to reach the food at the tree tops. Untrue. To extend your metaphor, we the gods made natural things like aurochs, wild fowl, grasses, and fruits much better through selected evolution (cows, chickens, corn, bananas). Just like how we made a free market better (for everyone) through selected legal evolution. And these better grasses and fruit, did they not come from market demand? If there was demand for these things already, would persons not naturally invest in it with or without a government forcing us to? Do you need to be forced to do things you already want to/are already doing? Sure, quote more libertarian/free market websites, that always helps. Well, only if you actually read the information. =p Understand, they aren't proposing libertarian answers because they are libertarian, they are libertarian because the answers suggest libertarianism. In the last part of this you hit a wall. In the free market labour strikes are prohibited through violence against strikers (and especially unions). So the workers just have to shut up and accept the reductions. Why? What can a company do when all it's workers are on strike? Take its remaining revenue and hire militia to beat them? And you think this company will remain competitive on the market after word of this gets out? I sincerely do not. ;) That requires a literate populace and modern infrastructure and technology. Sweatshop workers (who will be the primary workforce in your free market) won't have access to many personal computers. History disagrees with you, my friend. Need I remind you that the amount of radios, phones and televisions rose several hundred(!) percent in Somalia once it because a free-market? Which is unfair to consumers and hinders creativity (try looking for legal applications that can play all media formats, for example). Another example of fitness over better. The market tends towards unity. That's why there is only a handful of methods for measurement. The only time unity doesn't occur is if it's not a big enough deal for there to be significant market demand. Perhaps it seems like I'm just shrugging off this one, but really, that's all there is to it. I provided links on the industrial revolution and Somalia. Both contradict your fantasy of lack of government descending into market-managed law and order. Instead we see warring factions and in the case of the industrial revolution we see that without government factories could simply use force to keep their underpaid workers in line. Yeah, yeah. Anarchic Somalia was terrible, that explains why it rose from one of the worst countries in northern Africa to one of the best... Oh wait, no it doesn't. ;) I skimmed the book and found it full of pleading, amateur style, essentially what one expects from crackpots. Yeah I know you'll say "you just dismissed it" well maybe. Why am I so confident? Because I have no political alliance, I look at history and the present day and have little need to fit what I see into how I think the world ought to work. I saw what happened in the industrial revolution, I have seen periods of anarchy, I have seen modern industrial revolutions. Do you know what it tells me? You cannot trust free trade to dole out ethics, morality, or act according to your ethics and morality unless it must submit to something bigger or equal. I learned that humans are social and will form governing bodies on their own. Ethics and morality, eh. You know, all this tells me you will never be happy until the world submits to you. It won't. But, you can have a world where you don't have to submit to the ideologies of others. I think you'll find this just as pleasant. But perhaps most damning is that I'm very good at spotting bad arguments and nothing reads like one more than this pro-anarchy and pro-free trade tirade (except, well Young Earth creationism). You are revising and spinning history much like the Christian Reconstructionists do when they try to say the US is a Christian Nation. That is, history is taken out of context (the IP laws of the MPAA and RIAA for example) and in some cases one point is emphasised or downplayed to support a political agenda. You do know that anarchism is the lack of a political agenda, right? It's just, it seems odd that you keep talking about me as though I'm trying to push an ideology on you. I'm saying they're ALL stupid, just as an atheist would say all the religions are stupid. If anything, the burden of proof is on you as you're the one saying I need religion, er, I mean, government. ;) You're the one advocating for anarchic Somalia. So go live there and tell us how anarchy/transitional government feels firsthand. Just did, turn out it was much better than it was before the collapse, just like I've been saying. ;) Why? Because without restrictions a business will amass wealth and continue to do so at the cost of workers (history vouches for this), the cost of consumer safety (again vouched for), government integrity (another time vouched for) and environmental safety (BP oil spill anyone?). Regulations attempt to and succeed fairly well at holding this behaviour accountable where we cannot. Since this basically sums up our entire dispute it would be redundant to argue this here as well as everywhere else. There are biblical historians that say the old testament predicted Jesus. In neither case does it make the doctrine (yours or theirs) any more authoritative. 1. Not a doctrine, just the opposite 2. Not authoritative, just the opposite 3. There is empirical evidence showing Ludwig's predictions. As per expectation, your analogy doesn't follow. Or, are you saying that empirical evidence is worth the same as the scriptures of the old testament? I don't know, maybe it's hard for normal people like yourself to comprehend my arrogant dismissal of something you obviously spent some time with. I'd ask that you consider how an authority need not be right, and that a theory must be wrong if it contradicts data, irregardless of the men behind the theory. Your "theory" proposes an ideal economic and stateless utopia that has been contradicted by modern and historical example. Instead of amending the "theory" it tries to spin history. That's quite a bold claim coming from you while you know nothing of the Austrian School of Economics' track record.... =/ There can be tribes and small factions that form a prototypical government, but not a concrete state. Anarchy implies a lack of this. Then you're straw-manning me as this definition of "anarchy" is not what I've been talking about, avesk. "Tribes" coming together to improve trade in ways they couldn't alone is not a government. It isn't a government until it starts taxing. Anarchy lasts for short periods, then factions and leaders form, then a proto-government forms (basic law and order with no state) then a government forms. Anarchy is the shortest period. Just something to note, what you've said in no way shows that the government is an improvement on the market. Persons naturally come together in large groups to increase trade. This doesn't have to result in a government as anarchic Ireland has proven. In fact, coming together and not forming a government worked a hell of a lot longer than any government has. =D I wish I could dump you off at Mogadishu and then you could tell me how great it is. Knowing my luck though a solid gold asteroid would then hit the city and the ensuing wealth would create a paradise. Pfffahahahahahahaha!!!!! If only =p Side: Much, much better...
The event you've just given is a perfect example of barriers to entry. You must understand, appealing to the government for a special advantage is only possible if there is a government. And the government is always happy to permit these advantages since it means they get to tighten their grip on the market further. If there wasn't a government, what would of happened? Well, the same thing that happens to all businesses that can't provide a service good enough to meet market demand. Government could care less about market. Strictly speaking the only way they could care is if it gives them a financial incentive. In pure anarchy there is no great authority to buy favours from. In any sort of tribe or proto-government, or council or elders, etc. there comes an authority which may be tainted with favours. All you're arguing for is a lack of authority which can never happen. "Law" isn't something unique to government. You can have "laws" in a free-market. Perhaps law isn't the best word. call it, agreements. Correct. Mores is the sociological term. By living in a certain area you agree to not steal or kill. If you are caught doing these things, you will be shot/ostracized/whatever. If two persons voluntarily make an agreement, agree on a particular court should anything go wrong and they sign a contract then you have both law and anarchy. See what I mean? Correct, unless you have more firepower than the local residents in which case it is might makes right. Order is emergent. It comes from the bottom up, not the top down. You believe in evolution, don't you? So, did God build the DNA of animals, or did they emerge? It is both actually. Intelligence is involved in evolution, but not supernatural intelligence. Life evolves on its own, then eventually relationships emerge, and then animals and plants and fungi are evolving each other for their own needs. In this way it becomes top-down as birds and butterflies evolve flowers and fruit for their needs and those same flowers evolve animals to form special relationships with them. But anyway, in this context yes order is bottom-up. Then free-enterprise societies do have merits? No, I mean you can compare free and regulated markets. Somalia was not a country of anarcho-capitalists, yes. There were many governments trying to establish power, yes. But, it STILL outperformed Somalia back when it had one, big central government. Don't find that strange? Don't find that hilarious? Try looking at the big picture: Pre-civil war Somalia had a bad infrastructure and violence. Fighting erupts lowering the average age of death, and of course infant mortality raises. Monopolies were put in place by government. Collapse. What happens? Power struggles but at the same time needs take over and monopolies vanish, so infrastructure in some areas improves. However in the background wars are still happening. Some stability emerges as one faction takes power for a few years, before losing ground. So what we see is a still low age of death due to constant violence and child death caused by a level of anarchy, but it isn't everywhere and in the stable areas infrastructure moves on with a piggyback legal system called Xeer and in some areas Sharia, with technology being made that improves lives and can exist because monopolies ended. It's still bad however, lots of deaths occur. Warlords, gangs and factions exist. The civilian legal code is insufficient to end this. So when you look at a few numbers while ignoring everything else, yes Somalia improved, but not in the big picture with everything looked at. I wasn't asking you which you would rather live in relative to where you do live. Obviously it's still a third world nation and doesn't hold a candle to the much more capitalistic first world nations. Why is that? I bet on the governments and armies which keep the peace. But, out of the two it's clear post-collapse Somalia would be a much better place to live than pre-collapse Somalia for all (and many more) of the reasons I listed above. I disagree. Pre-collapse Somalia wasn't divided into zones of factions. Actually, we are the large ones. Think about it, does it even make sense that something weaker than us can control something stronger than us? If this is what you've been told, somebody has lied to you. It makes sense because that small something carries a big stick, and atomic weapons. Businesses exist because of the demand from us. They control the supply, but not the demand. Since they don't control the demand they can either submit to our demand, or fail. Or force us into a position where we can only demand from them. You're absolutely right. Companies offer what they can get away with, which is only so much before they start loosing employees to the competition, of whom has recently upped their dental plan to better accommodate their employees. The thing is, employee labour at this level is expendable so it's always a matter of finding an unemployed person to fit the job. This happened a lot many decades ago. You also forget that workers put up with a lot before quitting. I would point to this exact same situation as evidence of how solving a rather simple market problem has failed thanks to the states existence. How is it the state's fault? They followed the rules. It's really the fault of the companies for getting political after making bad promises. You can't "buy laws" from a government without a government. =3 Without a government, it's based on agreements. I don't know about you, but I never signed anything agreeing to use government services. I've never signed anything stating that I agree to these laws bought by wealthy IP owners. Don't you find it stupid that you should be tethered by the agreements of others? You are either tethered by their agreements or in an anarcho-capitalist society they hire a private militia to break into your home and beat you for copying their files. Look at welfare. What a cluster-fuck that is! The only reason why welfare exists is because there is a demand for the poor to be taken care of. But, if persons already want to give money to the poor... why do we need welfare? Wont persons start up charities and the like to accomplish this? Before welfare existed this existed but was insufficient. My point is, government is like a retarded version of the market. I don't mean this as an insult to the government, but merely as a factual observation. It's retarded in a very definitional manner. Government is taking things persons already would do on their own and sending it through a looong struggling process just so it can meet a lesser end and call itself a success. Things like public schools, roads and water, and social healthcare seem to disagree with you. The government can organise money better than private business in certain circumstances. And why not? When the demand is great enough, even the neck of a giraffe will extend to reach the food at the tree tops. Because there is no profit in good ethics. Ethics are a matter of self-restraint out of public interest. This isn't optimal for business. And these better grasses and fruit, did they not come from market demand? If there was demand for these things already, would persons not naturally invest in it with or without a government forcing us to? Do you need to be forced to do things you already want to/are already doing? I do not believe a market as we know it existed eight-thousand years ago. Besides you missed the analogy. Understand, they aren't proposing libertarian answers because they are libertarian, they are libertarian because the answers suggest libertarianism. They are typically wealthy businessmen driven by that one juvenile feeling, "no more taxes! stop stealing my money!" Then everything else follows. They aren't interested in a comfortable society for all, but one where their money is theirs in totality. Why? What can a company do when all it's workers are on strike? Take its remaining revenue and hire militia to beat them? And you think this company will remain competitive on the market after word of this gets out? I sincerely do not. ;) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ History disagrees with you, my friend. Need I remind you that the amount of radios, phones and televisions rose several hundred(!) percent in Somalia once it because a free-market? A monopoly on telecommunications existed during the government. Also there probably aren't any sweatshops there, because our businesses find it too unstable. The market tends towards unity. That's why there is only a handful of methods for measurement. The only time unity doesn't occur is if it's not a big enough deal for there to be significant market demand. Perhaps it seems like I'm just shrugging off this one, but really, that's all there is to it. I think you didn't understand me. Vendor lock-in prevents useful technologies like an all-in-one media player from existing. Yeah, yeah. Anarchic Somalia was terrible, that explains why it rose from one of the worst countries in northern Africa to one of the best... Oh wait, no it doesn't. ;) It's not the best. Quit looking at selected data, look at the whole. You do know that anarchism is the lack of a political agenda, right? It's just, it seems odd that you keep talking about me as though I'm trying to push an ideology on you. I'm saying they're ALL stupid, just as an atheist would say all the religions are stupid. Anarchy is the lack of government and ruling authority. It may have ideologies and agenda, look at anarcho-capitalism. 3. There is empirical evidence showing Ludwig's predictions. As per expectation, your analogy doesn't follow. Or, are you saying that empirical evidence is worth the same as the scriptures of the old testament? I guessed you missed the point. A theory is useful if it can accurately and reliably predict results, not just one time things. That's quite a bold claim coming from you while you know nothing of the Austrian School of Economics' track record.... =/ I read your weblinks and it is idealism with no useful basis in reality. Then you're straw-manning me as this definition of "anarchy" is not what I've been talking about, avesk. "Tribes" coming together to improve trade in ways they couldn't alone is not a government. It isn't a government until it starts taxing. There you go. This isn't about government or authority, it's about rich people hating taxes and devising a name for taxless governments called anarchy, and you bought into it. Just something to note, what you've said in no way shows that the government is an improvement on the market. I think you being able to work in a comfortable job is indicative enough. If you have to work 16 hours a day for 50 cents a day, then you can say that. Persons naturally come together in large groups to increase trade. This doesn't have to result in a government as anarchic Ireland has proven. In fact, coming together and not forming a government worked a hell of a lot longer than any government has. =D Ireland wasn't an anarchy, they had rules, authorities. It lacked a combined state. Side: Much, much worse...
Government could care less about market. Strictly speaking the only way they could care is if it gives them a financial incentive. In pure anarchy there is no great authority to buy favors from. In any sort of tribe or proto-government, or council or elders, etc. there comes an authority which may be tainted with favors. All you're arguing for is a lack of authority which can never happen. And why not? The peasants of the middle ages thought there would always be a monarchy. We built our way out of that. Perhaps it will take time, but it's inevitable. Generation after generation, mankind has and is becoming more intelligent. We've working our way out of religion, the same can happen with the state. Correct. Mores is the sociological term. Agreed. Correct, unless you have more firepower than the local residents in which case it is might makes right. Perhaps you can have more firepower compared to your neighbor, but not all your neighbors. The old school fire-fighting method was everyone in town helps put out a fire. If someone didn't, they just didn't get any help if their property caught fire. You can see how this can be applied to local arms disputes. It's still bad however, lots of deaths occur. Warlords, gangs and factions exist. The civilian legal code is insufficient to end this. So when you look at a few numbers while ignoring everything else, yes Somalia improved, but not in the big picture with everything looked at. Show me some statistics backing up your claim. Why is that? I bet on the governments and armies which keep the peace. Third world countries have governments and armies too, so that can't be it. I disagree. Pre-collapse Somalia wasn't divided into zones of factions. Why are you being so obtuse on this point? Post-collapse Somalia was a much more habitable place, so whatever it was that happened post-collapse was better than the government that existed pre-collapse. It makes sense because that small something carries a big stick, and atomic weapons. Atomic weapons are NOT a productive means of solving market problems. =p Or force us into a position where we can only demand from them. Which they can only due by appealing to the state... The thing is, employee labour at this level is expendable so it's always a matter of finding an unemployed person to fit the job. This happened a lot many decades ago. You also forget that workers put up with a lot before quitting. Regardless, there is an expected quality of working conditions demanded by the public. If they are not met (or at least not well) then the employer suffers from not being able to expand quite as well as his more generous counter-part. How is it the state's fault? They followed the rules. It's really the fault of the companies for getting political after making bad promises. An analogy. Would it make much sense to get mad at a dog for chasing a squirrel? It's their nature, it's only to be expected. Now, if that dog asked (lets assume it can talk now) for a human to step on the squirrel's tail so he can catch it, which of these things would you say needs to go in order to give the squirrel a fighting chance? The dog will chase the squirrel with or without the human, but the human needs not play any role and is in fact a hindrance to the squirrel. You are either tethered by their agreements or in an anarcho-capitalist society they hire a private militia to break into your home and beat you for copying their files. I don't know about you, but I don't much like the idea of persons breaking into my home and beating me. If I heard of a company that has done this, you can be sure wouldn't do business with them. Also, I'd hire a local police agency to watch my home in order to prevent this. Before welfare existed this existed but was insufficient. Ha! Because it works sooo much better now! =3 Things like public schools, roads and water, and social healthcare seem to disagree with you. The government can organise money better than private business in certain circumstances. No, private schools are much less expensive than their public counterparts. Companies can build roads just as well as governments and government health-care is a joke. The government isn't composed of Gods. They're persons, just like us. If persons can do these things, why can't persons do the same? I do not believe a market as we know it existed eight-thousand years ago. Besides you missed the analogy. No, I got it. It's just, once again it didn't follow. Demand for super veggies and grasses emerged and the supply emerged from that. This isn't an example of Gods improving on evolution, but rather organisms adapting to their environments. In this case, the demand for better food and whatnot. They are typically wealthy businessmen driven by that one juvenile feeling, "no more taxes! stop stealing my money!" Then everything else follows. They aren't interested in a comfortable society for all, but one where their money is theirs in totality. It's juvenile to not want to be robbed? And you say you're an ethical man? =/ Is it wrong to want what you earn to actually be yours? This is a particularly weak argument, even for a statist... =/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_busting Yeah, scroll down the part about "Taxpayer-financed union busting in the United States". =/ What's the worst that a company can do to it's striking employees and still survive? Higher strikebreakers. If these strikebreakers have no problem with the working conditions, then the original workers were just being whiny. If the strikebreakers don't approve of the working conditions either, then the company has a problem and must change to meet market demand or they will go bankrupt. A monopoly on telecommunications existed during the government. Also there probably aren't any sweatshops there, because our businesses find it too unstable. ...okay, so? What you're saying sounds rather Libertarian right now. I think you didn't understand me. Vendor lock-in prevents useful technologies like an all-in-one media player from existing. Society won't collapse without all-in-one media players. If there was a high enough demand for such a thing, it would come into existence because a supplier would see money in it for himself. It's not the best. Quit looking at selected data, look at the whole. Show me data proving 1995 Somalia was better than 2005 Somalia. Because up until now, every single study I've read written on the topic shows just the opposite Anarchy is the lack of government and ruling authority. It may have ideologies and agenda, look at anarcho-capitalism. There's no "it" in the way you're referring. Without a government there is no unified agenda, just individuals living their lives. I guessed you missed the point. A theory is useful if it can accurately and reliably predict results, not just one time things. Ha! Then you really DO know nothing of the Austrian School of economics. http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/magazines/fortune/okeefe_schiff.fortune/index.htm The Austrian school of economics may not say much, but they are almost always right. This opposed to mainstream economists whom say a lot but are rarely right. So don't you dare claim the predictions coming from the school or the proponents of the school are a "one time thing" when they are far more accurate than any statist predictions you could ever come up with. I read your weblinks and it is idealism with no useful basis in reality. Then you read them with statist prejudice. There you go. This isn't about government or authority, it's about rich people hating taxes and devising a name for taxless governments called anarchy, and you bought into it. I find this a particularity strange accusation as my main concern has always been on taxing the poor. =/ I'm not saying we need no taxes for the rich, I'm saying simply "no taxes". Period. A taxless government is not a government at all. I think you being able to work in a comfortable job is indicative enough. If you have to work 16 hours a day for 50 cents a day, then you can say that. You don't need to be taxed in order to have a comfortable job. Ireland wasn't an anarchy, they had rules, authorities. It lacked a combined state. It lacked any state. There was no taxation. Do you understand? Leaders will naturally emerge regardless of a state, actually finding leaders is better without a state because then to be a leader you must emerge based on your own merits rather than sorta-kinda being voted in. I'm not opposed to rules or leaders. I'm opposed to taxation. There's no need to pool all our money together just so we can fight each other over what it's going to be spent on when we can just directly pay for whatever it is we want ourselves. Side: Much, much better...
And why not? The peasants of the middle ages thought there would always be a monarchy. We built our way out of that. Perhaps it will take time, but it's inevitable. Generation after generation, mankind has and is becoming more intelligent. We've working our way out of religion, the same can happen with the state. Humans are hierarchical creatures. We live in groups and this gives us a sense of communal morality. Creatures that lack this, and live alone without hierarchy and only meet to mate lack social intelligence and indeed any morality as we might know it. By stimulating humanity to evolve away from community into independent, single-person lifestyles morality must consequently evolve with it, until it vaguely resembles other creatures in the world who have this lifestyle. Show me some statistics backing up your claim. I'm surprised how brazen you are, asking for the obvious. I already gave you the freedomhouse link for a detailed synopsis. Perhaps you can have more firepower compared to your neighbor, but not all your neighbors. The old school fire-fighting method was everyone in town helps put out a fire. If someone didn't, they just didn't get any help if their property caught fire. Tank http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ VS Arms http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ In other words, the history of warfare is that might makes right, that the better-armed conquer the weak. Third world countries have governments and armies too, so that can't be it. You mean developing nations. They have government, police, and armies and most (IE those with functioning government, armies, and police) have relatively stable environments to live. When coups and anarchy takes over, then you have a place like Somalia, the picture of violent Africa. Why are you being so obtuse on this point? Post-collapse Somalia was a much more habitable place, so whatever it was that happened post-collapse was better than the government that existed pre-collapse. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ I suggest you read this. An oppressive government formed by imperialists was eventually toppled, this is what gave way to anarchy but in this government before the late seventies it was stable and there were not factions constantly making war with each other. Quite frankly, you're stupid on this matter. You're so desperate for vindication of your ideals that you are defending an intermittent warzone as habitable. Quit looking at out-of-context data. Which they can only due by appealing to the state... Are you really this dense? Industrial Revolution. No regulations, a free market. Monopolies formed over critical goods (oil and transit). The consumers were locked into a position to demand goods from them. State intervention was required to make monopolies illegal. An analogy. Would it make much sense to get mad at a dog for chasing a squirrel? It's their nature, it's only to be expected. What happened: Companies advertised more than they could sell. Demand for bandwidth increased so as to crack their facade. They used their wealth which is greater than individual consumer and activist groups' wealth to buy state intervention on their behalf. Ergo capitalism undermined democracy, the wealthy having more say than the majority, because of disproportionate wealth. Regardless, there is an expected quality of working conditions demanded by the public. If they are not met (or at least not well) then the employer suffers from not being able to expand quite as well as his more generous counter-part. Which doesn't happen because: The thing is, employee labour at this level is expendable so it's always a matter of finding an unemployed person to fit the job. This happened a lot many decades ago. You also forget that workers put up with a lot before quitting. I don't know about you, but I don't much like the idea of persons breaking into my home and beating me. If I heard of a company that has done this, you can be sure wouldn't do business with them. Also, I'd hire a local police agency to watch my home in order to prevent this. You make what, 40000$ annually? The media companies rake in billions annually. This means that they can afford to make you look like a villain, and they can afford to keep your story from receiving air-time in the media. It also means that they could afford to run their own police force and offer it as a service to communities, eventually out-competing them because of the billions of dollars flowing in as revenue, so that when you buy police service what happens is that they obey their higher-up masters over your paycheck. That is how capitalism works. Did I mention that you can't complain to anyone over this, because now the media companies have their own private police force, and the only way to discipline them now is through warfare. Better hire some tanks and marines to storm their headquarters. Ha! Because it works sooo much better now! =3 It actually does. No, private schools are much less expensive than their public counterparts. Companies can build roads just as well as governments and government health-care is a joke. Historically it was public schools that brought illiteracy rates down from about 20% of the population to less than 1%. They also increased understanding of maths and literature and history overall. Private schools are not bound by church-state separation so it is public schools that are secularising America into what we see today. Company roads are not bound by standards, expected source materials, and so on. Government healthcare in Europe has raised the life expectancy in those countries and has made the costs cheaper than what we have now. No, I got it. It's just, once again it didn't follow. Demand for super veggies and grasses emerged and the supply emerged from that. There is no foresight in evolution. They only kept picking the best seeds for the next planting, the best dogs for the next breeding, etc. It's juvenile to not want to be robbed? And you say you're an ethical man? =/ Is it wrong to want what you earn to actually be yours? This is a particularly weak argument, even for a statist... =/ Taxes are not theft, by definition. You're just defending greed, and of course we all know how a state run by those who think like you looks like: see the Industrial revolution and modern developing nations with no regulations on work safety and pay. What's the worst that a company can do to it's striking employees and still survive? Higher strikebreakers. If these strikebreakers have no problem with the working conditions, then the original workers were just being whiny. If the strikebreakers don't approve of the working conditions either, then the company has a problem and must change to meet market demand or they will go bankrupt. In the past, a century ago, the answer was "hire police to beat the union organisers and strikers, or kill/incarcerate the leader of the union." This is because unions were illegal. ...okay, so? What you're saying sounds rather Libertarian right now. Monopolies are not good. This is a fact. Society won't collapse without all-in-one media players. If there was a high enough demand for such a thing, it would come into existence because a supplier would see money in it for himself. The argument is not about society collapsing, but about practices that unregulated businesses take to stifle innovation. Ha! Then you really DO know nothing of the Austrian School of economics. Actually, I know that they propose free market, lassez-faire as it was called. Which is of course a wrong policy, as history shows us. Remember what I said earlier? In science a theory must conform to data and make predictions about the data. So even if they are fairly accurate at predicting market trends, they still have ignored the data which indicates that a free market is not socially viable. Then you read them with statist prejudice. I read them with reality-tinted goggles. I find this a particularity strange accusation as my main concern has always been on taxing the poor. =/ I'm not saying we need no taxes for the rich, I'm saying simply "no taxes". Period. A taxless government is not a government at all. This is an example of the naive idealism I was talking about in my prior post. No redistribution of wealth just leads to sharp divides between the rich and the poor. You don't need to be taxed in order to have a comfortable job. Fine I'll simplify for you. A society that redistributes wealth appropriately (and has minimum work conditions) lowers the class divides and has fewer social problems stemming from this, while more people can work in comfortable jobs since the minimum work conditions prevent sweatshops and the taxes pay for social programs like public schools which let children have more education and avoid being forced into skill-jobs. It lacked any state. There was no taxation. Do you understand? Leaders will naturally emerge regardless of a state, actually finding leaders is better without a state because then to be a leader you must emerge based on your own merits rather than sorta-kinda being voted in. I'm not opposed to rules or leaders. I'm opposed to taxation. All I'm reading from you is: "It lacked taxation! It was better because of this, therefore however it was run was better because it had no taxes. Our system, however it is run, is bad because of taxes." There's no need to pool all our money together just so we can fight each other over what it's going to be spent on when we can just directly pay for whatever it is we want ourselves. Reality begs to differ. Side: Much, much worse...
Humans are hierarchical creatures. We live in groups and this gives us a sense of communal morality. Creatures that lack this, and live alone without hierarchy and only meet to mate lack social intelligence and indeed any morality as we might know it. By stimulating humanity to evolve away from community into independent, single-person lifestyles morality must consequently evolve with it, until it vaguely resembles other creatures in the world who have this lifestyle. There's no objective moral code, so it's foolish to try and get everyone to conform to the same lifestyle. Humans can come together to enhance each others lives without taxing each other. Taxation is essentially robbery. The government is coercively extracting funds from a population whom just happen to have been born on land this government claims (but doesn't use outside of taxation). How is it that a moral society can only be built on the pillars of theft and robbery? I'm surprised how brazen you are, asking for the obvious. I already gave you the freedomhouse link for a detailed synopsis. You mean the the link to that freedom-by-colour map? Is that supposed to mean anything? It says nothing about pre-collapse Somalia having more doctors, or wealth or anything of that sort because that sort of progress didn't occur until POST collapse Somalia. My point about Somalia is that it became better without a state. Not that it because the greatest place in the world to live, but that anarchism was an improvement. It saw several hundreds of percent worth of improvement in nearly every field regardless of the fact that every major political power wanted to establish governance, despite the fact that it is a powerhouse of fundamentalist Islam AND despite the fact that none of the Somalians where anarchists. In other words, the history of warfare is that might makes right, that the better-armed conquer the weak. Lets assume there is no government. Lets assume everyone in your town has a shotgun. Lets assume you have a tank. How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ Threaten them with your tank? You wouldn't even conquer one town. With no government to surrender to you, you'd have to conquer each individual. Best case scenario, you'd still have destroyed everything worth conquering. You mean developing nations. All nations are developing. Perhaps you find "third world" harsh, but I just don't care. You mean developing nations. They have government, police, and armies and most (IE those with functioning government, armies, and police) have relatively stable environments to live. When coups and anarchy takes over, then you have a place like Somalia, the picture of violent Africa. Yeah.... except that's not true at all. Somalia was never better off than when the government collapsed. This is an unavoidable fact. I mean, there's just no way to twist this. Anarchic Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia in just about every way imaginable. I suggest you read this. An oppressive government formed by imperialists was eventually toppled, this is what gave way to anarchy but in this government before the late seventies it was stable and there were not factions constantly making war with each other. Quite frankly, you're stupid on this matter. You're so desperate for vindication of your ideals that you are defending an intermittent warzone as habitable. Quit looking at out-of-context data. This is just embarrassing... You're saying that because there was a (stable) government before the one that collapsed that didn't collapse, Somalia is better off with a state. The thing is, Somalia was NEVER better off than it was when it was state free. Since the antiquity of Somalia every government to rule over it couldn't hold a candle to quality of life provided in anarchic Somalia. Never had there been so much wealth per home, never had there been so many doctors per Somalian, etc. etc. The fact that the federal government collapsed only proves that the federal government was the worst form of government to ever rule over Somalia, not that the governments which preceded it were better than anarchic Somalia. Are you really this dense? Industrial Revolution. No regulations, a free market. Monopolies formed over critical goods (oil and transit). The consumers were locked into a position to demand goods from them. State intervention was required to make monopolies illegal. Alright, first of all state intervention didn't make monopolies illegal, it just made them illegal for everyone but the government. Which is rather ironic as monopolies don't happen without government intervention in the first place. Granted, the conditions of the industrial revolution weren't up to par with our standards, but it was clearly a step up from what preceded it. http://www.youtube.com/ When you point towards the past you've got to consider what it is you're looking at relative to what came before it. What happened: Companies advertised more than they could sell. Demand for bandwidth increased so as to crack their facade. They used their wealth which is greater than individual consumer and activist groups' wealth to buy state intervention on their behalf. Ergo capitalism undermined democracy, the wealthy having more say than the majority, because of disproportionate wealth. ... I'm not quite sure what to say to this. You've already admitted these companies lined the pockets of the government for special advantages on the market. This should be the end of the debate right here. That's it. They used their wealth to buy government favours. Without the government, this couldn't happen. They didn't meet market demand so they should have failed, but they didn't because the government granted them special advantages. The government is the greatest threat to the market. It's (the market) unable to regulate itself while the government continues to artificially manufacture it to meet the states needs. Which doesn't happen because: The thing is, employee labour at this level is expendable so it's always a matter of finding an unemployed person to fit the job. This happened a lot many decades ago. You also forget that workers put up with a lot before quitting. You still haven't clarified at what level your talking about. Are you talking about retail? Don't retail workers have standards? Are you talking about miners? What is this "level" of worker you're referring to? Workers put up with a lot before quitting, perhaps. It depends on the worker. But, workers don't have an infinite threshold for abuse. A manager can only screw his employees so much before they quit. It's a simple thought experiment. Pretend you live in a free market. Pretend you open up a business. Now, which makes more sense to you; treating your employees well so they work productively and therefore have a higher rate of persons looking to be employed by you... or cut corners and provide poor working conditions in order to save a few bucks? Any good employer knows providing good working conditions results in more revenue than what spare change you could possibly save screwing your own employees. You make what, 40000$ annually? The media companies rake in billions annually. This means that they can afford to make you look like a villain, and they can afford to keep your story from receiving air-time in the media. It also means that they could afford to run their own police force and offer it as a service to communities, eventually out-competing them because of the billions of dollars flowing in as revenue, so that when you buy police service what happens is that they obey their higher-up masters over your paycheck. That is how capitalism works. Did I mention that you can't complain to anyone over this, because now the media companies have their own private police force, and the only way to discipline them now is through warfare. Better hire some tanks and marines to storm their headquarters. Lol. You're describing government. XD And from where are is this wealth coming from? Did you forget about that part? If a company goes against market demand, they pay for it via a loss in revenue. If persons fear a company is getting too big, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company starts provided a lesser service, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company begins to militarize, they opt out and pay for another service. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.
Are you beginning to understand yet? It doesn't matter if a company amasses billions of dollars because it can only accomplish that by providing the best service and it can only maintain that profit by continuing to do so. Any deviation from market demand done by a company will result in a loss of revenue. The media making me look like a "villain" doesn't mean much, especially now with the internet making it so that anyone can stream information just as well as anyone else. It actually does. It takes a special kind of ignorance to make such a claim.... =_= Lets follow the logic. Some persons want to give money to the poor, so they pool a donation and donate it. Fine, nothing wrong with that. Government sees that some persons want to give money to the poor, so they get these persons to allow them full control over their charity by promising they will force everyone to give to the charity (while taking a slice of the pie for themselves, of course). Now you have persons fighting with each other over which is more important, ones right to their own money or providing for the poor. Also, now that more money is being taken, more persons are in need of money, so they end up on welfare anyway. This results in a greater welfare demand, which means more government control. This is how the government operates. It takes over things persons already want done in order to make us dependent on them. There's no need to give the government our charity money when we can just give it to the poor ourselves. Historically it was public schools that brought illiteracy rates down from about 20% of the population to less than 1%. They also increased understanding of maths and literature and history overall. Private schools are not bound by church-state separation so it is public schools that are secularising America into what we see today. Government monopolized Education because there was a strong demand for education. The government didn't invent the demand, it merely took advantage of it. Illiteracy rates would have dropped with or without government intervention because of this and private school students have and still do out-preform their public school counterparts in the academics. Governments have separated church and state because they've seen that religion is a sinking ship and in order to remain in power they had to sever their ties to it. Company roads are not bound by standards, expected source materials, and so on. Company roads are bound by the same standards as public roads, perhaps even more so. They are bound by market demand and when you have many companies competing for customers you must offer a higher quality product than your competition or face bankruptcy. Government healthcare in Europe has raised the life expectancy in those countries and has made the costs cheaper than what we have now. The demand for new medicines exist independent of the state. If persons want better health care, then naturally, that's were the money will go. There is no foresight in evolution. They only kept picking the best seeds for the next planting, the best dogs for the next breeding, etc. So because we have foresight we need government? Are persons unable to plan ahead for themselves? It doesn't matter because the government is also composed of persons. The only difference is the governments first interest is in itself, not us. Taxes are not theft, by definition. You're just defending greed, and of course we all know how a state run by those who think like you looks like: see the Industrial revolution and modern developing nations with no regulations on work safety and pay. I said robbery but whatever, taxation IS theft by definition as well. theft [θɛft] n 1. (Law) The taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession Taxation is an example of this. Unless you have some weird definition of theft, you are wrong. Also worth noting, I've never said anything even remotely close to wanting a state of people whom think like me. If they truly thought like me, they wouldn't be politicians in the first place. In the past, a century ago, the answer was "hire police to beat the union organisers and strikers, or kill/incarcerate the leader of the union." This is because unions were illegal. A company can only hire thugs to beat striking employees so long as it still has money. If it's not producing anything (since it's workers are on strike) and it's spending all it's money on thugs to beat it's striking employees, it's bound to fall behind it's competition. Especially when word gets out to this companies customers. Monopolies are not good. This is a fact. Well, technically this is opinion as monopolies are good for those who have them. The argument is not about society collapsing, but about practices that unregulated businesses take to stifle innovation. Every software company is constantly working on their next big product. It's constant innovation, so much so that as soon as you've bought a computer it's already obsolete. So what if PCs and Macs aren't compatible. Saying that unregulated capitalism leads to a lack of innovation is just stupid. And using this as an argument for the state is doubly stupid as the state does nothing about this anyway. Actually, I know that they propose free market, lassez-faire as it was called. Which is of course a wrong policy, as history shows us. Remember what I said earlier? In science a theory must conform to data and make predictions about the data. So even if they are fairly accurate at predicting market trends, they still have ignored the data which indicates that a free market is not socially viable. This is a lot like saying "sure, the Austrian school is more accurate than any other school of economics, but they're still wrong because I say so". They're able to make these accurate market trends because they know exactly how government fucks up the economy. They're more accurate than any other economist AND they're in support of free markets. Does this tell you nothing? It's not as though their predictions are separate from their views on the state. It's because they see the state for what it is that they can be so accurate. This is an example of the naive idealism I was talking about in my prior post. No redistribution of wealth just leads to sharp divides between the rich and the poor. When did I say anything about redistributing wealth? If anything, without a state everyone's incomes will cluster closer together as there won't be taxes, which means there won't be different taxes for different persons. There will be no way for companies to enact barriers to entry so they won't be able to cripple the efforts of smaller businesses. There's just no reason backing your claim. Fine I'll simplify for you. A society that redistributes wealth appropriately (and has minimum work conditions) lowers the class divides and has fewer social problems stemming from this, while more people can work in comfortable jobs since the minimum work conditions prevent sweatshops and the taxes pay for social programs like public schools which let children have more education and avoid being forced into skill-jobs. When you manually redistribute wealth you aren't making things more fair for everyone. You're doing just the opposite as now persons deserving of a high income are being dragged down and persons deserving of a low income are being propped up. Schools would exist with or without a state, this is clear because even with public schools there are still private schools in existence. These schools are both less expensive and provide a better education on the aggregate. Good working conditions are a market demand. Those supplying this demand the best will be able to expand more efficiently because they have more persons willing to work for them. All I'm reading from you is: "It lacked taxation! It was better because of this, therefore however it was run was better because it had no taxes. Our system, however it is run, is bad because of taxes." Well, historically the less government intervention the better off a nation is. Since a government is backed by taxation the lack of this will result in a more productive economy. Reality begs to differ. And in what reality do you live in where fighting each other over how we get to spend our own money is more productive then simply spending the money on whatever it is we already want? Side: Much, much better...
There's no objective moral code, so it's foolish to try and get everyone to conform to the same lifestyle. Exactly why anarchy will never work. I think since you understand this there is no need to go further, since it's only a matter of you wishing for humanity and morality to be otherwise, and needing to reconcile your hopes with this simple fact that you know. You mean the the link to that freedom-by-colour map? Is that supposed to mean anything? It says nothing about pre-collapse Somalia having more doctors, or wealth or anything of that sort because that sort of progress didn't occur until POST collapse Somalia. Go to that link and select Somalia from the drop-down list and then read the synopsis. My point about Somalia is that it became better without a state. Not that it because the greatest place in the world to live, but that anarchism was an improvement. It saw several hundreds of percent worth of improvement in nearly every field regardless of the fact that every major political power wanted to establish governance, despite the fact that it is a powerhouse of fundamentalist Islam AND despite the fact that none of the Somalians where anarchists. It isn't an anarchy, it is a stateless population. Anarchy means that there are no rules, no authorities. Somalis went back to Xeer and Sharia. Despite this there are still rampant power struggles, wars occur. Islam is trying to take down the transitional government. You're wrong, and couldn't be more wrong. How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ Conquest. Submission. Occupancy. All nations are developing. Perhaps you find "third world" harsh, but I just don't care. It's a matter of accuracy. Third world is a cold-war term that fell out of use. Third-world: soviet-aligned states, or ones with communism. Second-world: states that overthrew soviet communism and recently employed capitalism. First-world: capitalist states. Yeah.... except that's not true at all. Somalia was never better off than when the government collapsed. This is an unavoidable fact. I mean, there's just no way to twist this. Anarchic Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia in just about every way imaginable. I wonder if this is a sacred cow. Your kind just can't seem to drop an erroneous argument. The thing is, Somalia was NEVER better off than it was when it was state free. Since the antiquity of Somalia every government to rule over it couldn't hold a candle to quality of life provided in anarchic Somalia. Sigh. Read the facts. Quit being so asinine. I linked you to at least two histories and summaries of Somalia. Both are credible, one is authoritative, and they both call it a hellhole is very kind words. They both describe continual power struggles and wars. I don't know how someone can be in such denial. You make sweeping statements about Somalia by just looking at some numbers with no context of what life is actually like over there, how it transformed after the state vanished. You're datamining. And your desperate need to support your viewpoint won't let you look at the context. Alright, first of all state intervention didn't make monopolies illegal, it just made them illegal for everyone but the government. Okay, you agree with me then. State intervention made monopolies illegal. ... I'm not quite sure what to say to this. You've already admitted these companies lined the pockets of the government for special advantages on the market. This should be the end of the debate right here. Without a state the same thing would happen. Wealth buys favours, no matter the authority in charge. You still haven't clarified at what level your talking about. Are you talking about retail? Don't retail workers have standards? Are you talking about miners? What is this "level" of worker you're referring to? Unskilled labour. I've seen it before numerous times where a job provides bad hours and pay, but the workers stay because they need the income. Workers put up with a lot before quitting, perhaps. It depends on the worker. But, workers don't have an infinite threshold for abuse. A manager can only screw his employees so much before they quit. Which history shows will be a lot (look at sweatshops). And from where are is this wealth coming from? Did you forget about that part? If a company goes against market demand, they pay for it via a loss in revenue. Their income comes from their near-monopoly status as providers of TV shows, music, movies, etc. It's like selling cocaine and the demand won't decrease for a long time, definitely not until decentralised indy media becomes ubiquitous and the same quality. If persons fear a company is getting too big, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company starts provided a lesser service, they opt out and pay for another service. If a company begins to militarize, they opt out and pay for another service. Etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Look at our current situation. This hasn't happened enough. This is how the government operates. It takes over things persons already want done in order to make us dependent on them. There's no need to give the government our charity money when we can just give it to the poor ourselves. Whatever you want to caricature it as, it works better than private charities because the government is big enough to to handle the logistics of supplying monies to people across the territory, and in a way that is accountable. Illiteracy rates would have dropped with or without government intervention because of this and private school students have and still do out-preform their public school counterparts in the academics. Private education existed for millenia and never brought illiteracy down as much as public education did. Company roads are bound by the same standards as public roads, perhaps even more so. They are bound by market demand and when you have many companies competing for customers you must offer a higher quality product than your competition or face bankruptcy. Market: whatever is most profitable sells. Competition means different standards. Government: accountable institutions that provide the necessity. So because we have foresight we need government? Are persons unable to plan ahead for themselves? It doesn't matter because the government is also composed of persons. The only difference is the governments first interest is in itself, not us. I made the argument that the planters and breeders had no idea that harvesting and planting seeds would one day give us corn, or breeding would give us cows. I said robbery but whatever, taxation IS theft by definition as well. theft [θɛft] n 1. (Law) The taking of property belonging to another person with the intention of depriving the owner permanently of its possession Taxation is an example of this. Unless you have some weird definition of theft, you are wrong. Which isn't taxation because the good doesn't belong to the person. It is a transaction for services (property, military, roads, schools, etc.). In other words, in exchange for living here you forfeit ownership of a sum of money for the state. This is a lot like saying "sure, the Austrian school is more accurate than any other school of economics, but they're still wrong because I say so". They are wrong because history says a free market is bad for society. When did I say anything about redistributing wealth? If anything, without a state everyone's incomes will cluster closer together as there won't be taxes, which means there won't be different taxes for different persons. There will be no way for companies to enact barriers to entry so they won't be able to cripple the efforts of smaller businesses. If there were no taxes then the wealthy would continue to amass a fortune, and the poor would maintain what they have. There would be no redistribution so unemployment and welfare wouldn't exist, meanwhile the wealthy would have all that money just sitting there. When you manually redistribute wealth you aren't making things more fair for everyone. You're doing just the opposite as now persons deserving of a high income are being dragged down and persons deserving of a low income are being propped up. There is no "deserving" here. A wealthy person can give away 90% of his wealth and still live more comfortably than most people. This kind of difference in incomes and assets causes social turmoil, it is hoarding a resource that others need which supports criminal behaviour, as desperate people feel the need to steal and cheat the system. And in what reality do you live in where fighting each other over how we get to spend our own money is more productive then simply spending the money on whatever it is we already want? It's called Earth, species H. sapiens sapiens. Side: Much, much worse...
Exactly why anarchy will never work. I think since you understand this there is no need to go further, since it's only a matter of you wishing for humanity and morality to be otherwise, and needing to reconcile your hopes with this simple fact that you know. And what part about anarchy is an attempt to force everyone into one lifestyle? This is a description of a state. The state molds our children via public education, the state illegalizes having certain vegetation, the state demands you conform to it's agreements. Go to that link and select Somalia from the drop-down list and then read the synopsis. Read it. Nothing in it debunks what I've been saying about Somalia. In fact, it barely touches on it. No where does this synopsis compare things like the amount of doctors, or violent crime rates of pre-collapse Somalia relative to post collapse Somalia. It isn't an anarchy, it is a stateless population. Anarchy means that there are no rules, no authorities. Somalis went back to Xeer and Sharia. Despite this there are still rampant power struggles, wars occur. Islam is trying to take down the transitional government. You're wrong, and couldn't be more wrong. Then you're still straw-manning me, avesk. I've already told you, when I say "anarchism" I'm talking about the lack of government. Not the lack of "rules" or "authorities" (though, you should define what you mean by these as well). Somalia became a stateless population, an anarchy and it became better off because of it. This is recorded fact. Conquest. Submission. Occupancy. How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ (note: I re-posted on purpose. You can't simply "conquer" a nation. You're going to have to do better than a 3 word rebuttal.) It's a matter of accuracy. Third world is a cold-war term that fell out of use. Third-world: soviet-aligned states, or ones with communism. Second-world: states that overthrew soviet communism and recently employed capitalism. First-world: capitalist states. You already know what I mean when I say "third world", so there's no problem anyway. =/ I wonder if this is a sacred cow. Your kind just can't seem to drop an erroneous argument. The only sacred cows in this debate are your precious political leaders. I've posted facts and figures on pre-collapse Somalia vs. post-collapse Somalia showing Somalia improved after the fall of the state and you've failed to debunk it. Sigh. Read the facts. Quit being so asinine. I linked you to at least two histories and summaries of Somalia. Both are credible, one is authoritative, and they both call it a hellhole is very kind words. They both describe continual power struggles and wars. I don't know how someone can be in such denial. You make sweeping statements about Somalia by just looking at some numbers with no context of what life is actually like over there, how it transformed after the state vanished. You're datamining. And your desperate need to support your viewpoint won't let you look at the context. You're projecting, avesk. Sweeping statements? I've gone so far as to list point by point at least a dozen specific markers of quality of life that improved after the collapse of the Somali government. The only thing you've posted is a site that talks about what a war-torn nation Somalia is without posting any actual relevant figures outside of dates. I want to see hard facts. Exact figures that show contrary to the ones I've posted. I've given you as specific numerical differences between the two as there is available and you have not done the same, yet you have the audacity to say I'm data mining and making sweeping statements? The information you've linked is loaded with meaningless trivia like At a 2000 peace conference in Djibouti, many of Somalia’s factional leaders agreed to participate in a three-year transitional government with a 245-seat Transitional National Assembly. The government and more than 20 rival factions signed a ceasefire in 2002, but serious fissures developed as some groups launched separate power-sharing negotiations in Mogadishu. But this has nothing to do with which was more habitable. Show me (or at least link) relevant facts ONLY. Okay, you agree with me then. State intervention made monopolies illegal. There's no specific law criminalizing monopolies, perhaps in some governments there are but it doesn't matter because a governments intervention ensures they will have the monopolies. There's just no need to criminalize monopolies since they don't happen without state intervention. Without a state the same thing would happen. Wealth buys favours, no matter the authority in charge. If by authority you're talking about a state then your very statement is already self defeating because we're discussing state free markets. Without a state there is no authority to buy favours from, thus no way to enact barriers to entry. Unskilled labour. I've seen it before numerous times where a job provides bad hours and pay, but the workers stay because they need the income. I hope you understand that I can't consider this a relevant argument as it only represents your personal situation which also involves an already existing government. Which history shows will be a lot (look at sweatshops). Again, sweatshops are bad by our standards, but you've got to consider social change relative to what preceded it. Sweat shops suck compared to what we've come to, but child labour beats the hell out of child prostitution. Wouldn't you agree? Their income comes from their near-monopoly status as providers of TV shows, music, movies, etc. It's like selling cocaine and the demand won't decrease for a long time, definitely not until decentralised indy media becomes ubiquitous and the same quality. Near monopoly status? Look at our current situation. This hasn't happened enough. Do you need me to hold your hand through everything? Look up barriers to entry. Whatever you want to caricature it as, it works better than private charities because the government is big enough to to handle the logistics of supplying monies to people across the territory, and in a way that is accountable. ... You really do need you hand held through the entire damn thing it seems. Look, the government is composed of persons, right? What your saying is that persons are incapable of supplying money across a territory, but persons are able to supply money across a territory. I mean, are you honestly saying it takes a fiat land claim and a tax base in order to move cash from one location to another? How the hell are other charities doing it then? What you're saying is stupid and senseless. Charity fails because they can't move the money from one point to another? Only the government can successfully move donations from point A to point B? Do you just not understand how charities work? Is that it? I mean, I can't even think of an analogy for failing to understand something better than this. In the future I'm going to use what you've said in an analogy to explain to somebody else the magnitude of foolishness in whatever it will be that they've said. Private education existed for millenia and never brought illiteracy down as much as public education did. That's because the demand for literacy grew to such an extent. Again, the government didn't create the demand. Hell, the government hindered it. Especially throughout the middle ages. The fact remains that private schools are cheaper and the students receive a higher quality education from them. Market: whatever is most profitable sells. Competition means different standards. Government: accountable institutions that provide the necessity. Perhaps it's these stitches in my mouth, but I just feel less tolerant of your density today. Competition means drive to be the best. The market is selling that which is most profitable and if good quality products and low costs is what the market demand, then that will be the most profitable. Government is like a leech that drains wealth from the market by tricking persons like yourself into believing it has some "magical" property about it that allows it to both offer the best possible service and protect you from the "evil corporate elite". It's essentially an extortion racket. I made the argument that the planters and breeders had no idea that harvesting and planting seeds would one day give us corn, or breeding would give us cows. Learning to farm was an emergent phenomenon that came from humans increasing in intelligence and observing how different plants grow. The same can be said about breeders. There was no need for God to hold our hands through this, it happened on it's own and now we have that knowledge to pass down to future generations. Order is emergent. Built from the bottom up, it becomes something too deeply rooted to collapse. Top-down order works in the opposite fashion, which is why every government has toppled where anarchism has been proven to last at least well over 1000 years. Don't bother telling me anarchic Ireland wasn't an anarchy because what anarchic Ireland was is what I mean when I say anarchism and what everyone else well read on the subject calls anarchism. If you just can't wrap your head around the word "anarchism", then substitute with whatever non-anarchic word you don't have this irrational uncomplacent view of. Call it a "taxless state" if you must. Which isn't taxation because the good doesn't belong to the person. It is a transaction for services (property, military, roads, schools, etc.). In other words, in exchange for living here you forfeit ownership of a sum of money for the state. Well, that would depend on your personal definition on ownership. If you personally find that fiat-land claims are a legitimate means of defining ownership than absolutely I agree you cannot be robbed by the government because they already own everything. But, then again that's worse than just being robbed in the first place, so it doesn't matter. =/ They are wrong because history says a free market is bad for society. No, YOU say that free markets are bad for society. History shows just the opposite. America out-preformed the USSR because they were more capitalistic. Post-collapse Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia because it was more capitalistic. Anarchic Ireland lasted well over 1000 years despite constant invasion from England. Even the industrial revolution was a step up from what preceded it. For you to claim history shows free markets are bad for society, that's quite simply a lie. If there were no taxes then the wealthy would continue to amass a fortune, and the poor would maintain what they have. There would be no redistribution so unemployment and welfare wouldn't exist, meanwhile the wealthy would have all that money just sitting there. Ah finally, a point out of ignorance rather than arrogance. Governments aren't what holds back the wealthy. In fact, just the opposite is true. Governments enact barriers to entry at the request of the wealthy in order to suppress small businesses which allow large companies a more inelastic equilibrium for whatever it is their business happens to be. "Unemployment" and "welfare" would still exist because demand for them would still exist. They would just be run by charity or some sort of "neighborhood agreement". Don't bother trying to tell me charities can't function better than state welfare because what you're saying is that the coercive extraction of funds followed by vigorous debate over the distribution of said funds works better than the voluntary donations of charity. Essentially you're saying that an army of conscription is more efficient than an army of voluntary soldiers. I sincerely hope you're not foolish enough to believe that to be true... There is no "deserving" here. A wealthy person can give away 90% of his wealth and still live more comfortably than most people. This kind of difference in incomes and assets causes social turmoil, it is hoarding a resource that others need which supports criminal behaviour, as desperate people feel the need to steal and cheat the system. You've got it backwards. If there is no "deserving" here, then the poor aren't entitled to the income of the wealthy. The wealthy earned their wealth (or, at least they would have on a free market), they are free to "hoard" it if they please. This is only a problem when you're tied to the wealth of everyone in your nation. If there are none of these ties, it doesn't matter if other persons spend less of their money than you do (well, in a way it does - but in a much less significant manner). It's called Earth, species H. sapiens sapiens. We are human, therefore fighting each other over how to spend the remnants of coercively extracted funds is more productive than simply spending our money in fields we want to see expand.... Must be that public education at work. =/ Side: Much, much better...
And what part about anarchy is an attempt to force everyone into one lifestyle? This is a description of a state. The state molds our children via public education, the state illegalizes having certain vegetation, the state demands you conform to it's agreements. If there is no objective moral code then when it comes to big decisions over resources and land, fighting will happen, because of moral differences. Read it. Nothing in it debunks what I've been saying about Somalia. In fact, it barely touches on it. No where does this synopsis compare things like the amount of doctors, or violent crime rates of pre-collapse Somalia relative to post collapse Somalia. It gives the picture of Somalia that you were ignoring: war and strife. Then you're still straw-manning me, avesk. I've already told you, when I say "anarchism" I'm talking about the lack of government. Not the lack of "rules" or "authorities" (though, you should define what you mean by these as well). Somalia became a stateless population, an anarchy and it became better off because of it. This is recorded fact. Anarchy is defined as a lack of government, laws, and authorities. We may casually use anarchy to refer to lack of order and violence in an area. You are using the casual definition. Somalia isn't an anarchy. Also, having a couple extra doctors and televisions doesn't make a region better. The chief thing that makes an area good, and indeed better, is stability as in a lack of civil war. How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ The only sacred cows in this debate are your precious political leaders. I've posted facts and figures on pre-collapse Somalia vs. post-collapse Somalia showing Somalia improved after the fall of the state and you've failed to debunk it. Civil war is not an improvement, no matter how many televisions, radios and doctors were added to the area. You're projecting, avesk. Sweeping statements? I've gone so far as to list point by point at least a dozen specific markers of quality of life that improved after the collapse of the Somali government. The only thing you've posted is a site that talks about what a war-torn nation Somalia is without posting any actual relevant figures outside of dates. Civil war. Civil war. Civil war. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings. TRUMPS Better infant mortality rates, more TV and radio, internet access, and more doctors. I want to see hard facts. Exact figures that show contrary to the ones I've posted. I've given you as specific numerical differences between the two as there is available and you have not done the same, yet you have the audacity to say I'm data mining and making sweeping statements? CIVIL WAR. GREATER THAN. TELEVISION. There's just no need to criminalize monopolies since they don't happen without state intervention. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Without a state there is no authority to buy favours from, thus no way to enact barriers to entry. Without a state you buy favours from the head gang in your district, or the local chieftain, or the council elders. I hope you understand that I can't consider this a relevant argument as it only represents your personal situation which also involves an already existing government. It's common knowledge, easily accessible. Again, sweatshops are bad by our standards, but you've got to consider social change relative to what preceded it. Sweat shops suck compared to what we've come to, but child labour beats the hell out of child prostitution. Wouldn't you agree? You've never heard of leapfrogging, have you? This means, you jump from one generation to two or more ahead of it because others have cleared the path for you first. Look, the government is composed of persons, right? What your saying is that persons are incapable of supplying money across a territory, but persons are able to supply money across a territory. No, I am saying that persons of their own charitable nature will tend to supply less money, and in a less accountable way, than other persons who use mandatory contributions as a source with oversight to prevent abuses. That's because the demand for literacy grew to such an extent. Again, the government didn't create the demand. Hell, the government hindered it. Especially throughout the middle ages. Ad hoc explanations aside, public education made illiteracy virtually nonexistent. Perhaps it's these stitches in my mouth, but I just feel less tolerant of your density today. Yet not on your fingers... Competition means drive to be the best. The market is selling that which is most profitable and if good quality products and low costs is what the market demand, then that will be the most profitable. Government is like a leech that drains wealth from the market by tricking persons like yourself into believing it has some "magical" property about it that allows it to both offer the best possible service and protect you from the "evil corporate elite". It's all about standards really. If I want roads in Wisconsin to all be made the same, then I need government for that. Learning to farm was an emergent phenomenon that came from humans increasing in intelligence and observing how different plants grow. The same can be said about breeders. There was no need for God to hold our hands through this, it happened on it's own and now we have that knowledge to pass down to future generations. Right, but the point was that it wasn't a result due to market preference for a super-grain like you supposed. How could farmers 6000 years ago know that a grass would turn into corn? Don't bother telling me anarchic Ireland wasn't an anarchy because what anarchic Ireland was is what I mean when I say anarchism and what everyone else well read on the subject calls anarchism. Anarchy: lawless region where there is no ruler. Ireland (historical): informal government. Well, that would depend on your personal definition on ownership. If you personally find that fiat-land claims are a legitimate means of defining ownership than absolutely I agree you cannot be robbed by the government because they already own everything. No, they own a portion of your income. You own yourself and your property. No, YOU say that free markets are bad for society. History shows just the opposite. America out-preformed the USSR because they were more capitalistic. Post-collapse Somalia out preformed pre-collapse Somalia because it was more capitalistic. Anarchic Ireland lasted well over 1000 years despite constant invasion from England. Even the industrial revolution was a step up from what preceded it. For you to claim history shows free markets are bad for society, that's quite simply a lie. Economy =/= Society Expand your horizons. Society is more than the pursuit of most profit. BTW, lack of regulations gave us the great depression and modern financial crisis. So much for free market or even unregulated market productivity. Ah finally, a point out of ignorance rather than arrogance. Governments aren't what holds back the wealthy. In fact, just the opposite is true. Governments enact barriers to entry at the request of the wealthy in order to suppress small businesses which allow large companies a more inelastic equilibrium for whatever it is their business happens to be. I didn't say hold back, I said allowed to amass wealth. Besides we are discussing taxes. "Unemployment" and "welfare" would still exist because demand for them would still exist. They would just be run by charity or some sort of "neighborhood agreement". Except they didn't, and when they were needed most. That's why welfare was created in the first place. Ever heard of the New Deal? You've got it backwards. If there is no "deserving" here, then the poor aren't entitled to the income of the wealthy. The wealthy earned their wealth (or, at least they would have on a free market), they are free to "hoard" it if they please. See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/ A.K.A. Tragedy of the Commons Essentially, allowing people to hoard puts a majority at a disadvantage for the benefit of a small party. Side: Much, much worse...
If there is no objective moral code then when it comes to big decisions over resources and land, fighting will happen, because of moral differences. There is no "objective" moral code NOW. Laws are constantly changing. You own something to the extent that you can keep it. Only humans feel entitled to things they can't handle. Most of the U.S. is empty, yet the state feels entitled to every square inch of it. When one government tries to take another governments land, it becomes a war. When two persons do the same, it's not nearly such a big deal. It can be solved via free market courts, but most of the time such things wouldn't happen as seen in the anarchic west. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5ENtG3B8CQ It gives the picture of Somalia that you were ignoring: war and strife. When did I ignore this? I used this very fact as an example! I said "Somalia still got better despite all of the Islamist and U.N. invaders attempting to re-establish a state" (paraphrasing). Somalia got better after the fall of Siad Barre's government. If there was an outbreak of civil war and strife, then civil war and strife are better for an economy than one large government. Anarchy is defined as a lack of government, laws, and authorities. We may casually use anarchy to refer to lack of order and violence in an area. You are using the casual definition. Somalia isn't an anarchy. Also, having a couple extra doctors and televisions doesn't make a region better. The chief thing that makes an area good, and indeed better, is stability as in a lack of civil war. Look, I've told you what I mean when I say "anarchism". If you just can't get over that, replace the word "anarchy" in your mind with "anti-statism" whenever it comes up. =/ You say "a couple extra" As though it was a small gain and as though they were the only improvements. It wasn't and they weren't. Go back and check the link if you still don't get why. Also, I'm not saying televisions increased in Somalia as though having a television is the be all and end all of a successful economy. I said it to express the gain in wealth and the vast spread in media that occurred without a state to subsidies poverty. Define "chief thing". =/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupied_Japan You're just... such an idiot. This is an example of an already existing state with an already existing tax base occupying a country. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. An already existing state occupying a country =/= a new state emerging and it especially =/= a new state emerging in a nation of anti-statists. You're a fool. It's no surprise that you posted no arguments along with your link... again. I'm beginning to think you know what your saying doesn't make sense and you're just hoping I don't notice it either. Without a state you buy favours from the head gang in your district, or the local chieftain, or the council elders. Well , you clearly didn't even skim the e-book I linked you as it deals with this exact point... First of all, understand that gangs still exist now despite the state and in fact is a problem aggravated by the state through its subsidies over violence and it's repression on certain market demands. So a state is not the solution to gangs. Second of all, the state is a gang. The gang that "won" so to speak as it achieved the most power. So, to be against gangs is to be against the state, less you be a hypocrite. And finally, anarchic Iceland was known for it's constant feuding. This is because, without a state, chieftains couldn't conscript large numbers of unwilling men, so quarrels had to be settled between the quarrelers themselves. This as opposed to most of Europe at the time where kings settled disputes by men dying for them in oaths of fealty and holy pomp and regalia best described as gang-like and psychotic. You've never heard of leapfrogging, have you? This means, you jump from one generation to two or more ahead of it because others have cleared the path for you first. This means nothing. First of all, there's just no way to know we jumped "two or more generations" thanks to the state without being able to see what would have happened had the state not existed. Second, this in no way shows that sweatshops where not a step up from what preceded it. No, I am saying that persons of their own charitable nature will tend to supply less money, and in a less accountable way, than other persons who use mandatory contributions as a source with oversight to prevent abuses. I've decided I want mandatory bone marrow donations from every American whom falls within certain bone density bracket. Sure, this means more persons will need bone marrow transplants and everyone in the country will generally have less bone marrow because of this... and now there's less motive to get the proper calcium intake as everyone is forced to give bone marrow anyway; but it's the right thing to do. After all, the demand for bone marrow is greater than the supply, so we need a group to violently force the extraction of every one's bone marrow to ensure that everyone has just enough. ;) Civil war. Civil war. Civil war. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Islamic courts union. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings. Suicide bombings. TRUMPS Better infant mortality rates, more TV and radio, internet access, and more doctors. The thing is, avesk, you haven't actually shown that more violence happened after the collapse of the Somali government (stats)... you've just asserted it. It doesn't matter though, because: 1. These violent groups are just mini-states... which explains why they are violently trying to establish power. and 2. Even with all these states rushing to establish power, Somalia still saw growth in life expectancy, doctors, wealth etc. etc. etc. You're just being willfully ignorant at this point. =/ Ad hoc explanations aside, public education made illiteracy virtually nonexistent. No, the demand for literacy made illiteracy non-existent. The state merely monopolized the supply. There was a government back in the middle ages too and they did everything possible to ensure the surfs couldn't read. The only reason why the current state ensured everyone could read was because the promise of ending illiteracy was a way to expand their power over us and our dependency on them. If ending illiteracy didn't expand the power of the state, you can bet your ass politicians would be doing everything they could to suppress literacy. It's all about standards really. If I want roads in Wisconsin to all be made the same, then I need government for that. And the persons of Wisconsin don't want good roads??? Right, but the point was that it wasn't a result due to market preference for a super-grain like you supposed. How could farmers 6000 years ago know that a grass would turn into corn? Are you saying that government invented the demand for better foods? that persons don't want better food without a government to subsidies it for them? Anarchy: lawless region where there is no ruler. Ireland (historical): informal government. There are so many definitions for this word, it would just be foolish to cling to one as the "true" definition. You know what I mean when I say anarchism, so again, if you can't handle that then replace the word in your head with whatever non-anarchic word you don't have this hang-up over whenever you come across the word in my posts. No, they own a portion of your income. You own yourself and your property. ... What? Perhaps you just haven't been told, but everything that falls within the U.S. border is U.S. property. The property is taxed as your "rent" for living. You only "own" your property to the extent that they don't take it from you. Economy =/= Society Expand your horizons. Society is more than the pursuit of most profit. BTW, lack of regulations gave us the great depression and modern financial crisis. So much for free market or even unregulated market productivity. The market also refers to social relations, just so you know.... The great depression was caused by a massive expansion in credit without the expansion of any real differed consumption. Without a federal government to monopolize currency, this isn't possible. Besides, the great depression was actually a rather small crash relatively speaking. Larger crashes had happened and were absorbed in a matter of weeks, not years. The reason why the "great" depression lasted so long was because of state intervention such as the NRA (National Relief Association). What the NRA did was artificially keep prices for goods low, as they were before the crash. This was in hope that by simulating the costs in the market as they were when the market was flourishing, it would cause the market to "re-bound" and be prosperous again. The problem with this is that since prices for goods were kept low, there was little incentive to enter these businesses as the cost was too great in comparison to the pay off. If the prices were allowed to be as they otherwise would have been, then businessmen would have seen that there's great potential for profit in these areas of the market. With this flood of production, the cost of the product would inevitably drop as the supply increased. Leaving the market to its own regulation was the only way to correct the mistakes of the federal government. I didn't say hold back, I said allowed to amass wealth. Besides we are discussing taxes. That's what I meant by "hold back". Holding back persons from amassing wealth. Taxes don't stop the wealthy from anything. Taxes work better at stopping entrepreneurs from becoming wealthy. Taxes are included in barriers to entry, I guess you just didn't know that either. ;) Except they didn't, and when they were needed most. That's why welfare was created in the first place. Ever heard of the New Deal? Welfare exists as a means to expand the states market influence by appealing to the demand of a nation. Welfare exists because there is demand for it to. Besides, welfare is a horrible system. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. I mean, you're literally the first statist I've ever debated stupid enough to think it is. And that includes communists. =/ The problem with welfare is that it allows politicians to more or less buy votes at the promise of increasing the general welfare of the area and "solving" poverty. This is a system where you have the poor paying the poor(er). The cut of line for social taxes is $106,000 per year. If you make more than that, you don't have to pay. Also, deficit spending leads to inflation, which disproportionately hurts the poor. Prices rise before wages catch up when there is inflation and the persons who get the money first (the politically connected) benefit at the expense of everyone else, and everyone else tends to be poorer. Without a state, things become incredibly cheap. Nominal wages typically don't raise as much as the price of everything else falls, which makes sense given that firms become more productive as a result of competition and general hyper-sensitization. So, on a free market a poor person can live on less, which means there's less need for welfare, which means it won't matter if a few Scrooges hoard there cash away from the charities. See: http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/162/3859/1243 A.K.A. Tragedy of the Commons Essentially, allowing people to hoard puts a majority at a disadvantage for the benefit of a small party. Hmm, well since you've brought this up here as well and I've since finished the article, I'll respond to it here. First of all, you're not bringing up anything new. Tragedy of the commons has been done to death. See: http://austrianeco.blogspot.com/2009/12/ Short answer: Tragedy of the commons refers to common land, not privately owned land. This is a phenomenon seen with public property (i.e. government property i.e. commons) NOT private property. It's really much more accurate to call this the tragedy of the state. =/ Side: Much, much better...
There is no "objective" moral code NOW. Laws are constantly changing. There never is. Laws merely act as authority on the matter. When one government tries to take another governments land, it becomes a war. When two persons do the same, it's not nearly such a big deal. It can be solved via free market courts, but most of the time such things wouldn't happen as seen in the anarchic west. I really don't know how to respond to someone as delusional as you are, half of the time. You see a typical person makes a claim, you can contradict them, they accept it, and adjust their views. You can even mock or ridicule them so that they see how silly their reasoning is, forcing them to drop it. In your case you simply disregard anything that doesn't fit with your preconceptions by calling it "not a true example" or "tainted by state" and so you never have to actually think very hard because you already have your conclusion. I've encountered this a lot with young earth creationists over the years. You explain examples of how life evolves to them and they just purposefully reject it as "random chance" or "there are no transition fossils" or repeat ad nauseum stock phrases which have no depth. In your case these are "market solves X," "that's not a true free market," and "taxes are theft." It is already sufficiently demonstrated through modern and historical gang wars, tribal conflicts, and animal behaviour that conflict repeatedly occurs over resources, and that it can last years or even centuries if permitted. Any rational reader can determine that you are in denial of human nature. When did I ignore this? I used this very fact as an example! I said "Somalia still got better despite all of the Islamist and U.N. invaders attempting to re-establish a state" (paraphrasing). When a state plummets to civil war, especially almost three decades of civil war, it isn't better until the war ceases. Somalia got better after the fall of Siad Barre's government. If there was an outbreak of civil war and strife, then civil war and strife are better for an economy than one large government. You're a real idiot. Thank god you do my hard work for me. I could never make you look as stupid as you do when you say things like this. Look, I've told you what I mean when I say "anarchism". If you just can't get over that, replace the word "anarchy" in your mind with "anti-statism" whenever it comes up. =/ No. Your entire view of what constitutes a best state, isn't anarchy, or informal government. You are anti-tax. That is where it ends. You say "a couple extra" As though it was a small gain and as though they were the only improvements. It wasn't and they weren't. Go back and check the link if you still don't get why. There were marginal improvements to a population in almost three decades of civil war. Life marches on, even in war. Also, I'm not saying televisions increased in Somalia as though having a television is the be all and end all of a successful economy. I said it to express the gain in wealth and the vast spread in media that occurred without a state to subsidies poverty. Civil wars remaining unresolved for over two decades is much higher on the list than being able to afford a television. A state brings stability. If a state was able to get hold of the area and expunge the Islamic factions, by now there would be a much higher quality of life because by now there would have been decades of time to rebuild the infrastructure and support basic needs. You're just... such an idiot. This is an example of an already existing state with an already existing tax base occupying a country. This has nothing to do with what I was talking about. An already existing state occupying a country =/= a new state emerging and it especially =/= a new state emerging in a nation of anti-statists. You're a fool. Occupied Japan shows us an example of how through much effort a culture can be subjugated and eventually remoulded to stand on its own and act as an ally towards the invaders. It's no surprise that you posted no arguments along with your link... again. I'm beginning to think you know what your saying doesn't make sense and you're just hoping I don't notice it either. Your argument was: How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ Occupied Japan is an obvious example of where we reshaped a culture. First of all, understand that gangs still exist now despite the state and in fact is a problem aggravated by the state through its subsidies over violence and it's repression on certain market demands. So a state is not the solution to gangs. Gangs form naturally as a means of power for a group with similar interests or backgrounds. They do not depend upon a state. Second of all, the state is a gang. The gang that "won" so to speak as it achieved the most power. So, to be against gangs is to be against the state, less you be a hypocrite. Evading the discussion. And finally, anarchic Iceland was known for it's constant feuding. This is because, without a state, chieftains couldn't conscript large numbers of unwilling men, so quarrels had to be settled between the quarrelers themselves. Which doesn't change the fact that you can buy favours from the leaders. This means nothing. First of all, there's just no way to know we jumped "two or more generations" thanks to the state without being able to see what would have happened had the state not existed. Second, this in no way shows that sweatshops where not a step up from what preceded it. We, as amongst the first to enter the industrial revolution, suffered through free market reform, child labour, pollution, and sweatshops. Modern developing nations can simply jump from farming to union-backed factories and stiff market control to prevent monopolies and buying of favours. That way they need not suffer our mistakes. It depends on what they want. I've decided I want mandatory bone marrow donations from every American whom falls within certain bone density bracket. Sure, this means more persons will need bone marrow transplants and everyone in the country will generally have less bone marrow because of this... and now there's less motive to get the proper calcium intake as everyone is forced to give bone marrow anyway; but it's the right thing to do. The idea of redistributing wealth is based on the fact that we all tend to have a surplus of money, and the cost while high is much less when split amongst a large population, so that effectively we all pay a small amount so that some can afford an expensive good. In this case housing, welfare, unemployment, etc. The thing is, avesk, you haven't actually shown that more violence happened after the collapse of the Somali government (stats)... you've just asserted it. It doesn't matter though, because: I provided a link to freedomhouse and wikipedia. The conclusion is an obvious one. 1. These violent groups are just mini-states... which explains why they are violently trying to establish power. Ah, I remember this part, it's exclusion of relevant data so that you can keep your pet delusion. See, if we accepted that factions naturally develop in a power vacuum, then your delusion that anarchy can work would crumble because it would be apparent that anarchy leads to a state with violence in between. Solution? Call the factions mini-states, so you can ignore them. Creationists do this with transitional fossils by saying "Where is the missing link behind and in front of your fossil in the chain?" 2. Even with all these states rushing to establish power, Somalia still saw growth in life expectancy, doctors, wealth etc. etc. etc. Which doesn't matter if every three or four years a new faction forms and starts bombing your cities and shooting your civilians. No, the demand for literacy made illiteracy non-existent. The state merely monopolized the supply. There was a government back in the middle ages too and they did everything possible to ensure the surfs couldn't read. Written language goes back for thousands of years, so do universities. None of them achieved what we did. I know, I know, it was all a massive, inter-era and inter-governmental conspiracy to keep people dumb. Are you saying that government invented the demand for better foods? that persons don't want better food without a government to subsidies it for them? Since you seem to have forgotten the point of the discussion: Six thousand-nine thousand years ago, the idea of markets was different and it couldn't have driven the breeding for better foods (at least directly) since there was no known outcome for selectively breeding grasses. They simply used a method that worked, and produced food. ... What? Perhaps you just haven't been told, but everything that falls within the U.S. border is U.S. property. The property is taxed as your "rent" for living. You only "own" your property to the extent that they don't take it from you. Actually not. This what private property distinguishes. The great depression was caused by a massive expansion in credit without the expansion of any real differed consumption. Without a federal government to monopolize currency, this isn't possible. No, it was caused by insider trading, collusion, etc. The New Deal tried to prevent this from happening again. That's what I meant by "hold back". Holding back persons from amassing wealth. Taxes don't stop the wealthy from anything. Taxes work better at stopping entrepreneurs from becoming wealthy. Taxes are included in barriers to entry, I guess you just didn't know that either. ;) Taxes provide income redistribution, which is designed to help us, it can however be hijacked by business interests. That is why we have oversight. Besides, welfare is a horrible system. I can't believe I actually have to explain this to you. I mean, you're literally the first statist I've ever debated stupid enough to think it is. And that includes communists. =/ The New Deal provided funding for the morbidly poor and unemployed, allowing them to get back on their feet. It also, and this is critical, regulated the market in hopes of preventing another great depression. Without a state, things become incredibly cheap. Nominal wages typically don't raise as much as the price of everything else falls, which makes sense given that firms become more productive as a result of competition and general hyper-sensitization. Without a state, people are paid almost nothing for labour. It evens out. So, on a free market a poor person can live on less, which means there's less need for welfare, which means it won't matter if a few Scrooges hoard there cash away from the charities. The problem people like you have is a lack of scale. You think small things can solve big problems, or that big issues are soluble with a few small market properties. In this case, you think it is only a few greedy men (actually true because relative to the population the rich are a tiny minority) and therefore they cannot be much of a threat to the workers (ignoring that they command the majority of the country's wealth). So your sense of scale ignores that a few scrooges hoarding really means millions of men and women earning a combined minority of wealth. What does wealth do? It buys power. So by letting those scrooges hoard, you allow them to buy taxes and barriers to entry, and so we see the corruption of the spirit of the tax system thanks to your blind faith in a simple solution to a complex problem. Short answer: Tragedy of the commons refers to common land, not privately owned land. This is a phenomenon seen with public property (i.e. government property i.e. commons) NOT private property. In case you're not aware, private property combined makes up common land. The model still holds true, therefore. Side: Much, much worse...
I really don't know how to respond to someone as delusional as you are, half of the time. You see a typical person makes a claim, you can contradict them, they accept it, and adjust their views. You can even mock or ridicule them so that they see how silly their reasoning is, forcing them to drop it. In your case you simply disregard anything that doesn't fit with your preconceptions by calling it "not a true example" or "tainted by state" and so you never have to actually think very hard because you already have your conclusion. You're projecting, avesk. Not only that, but you're quite egotistical. "You see a typical person makes a claim, you can contradict them, they accept it, and adjust their views." This assumes that I haven't made any counter arguments and indeed I opened this debate with counter arguments to your original post, if you recall. Which makes you the receiver in this your example. Which means by your own words you must be the one to "accept it". XD You'll also notice that the only time I said that your examples were not examples of stateless societies were because they actually weren't stateless societies... It doesn't get much more simple than that. I've given you examples of what I consider stateless societies and in all cases they've functioned perfectly. If anyone is merely disregarding the points of the other, it's you. You've been the one making the straw-man arguments and unequivilent analogies after all. =/ I've encountered this a lot with young earth creationists over the years. You explain examples of how life evolves to them and they just purposefully reject it as "random chance" or "there are no transition fossils" or repeat ad nauseum stock phrases which have no depth. In your case these are "market solves X," "that's not a true free market," and "taxes are theft." Ah, speak of the devil. Do you even understand the mechanics of an analogy? I can't think of one time where an analogy you've made actually follows and this is no exception. "Taxes are theft" = "there are no transition fossils"? "that's not a true free market" = "random chance"? All you're doing is taking what I've said and trying to connect it to YE creationism in order to connect it to something stupid. The problem is you're connecting the positive assertion of creationism with the negative assertion of stateLESSness. Here's an analogy that actually follows. Take notes: I've encountered this a lot with YE creationists over the years. You explain of how life is emergent and they just purposefully reject it as "impossible without God" or "there has never been an example of (macro) evolution". In your case these are, "order is impossible without God-erm... government" or "there's never been an example of a (true) free market that has functioned." As though you have the right to tell me how I define anarchism. XD It is already sufficiently demonstrated through modern and historical gang wars, tribal conflicts, and animal behaviour that conflict repeatedly occurs over resources, and that it can last years or even centuries if permitted. Any rational reader can determine that you are in denial of human nature. Wow buddy, after everything I've sent you on this topic , after everything I've told you on this topic... I'm beginning to think it would just be easier for me to copy/paste my arguments from all the sources I've linked that you should have checked out, because you clearly have not. Anarchic Ireland. There was feuding, but since there were no kings or any geographic political bodies or taxes the chieftains weren't able to conscript vast numbers of men to fight for him. So quarrelers typically fought out there quarrels amongst themselves via fist-fighting. This as opposed to the rest of Europe at the time (~650 CE to ~1650 CE) of which had constant monolithic wars and also, a central government. shock! Any reader can see you just haven't bothered looking into any of this and are just repeating what your school teachers have told you like a good little boy. When a state plummets to civil war, especially almost three decades of civil war, it isn't better until the war ceases. Just gunna' completely ignore that you straw-manned me before, eh avesk? Well, given the rate at which you do this it would be a rather large pain to have to apologize constantly... You know, this point is especially strange. The part about "three decades of civil war", because Somalia hasn't been stateless for thee decades... or even two for that matter. Oops. Also, I'm not saying war is better than no war. That's not the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying no state is better than a state, with having several small states somewhere in between total state and no state. Somalia got better when there was no central government. Sure, there were other governments trying to establish power, but with none actually in power Somalia saw astounding economic growth. Which is to be expected as the more capitalistic a country is allowed to be, the more prosperous it is. You're a real idiot. Thank god you do my hard work for me. I could never make you look as stupid as you do when you say things like this. Yet another assertion with no argument backing it... you're a boring guy avesk. Debating you is like watching your kids on a ferris wheel. You send them around, but you know they're just going to come back around again. Not because there's any relevance to them, just because you're mind works in circles, avesk. No. Your entire view of what constitutes a best state, isn't anarchy, or informal government. You are anti-tax. That is where it ends. Yet another straw-man, yawn. I've mentioned my opposition to fiat land claims as well at least a dozen times already. I've cited examples of what I mean by anarchy as well as defined how I use the word for you. If you're definition of "state" includes "non-state"... I guess that's really the only way for what you're saying to make sense... I don't want a "best" state. I want no state. I really do hope I don't have to tell you this yet again, but I won't hold my breath given your track record. =/ There were marginal improvements to a population in almost three decades of civil war. Life marches on, even in war. Again, Somalia wasn't stateless for three decades, so this civil war you're talking about is unrelated. Besides, Somalia improved not only in absolute terms, but also relative to Ethiopia and Kenya. Oops. You really should have looked into this stuff before banging your pots and pans together. But at this point I guess you'll say just about anything to pump out another post... Civil wars remaining unresolved for over two decades is much higher on the list than being able to afford a television. A state brings stability. If a state was able to get hold of the area and expunge the Islamic factions, by now there would be a much higher quality of life because by now there would have been decades of time to rebuild the infrastructure and support basic needs. I mean, it barely takes 30 seconds on a Google search to know that Somalia wasn't an anarchy for even two decades. And if there is still civil war now despite the fact that Somalia now has a central government, it only proves my point that these wars were a state failure, not a market failure. The state brings "stability", but only once it has amassed it's coercive monopolies through decades of war and murder. Oh yeah, that sounds real swell, avesk. XD Occupied Japan shows us an example of how through much effort a culture can be subjugated and eventually remoulded to stand on its own and act as an ally towards the invaders. Ah, I see. So instead of setting out to show that a state can emerge and amass control over a nation like I was talking about, you decided to take it upon yourself to prove something that nobody was talking about or even cared about... Good job, buddy. Good job. What you're saying proves nothing. Japan had a broken economy after it's state lost a war and a non-broken state occupied it and turned into an ally. You're point? Your argument was: How are you going to go about establishing a state? Religion? Persons aren't so stupid anymore. Convince them you can do more for them with their money than they can? Good luck. Even the current government has trouble with that, and they have the advantage of forcing children into twelve years of compulsory "education" camps to indoctrinate them in the values of the state. =/ Occupied Japan is an obvious example of where we reshaped a culture. I don't know if you've been to Japan, but their culture is about as opposite to ours as a culture can be. Occupied Japan only proves that when two governments war and one loses, the other has the military force to occupy the other. This has nothing to do with a state emerging when there was none, let alone from none and in a nation of anti-statists. If you really can't tell the difference you have no business debating politics. Gangs form naturally as a means of power for a group with similar interests or backgrounds. They do not depend upon a state. I'll repeat. Gangs are states, only smaller. They are the same thing fundamentally. Even the U.S. has it's "gang symbols" and "gang rituals". Also, I said gangs form in response to the state as a means of either protection from it, or to supply a repressed demand. Nothing I've said is untrue. This is why gangs have emerged. If you're worried about armed robberies or small time gangs popping up without a state, that's what the police agencies are for. Evading the discussion. Why do you insist on saying such things when this clearly isn't the entirety (or even the main point) of my rebuttal? I mean, I even opened that paragraph with "second of all" so there was obviously more to it. Sure, you can complain about anything you want, but this is just silly. =/ Which doesn't change the fact that you can buy favours from the leaders. What favours? The chiefs don't have a tax base, they have no market control... did you even read the information I sent you? Why am I even asking, given what you've said thus far it's clear you haven't... Just in case you didn't know (I can't imagine how you couldn't...) the state has made a habit of selling favours including (but not limited to) barriers to entry. We, as amongst the first to enter the industrial revolution, suffered through free market reform, child labour, pollution, and sweatshops. Modern developing nations can simply jump from farming to union-backed factories and stiff market control to prevent monopolies and buying of favours. That way they need not suffer our mistakes. It depends on what they want. The industrial revolution was better than what preceded it. Understand? Compared to our standards, it sucked. Then again compared to our standards every past society sucked. Sure, the industrial revolution had child labour, but what preceded it was child prostitution. Which do you find is worse? Modern developing nations have the same issue. They have sweatshops, and they pay poorly, but they still pay more than these children earned before the sweatshops being prostitutes. We can send aid to them, but a state is in no way necessary. You've just said it yourself, it depends on what they want. Please, for the love of science, watch this so you'll stop making arguments that are already debunked in the information I send you. http://www.youtube.com/ The idea of redistributing wealth is based on the fact that we all tend to have a surplus of money, and the cost while high is much less when split amongst a large population, so that effectively we all pay a small amount so that some can afford an expensive good. In this case housing, welfare, unemployment, etc. The behavior of a typical free market economy is to redistribute wealth to those area's of the economy that are considered the greatest need by the consumers. Ultimately the consumer decides where wealth, capital, and investment are directed. This is done via the pricing system. In this way wealth is typically directed away from the least productive ineffecient market actors to the most productive producers. This is all managed by the formation of meaningful prices. A centrally managed redistribution of wealth undermines the pricing system. This system moves money away from productive area's of the economy usually via taxation, and moves it to unproductive area's of the economy. In the long run this wastes natural resources driving up the cost of living for everyone. Consumers are no longer sovereign in deciding where capital, investment, and wealth should be placed. The government interference perverts the pricing mechanism and leaves government no clear direction on where the confiscated wealth should be directed. As a result their redistribution is often arbitrary. The government does not have the market tools capable of deciding which services are in demand, and which are not. By default all of their services are placed into artificial demand by compelling it's citizen's to participate. This basic economic error occurs because of the inability for the government to calculate, and the undermining of the pricing mechanism. A redistribution of wealth will always be a detriment to the economy as a whole. However it is important to point out that it harms the poor the most, as the cost of living rises under such conditions. The very people the welfare is meant to help, it usually harms. ... but you would have known all that if you had bothered to look into any of the information I've sent you. ;) I provided a link to freedomhouse and wikipedia. The conclusion is an obvious one. Sure, you sent a link that said Somalia had civil war. It gave no statistics comparing pre-collapse Somalia to post-collapse Somalia, though, so it meant nothing. And, according to you the civil war in Somalia has been going on for nearly three decades, which would make it unrelated to the collapse of the Somali government. Not that correlation equals causation, but causation requires correlation, which there isn't here. Ah, I remember this part, it's exclusion of relevant data so that you can keep your pet delusion. See, if we accepted that factions naturally develop in a power vacuum, then your delusion that anarchy can work would crumble because it would be apparent that anarchy leads to a state with violence in between. Solution? Call the factions mini-states, so you can ignore them. Creationists do this with transitional fossils by saying "Where is the missing link behind and in front of your fossil in the chain?" Exclusion of data? U.N. and Islamist states tried to take over Somalia after its central government failed. This is a fact. These new states all went to war with each other for power over Somalia. This is also a fact. I oppose government, so does it not follow that I oppose the governments trying to establish power via warfare? All these mini-states existed before the collapse, so it's not as though a new state emerged. But even if it did, it would only prove that the persons of Somalia believe they need a state, not that one is necessary for an economy. Since Somalia saw such economic growth without the central government, you're left with two options. Either civil war improves an economy or statelessness in general improves an economy. If you can't figure out which is the true reason, you have no business debating politics. So, you're left with a pretty tough problem. You have to explain how Somalia saw such economic growth after the fall of the government and despite the civil wars going on. Keep in mind, Somalia improved both in absolute AND relative terms. Also, your analogy once again makes no sense. I'm talking about a government collapsing and several government invaders warring with each other to establish a new central government. How is this in any way analogous to the missing link? There's no missing link here, everything is accounted for. You're just trying to connect what I'm saying to creationists because you're trying to connect what I'm saying to something stupid. You're banging your pots and pans together again. =/ Which doesn't matter if every three or four years a new faction forms and starts bombing your cities and shooting your civilians. Why are you even here when you clearly can't grasp such concepts? These factions warred with each other to establish control over the public. If Somalia saw this growth despite the constant murder of civilians at the hands of these governments, it means that the prosperity following the collapse of the central government was so great that it was able to absorb it and still grow despite the murders. Written language goes back for thousands of years, so do universities. None of them achieved what we did. I know, I know, it was all a massive, inter-era and inter-governmental conspiracy to keep people dumb. No, you don't know. Not at all. I'm sure in all your alleged debates with creationists you've seen several graphs showing the wealth/education/inventions throughout the ages up to the medieval era. This was a time of massive expansion in religion and state power and a time of massive suppression of civilian wealth, education, and invention/innovation. No surprise there. Six thousand-nine thousand years ago, the idea of markets was different and it couldn't have driven the breeding for better foods (at least directly) since there was no known outcome for selectively breeding grasses. They simply used a method that worked, and produced food. Your point? Is not trial and error how all innovation occurred during the antiquity of society? There was nothing else to go on. Besides, it's not as though there was no government six-nine thousand years ago. The methods produced then got us to where we are now, so what's the problem? Actually not. This what private property distinguishes. Don't misunderstand, I'm all for private property. Don't be naive. The state has the right to enter your home and take your belongings so long as it decides it has the right to. The only thing that protects you from the state is other persons. If the state is unable to convince other persons that it had the right to enter your property, it looses approval. Not that this particularly helps you since the government has gotten pretty good at propaganda and even if it were to fail it would take more than a little privacy infringement on you to create a notable backlash. The voluntary actions of the public is the driving force and indeed the only thing stable in the market. Government is the instability. No, it was caused by insider trading, collusion, etc. The New Deal tried to prevent this from happening again. Do you even try to self-debunk? Don't you ever go out of your way to see if there are any flaws in your own arguments? I mean, the debunking of everything you just wrote is barely a Google stones throw away. Here, I'll do it for you... Macroeconomic model builders have finally realized what Henry Hazlitt and John T. Flynn (among others) knew in the 1930s: FDR’s New Deal made the Great Depression longer and deeper. It is a myth that Franklin D. Roosevelt "got us out of the Depression" and "saved capitalism from itself," as generations of Americans have been taught by the state’s education establishment. This realization on the part of macroeconomists comes in the form of an article in the August 2004 Journal of Political Economy entitled "New Deal Policies and the Persistence of the Great Depression: A General Equilibrium Analysis," by UCLA economists Harold L. Cole and Lee E. Ohanian. This is a big deal, since the JPE is arguably the top academic economics journal in the world. "Real gross domestic product per adult, which was 39 percent below trend at the trough of the Depression in 1933, remained 27 percent below trend in 1939," the authors write. And, "Similarly, private hours worked were 27 percent below trend in 1933 and remained 21 percent below trend in 1939." This should be no surprise to anyone who has studied the reality of the Great Depression, for US Census Bureau statistics show that the official unemployment rate was still 17.2 percent in 1939 despite seven years of "economic salvation" at the hands of the Roosevelt administration (the normal, pre-Depression unemployment rate was about 3 percent). Per capita GDP was lower in 1939 than in 1929 ($847 vs. $857), as were personal consumption expenditures ($67.6 billion vs. $78.9 billion), according to Census Bureau data. Net private investment was minus $3.1 billion from 1930–1940. Cole and Ohanian write as though they were surprised—even shocked—to discover these facts, not so much because they were bamboozled by the Myth of the New Deal, but because of their devotion to "neoclassical model building" as opposed to the study of economic reality. They label as "striking" the fact that the recovery from the Great Depression was "very weak" (a dramatic understatement). And why is it so striking? Because "[t]hese data contrast sharply with neoclassical theory." http://mises.org/ Do yourself a favour and read the rest of it so you don't make any more arguments that are already debunked in the information I send you. Taxes provide income redistribution, which is designed to help us, it can however be hijacked by business interests. That is why we have oversight. However, it doesn't and I addressed this earlier... In this case, you think it is only a few greedy men (actually true because relative to the population the rich are a tiny minority) and therefore they cannot be much of a threat to the workers (ignoring that they command the majority of the country's wealth). So your sense of scale ignores that a few scrooges hoarding really means millions of men and women earning a combined minority of wealth. And what persons like you don't seem to understand is that without a monopoly on currency you aren't financially tethered to everyone else as you are with the state model. I'm sure you've heard that something like 90% of the world wealth is owned by 10% of the population? Now what sounds more likely to you? That a bunch of capitalists entered the market and through their brutal iron fist tactics, exploited the common man and made of with a fortune... somehow, OR that a bunch of capitalists worked in collusion with the politicians to ensure their corporations had advantages on the market through state controls (i.e. regulation) and barriers to entry so that they could amass a fortune despite not actually producing a better product than their competition? That... was one hell of a sentence. What does wealth do? It buys power. So by letting those scrooges hoard, you allow them to buy taxes and barriers to entry, and so we see the corruption of the spirit of the tax system thanks to your blind faith in a simple solution to a complex problem. ... Did you forget that there is no tax or barriers to entry in a stateless society? Having no state to appeal to really makes appealing to the state a difficult task. ;) In case you're not aware, private property combined makes up common land. The model still holds true, therefore. No, common land is not the combination of private property because by definition private property is not combined. It's privatized. Look up the definition of commons you fool. It's clear you didn't read the article I linked you as it dealt with exactly what you're saying and I'm getting sick of reading all your claptrap sources when you clearly do not do the same or even attempt to self-debunk. Side: Much, much better...
You'll also notice that the only time I said that your examples were not examples of stateless societies were because they actually weren't stateless societies... It doesn't get much more simple than that. This reminds me of arguments with creationists over abiogenesis and the Miller–Urey experiment. They deny the Miller–Urey experiment on the grounds that it didn't produce a bacterial cell. In other words, like creationists, you discount portions of evidence that fit a free market/stateless region and regulated market/state equally because it works against your conclusion and so you demand unreasonable criteria for evidence to qualify. "Taxes are theft" = "there are no transition fossils"? "that's not a true free market" = "random chance"? All you're doing is taking what I've said and trying to connect it to YE creationism in order to connect it to something stupid. The problem is you're connecting the positive assertion of creationism with the negative assertion of stateLESSness. Did you know that Young Earth Creationism isn't a religion, because it's a personal relationship with Jesus Christ? Ponder that for a moment and then think about your assertion that statelessness makes the claims of taxes being theft, that free markets work, that anarchy works, etc. all based upon negatives. Since you're a bit slow, I'll explain the analogy for you: "There are no transitional fossils" is a lot like the claim that under free markets there are no monopolies. In the first statement, whenever you present a transitional fossil the goalpost is moved so that you are expected to provide an additional forward and backwards transitional form. To libertarians, no matter what example of a free market monopoly you provide, they simply assert that the state made it that way (when the state made it that way after it became a big corporation), or that barriers to entry made it that way (when those barriers came to exist after the monopoly), or that the powers that the company corrupted were states anyway (when they were merely authorities that could be corrupted regardless of the status of state). "Random chance" is a mischaracterisation that is a lot like the mischaracterisation of socialism as communism, or regulations as socialism. Any kind of regulation becomes "socialism!" just like all creationists hear in evolution is "random chance!" "Market solves X" is a lot like "goddidit." It is simply a blanket statement with no depth. Have an ethical problem? Market solves it (with no depth of explanation to how a market that favours money can adequately pressure individuals to behave with a desirable ethos when that ethos isn't profitable or related to money). Example: Market solves child labour. It actually does solve it, the solution is that children as young as three years old work to sustain their families for sixteen hours a day in boring, menial, but dangerous jobs where their exhaustion causes them to die or lose limbs frequently. That was the market solution to an ethical problem. Kinda like "goddidit" to the Great Flood. "That is no free market" is a lot like "creatures don't evolve into different kinds." When you find a free market, the libertarian will say "but see it wasn't free enough because of obscure regulation number 5-804c" despite the important consideration that it was, whatever you wish to call it, severely unregulated compared to today's western market. Creationists do this with an example of evolution. You show them an evolved bacteria (example nylon-eating bacteria, or the citrate-eating E. coli) and what do they say? "It's still a bacteria, not a dog." "Taxes are theft" is a lot like "god exists!" No matter how you demonstrate through metaphor or text-book definition what theft is, what taxes are, the libertarian will still call it theft because it ultimately feels unfair. That's all it is about, just like "god exists!" because of an emotional need, taxes must be theft because they feel so wrong. Anarchic Ireland. There was feuding, but since there were no kings or any geographic political bodies or taxes the chieftains weren't able to conscript vast numbers of men to fight for him. So quarrelers typically fought out there quarrels amongst themselves via fist-fighting. Items of note: The law texts show Gaelic society to have been hierarchical. The texts take great care to define social status, the rights and duties that went with that status, and the relationships between each "layer" of society. For example, chieftains had to take responsibility for members of their clann, acting as a surety for some of the actions of members and making sure debts were paid. He would also be responsible for unmarried women after the death of their fathers.[5] A hierarchy. Just as I predicted must arise from anarchy. Gaelic society was by all standards a warlike one, where clanns competed for dominance of their perspective territories and kingdoms and warfare was endemic and brutal. Young males were indoctrinated and trained into clann warfare from the youngest ages, sometimes starting at 7 or 10 years of age. They typically were trained by their foster-parents as fosterage was by far the most common form of apprenticeship in Gaelic Ireland and Scotland. As shown by contemporary sources and Irish literature, clann warfare was commonplace in Gaelic lands. Young Gaelic males organised themselves into small, semi-independent warrior bands known as Fianna (singular: fiann), which engaged in constant training, hunting and raiding during the warmer months. Stories of the Fianna can be found in the Fenian Cycle of Irish mythology. These "fianna" groups often lived in the forests and wilderness areas while seeking to obtain wealth and resources through raiding, rapine and mercenary activity until they could join a tribal chief's retinue, marry women, have offspring and become independent boaire (cattle lords) to support a family. I want to live there. Well then again, I have a criminal mind... a life of theft might work for me. This as opposed to the rest of Europe at the time (~650 CE to ~1650 CE) of which had constant monolithic wars and also, a central government. shock! So, a choice between a life of stealing from other tribes and ultimately rearing cattle, or fighting in wars to support the local king. Which one has the libraries, science, academies and universities? Also, I'm not saying war is better than no war. That's not the point of what I'm saying. I'm saying no state is better than a state, with having several small states somewhere in between total state and no state. What you're really saying is that present anarchy is better than living in a repressive state on the verge of anarchy. A stable state (I.E. one not ravaged by civil war, totalitarianism, excessive poverty) will outcompete Somalia. Yet another straw-man, yawn. I've mentioned my opposition to fiat land claims as well at least a dozen times already. I've cited examples of what I mean by anarchy as well as defined how I use the word for you. If you're definition of "state" includes "non-state"... I guess that's really the only way for what you're saying to make sense... I think I'll just ask someone who knows what you hate about government: There's a difference between voluntarily paying for a service and having your money coercively extracted so you and everyone in the country can fight over what it will be spent on. Paying for rent of land apparently isn't a service to you... ... Ah, how silly of me. Opting out of government services is so simple, all you have to do is live a life of poverty and homelessness. =/ Oh wait, that doesn't work either since all (or most, depending on which country you live) goods and services are taxed anyway... Presumably because they demand money for services... Mafia and gangs are just small governments. I'm opposed to governments. There's no contradiction. Are you in support of gangs and mafias? ;) A town existing on state land, using state military to protect its sovereignty is apparently not expected to pay... The "like it or leave it" argument works with a stateless society, but not with a state run society. If a bunch of persons decided to leave the states rule and start up there own little town and started to become prosperous, the state would eventually intervene and force their "services" on them. This is because the state has a fiat land claim. It "owns" every square inch of land from ocean to ocean (In the case of the U.S./ Canada etc.). So there you have it. Anti-tax is your credo. Anti-tax is what defines your cut-line. If something taxes it is a state, no matter how blunt of a definition that may be. Again, Somalia wasn't stateless for three decades, so this civil war you're talking about is unrelated. Besides, Somalia improved not only in absolute terms, but also relative to Ethiopia and Kenya. Oops. Ethiopia and Kenya: Some of the poorest and most corrupt nations on earth. If you had faith in lack of state, I'd expect you to compare Somalia to a free state that isn't ravaged by poverty. I mean, it barely takes 30 seconds on a Google search to know that Somalia wasn't an anarchy for even two decades. And if there is still civil war now despite the fact that Somalia now has a central government, it only proves my point that these wars were a state failure, not a market failure. I said civil war for almost three decades which is true, there was something of a civil war before the state collapsed. What, you think all was good, then one day the state topples and anarchy takes over as a better system? The state brings "stability", but only once it has amassed it's coercive monopolies through decades of war and murder. Oh yeah, that sounds real swell, avesk. XD Whatever you want to call it, you're living in it now and need not fear death squads storming into your house and killing you with a machete, or a new gang taking threatening to take control of half your country while demanding new laws, like no religion but Islam is permissible. This is called compromise. I don't know if you've been to Japan, but their culture is about as opposite to ours as a culture can be. They dropped imperialism, and emperors. What favours? The chiefs don't have a tax base, they have no market control... did you even read the information I sent you? Why am I even asking, given what you've said thus far it's clear you haven't... Chieftains have political power. They can make laws, or edicts, or agreements with other Chieftains for special territorial privilege. Maybe by providing a special luxury to the chieftain you will be allowed to open booths in the village sacred site, or will be allowed to mine in the nature reserve. The industrial revolution was better than what preceded it. Understand? Compared to our standards, it sucked. Then again compared to our standards every past society sucked. Sure, the industrial revolution had child labour, but what preceded it was child prostitution. Which do you find is worse? Before the Industrial Revolution small industry existed, as well as agriculture. The small industry was usually based on family-run businesses and apprenticeships. The conditions were certainly not as good as what we have now, but you could make a living without having to work 16 hours a day, partly because if you worked in these small businesses, you were paid a little more since the cost of goods was a little higher. When factories opened up, cheaper goods were made available, which out-performed most of these small businesses in quantity, and the goods were often of inferiour quality (at least in the beginning, ever heard of cutups?). Suddenly you had to leave your small business and enter a factory which paid less, had longer hours, and had minimal safety (because the interest was in mass production, not safety). That's only part of it, you see the period also saw a rise of immigration to cities which were not prepared, so buildings were thrown together, overcrowding occurred, and the water sources were tainted with sewage, effluence, and waste from factories. Care to guess how that affected the working class who couldn't afford to import water? They got really sick, and most drank spirits as their "water" because it was cheap. Infant mortality was really high, and children died all the time from malnutrition (brought on by poor wages), and dangerous working conditions. Children were beaten for being tardy to work, or made to wear weights around their neck. They might also be docked some pay. They operated machinery that had no shields for the dangerous parts, and were expected to run under operating machines to collect scraps. Just dosing off from exhaustion might cause them to get caught in a mechanism and killed or maimed. Then there were the noxious compounds they worked with, like phosphorous (ever heard of phossy jaw?). The average life expectancy, I read, for factory owners was in the mid-fourties. For workers, the mid-twenties. Basically... and I hate to be crude... if the choice is between dying of syphilis or getting maimed or pureed in a machine, I'd rather sleep with older men in my childhood years. Besides the fact that childhood labour did exist in the pre-industrial era, but wasn't as hard on the child. I would like to think that you're a decent guy, just an extreme idealist, so when you defend the Industrial Revolution, I have to guess that you never really looked into it very deeply and just let a libertarian article sum it up for you. Please read the testimony of doctors and witnesses of child labour (to say nothing of adult labour, let's not forget their troubles!). http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ Modern developing nations have the same issue. They have sweatshops, and they pay poorly, but they still pay more than these children earned before the sweatshops being prostitutes. I advise you to read deeper about what sweatshops are like, I provided some historical links. Please read them, and also about modern sweatshops. They are terrible places and should not be called progress when, with some charity, proper working hours, safe facilities, and decent pay are all within reach. Please, for the love of science, watch this so you'll stop making arguments that are already debunked in the information I send you. I've already seen this kind of stuff before and it really means nothing to me, because the heart of his argument is a false dichotomy between being pulled into a machine and crushed into salsa, or dying from your jaw deteriorating due to phosphorous (both common occurrences, and among many fates) versus thieving or being a prostitute. The third path would be a regulated factory system, with strictly enforced safety, wage, and work hour guidelines. Sure, it might be less profitable, but I imagine that the fate of so many children is more important than the bottom line of factory owners. The behavior of a typical free market economy is to redistribute wealth to those area's of the economy that are considered the greatest need by the consumers. Ultimately the consumer decides where wealth, capital, and investment are directed. ... This is all managed by the formation of meaningful prices. Right, but as we all know, the price of something doesn't always reflect the cost to society, or the environment. A centrally managed redistribution of wealth undermines the pricing system. This system moves money away from productive area's of the economy usually via taxation, and moves it to unproductive area's of the economy. In the long run this wastes natural resources driving up the cost of living for everyone. Consumers are no longer sovereign in deciding where capital, investment, and wealth should be placed. Again: price doesn't necessarily reflect cost. In the case of 19th century England, the price of a cotton shirt did not reflect the cost in dead children, diseased workers, and dumped waste. Because of these simple facts you cannot expect a market to care about ethical or social issues. This basic economic error occurs because of the inability for the government to calculate, and the undermining of the pricing mechanism. A redistribution of wealth will always be a detriment to the economy as a whole. However it is important to point out that it harms the poor the most, as the cost of living rises under such conditions. The very people the welfare is meant to help, it usually harms. Quick question: are you drinking water that has effluence, sewage, and industrial waste in it? Are our poor routinely drinking from it? Are our houses so close together that you must resort to crawlspaces between them? Is food a commodity that once you run out of money, you starve to death? Does medicine exist for the poor? Remember that in the Industrial Revolution in England, these were all common problems that we entirely forgot about now. However inefficient our government programs are, they seem to work and the question is really about improving them, since eliminating them leads to something very bad that we once lived through. All these mini-states existed before the collapse, so it's not as though a new state emerged. But even if it did, it would only prove that the persons of Somalia believe they need a state, not that one is necessary for an economy. Since Somalia saw such economic growth without the central government, you're left with two options. Either civil war improves an economy or statelessness in general improves an economy. Actually neither. The economy was improved by the elimination of a corrupt state. Kind of like how if North Korea collapsed, even free-market capitalism would improve the situation better than totalitarianism. This is more a point about something being so bad that even an unregulated market is better. Also, your analogy once again makes no sense. I'm talking about a government collapsing and several government invaders warring with each other to establish a new central government. How is this in any way analogous to the missing link? There's no missing link here, everything is accounted for. Just as creationists exclude scientific data, like transitional fossils, from their viewpoint you exclude all recorded governments and stateless regions in order to compare them side by side, and then you insist that one stateless area is representative of statelessness in general. Why are you even here when you clearly can't grasp such concepts? These factions warred with each other to establish control over the public. If Somalia saw this growth despite the constant murder of civilians at the hands of these governments, it means that the prosperity following the collapse of the central government was so great that it was able to absorb it and still grow despite the murders. Now, let's try taking the spin out of what you said: Somalia experienced growth in the face of civil war. Civil war is costly and depletes resources. Therefore if the civil war ended the growth would be higher. What can end a civil war? A state. What did not? Stateless Xeer. No, you don't know. Not at all. I'm sure in all your alleged debates with creationists you've seen several graphs showing the wealth/education/inventions throughout the ages up to the medieval era. This was a time of massive expansion in religion and state power and a time of massive suppression of civilian wealth, education, and invention/innovation. No surprise there. Back in the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman eras there isn't indication that literacy was ever as high as it is now. Do you even try to self-debunk? Don't you ever go out of your way to see if there are any flaws in your own arguments? I mean, the debunking of everything you just wrote is barely a Google stones throw away. Here, I'll do it for you... Also, note what I said: The New Deal attempted to prevent another Great Depression. That a bunch of capitalists entered the market and through their brutal iron fist tactics, exploited the common man and made of with a fortune... somehow, OR that a bunch of capitalists worked in collusion with the politicians to ensure their corporations had advantages on the market through state controls (i.e. regulation) and barriers to entry so that they could amass a fortune despite not actually producing a better product than their competition? Both actually. More exactly, the first then the second occurred, since you need money to buy political favours. Kind of like, you need to be athletic before you take steroids otherwise they don't work as good, so once you're near the top you take them to really excel beyond everyone. Soon everyone uses them to just be able to compete since the bar has raised so high. No, common land is not the combination of private property because by definition private property is not combined. It's privatized. Look up the definition of commons you fool. As a rational being, each herdsman seeks to maximize his gain. Explicitly or implicitly, more or less consciously, he asks, "What is the utility to me of adding one more animal to my herd?" This utility has one negative and one positive component. 1) The positive component is a function of the increment of one animal. Since the herdsman receives all the proceeds from the sale of the additional animal, the positive utility is nearly +1. 2) The negative component is a function of the additional overgrazing created by one more animal. Since, however, the effects of overgrazing are shared by all the herdsmen, the negative utility for any particular decision-making herdsman is only a fraction of -1. Adding together the component partial utilities, the rational herdsman concludes that the only sensible course for him to pursue is to add another animal to his herd. And another; and another. . . . But this is the conclusion reached by each and every rational herdsman sharing a commons. Therein is the tragedy. Each man is locked into a system that compels him to increase his herd without limit--in a world that is limited. Ruin is the destination toward which all men rush, each pursuing his own best interest in a society that believes in the freedom of the commons. Freedom in a commons brings ruin to all. Overgrazing in this example happens regardless of whether it is private or public land, the reason is that even if we respect boundaries the herdsmen will add to their flock to maximise productivity until each land plot becomes overgrased. Side: Much, much worse...
is reminds me of arguments with creationists over abiogenesis and the Miller–Urey experiment. They deny the Miller–Urey experiment on the grounds that it didn't produce a bacterial cell. In other words, like creationists, you discount portions of evidence that fit a free market/stateless region and regulated market/state equally because it works against your conclusion and so you demand unreasonable criteria for evidence to qualify. Ah, I just know I'm in for a real treat when you open your argument with reference to your prior debates with Christians... States and anarchies are comparable in a way, but not in the way you seem to think they are. My criteria for evidence is relevance. It doesn't even have to be catalytic, so long as it's relevant I'll look into it. So far, all your arguments have been either irrelevant, non-cognitive and/or non catalytic. You can't know how a country would behave without a state relative to its statist self. You'd have to look at it's non-statist counter parts and consider the variables. "There are no transitional fossils" is a lot like the claim that under free markets there are no monopolies. The difference is, this is true. (non-state) Monopolies are rare enough with a state and without one they're almost impossible and unsustainable even when they do happen. The goal post hasn't been moved. I've been saying since my first post that monopolies don't happen on a free market and even on a non-free market, (non-state) monopolies are unsustainable. Reading the rest of this, you're making several new points as though you've proven them before or something. You haven't shown me monopolies forming on free-enterprise... you've yet to debunked my claim that monopolies (oligopolies) are much more plausible with barriers to entry... you haven't even said anything akin to "those barriers came to exist after the monopoly"... you seem to think showing how the market naturally balances itself out via the pricing system (supply and demand) is analogous to "god did it" (somehow). There's just far too many logical errors in these six paragraphs to go over point by point. I hope you've concentrated all your fail into these few paragraphs and that the rest of your post is fallacy-free... A hierarchy. Just as I predicted must arise from anarchy. A shit... well you beat me. I never looked at it that way... oh wait, yes I did and in fact explained to you several times already that hierarchy =/= a state. A company has a hierarchy. Are companies states too? I want to live there. Well then again, I have a criminal mind... a life of theft might work for me. So the Irish were insane by our contemporary standards. So? The rest of Europe was crazier still. Compared to the rest of Europe, Ireland had relatively few wars that lasted much less time. Hell, most of the warring in anarchic Ireland was against England. The persons of the time were crazy all around, the difference is a state allowed kings both a near infinite money supply (tax base) and near infinite man power to fight in their wars (conscription). Ireland had no states, thus had no tax base or conscription, thus rendering large-scale European style wars unprofitable and inefficient. So, a choice between a life of stealing from other tribes and ultimately rearing cattle, or fighting in wars to support the local king. Which one has the libraries, science, academies and universities? ... You want to site education standards in Europe between ~650 CE to ~1650 CE as proof we need a state? Now I KNOW you have no leg left to stand on in this debate if this is all you have to argue with. XD I don't know if you've ever cracked open a history book, but Europe in the middle ages wasn't exactly pro-academia. In fact, basic understanding of literacy and math was something heavily suppressed in this time. Now, there were no IQ tests back then, so I can't tell you that the Irish were definitively more intelligent than the rest of Europe, but given the choice between, say, England ~1000 CE and Ireland ~1000 CE, I'd opt for Ireland because at the very least in Ireland I wouldn't have my hands scorched via ordeal by fire for simply being accused of the "crime" of coveting a neighbors property, or something stupid like that. What you're really saying is that present anarchy is better than living in a repressive state on the verge of anarchy. A stable state (I.E. one not ravaged by civil war, totalitarianism, excessive poverty) will outcompete Somalia. In absolute terms, Somalia shows that a society that's been 50% capitalistic for a hundred years or so will out-preform a country that's 100% capitalistic for 10 years, especially if that country undergoes constant invasion from other states during this time. In relative terms, Somalia shows that a nation sees improvement once taxes and fiat land claims are abolished even if that country continues to see civil war after the collapse. I think I'll just ask someone who knows what you hate about government: There's a difference between voluntarily paying for a service and having your money coercively extracted so you and everyone in the country can fight over what it will be spent on. ... Is this supposed to prove that I haven't spoken out against the state's fiat land claim? This quote is obviously in reference to taxation, but you'd be a fool to make the claim that I haven't clearly expressed my lack of approval for both taxation and fiat land claims. Ive mentioned them together so many times already, I'm sure I could pull up just as many examples of me using them together as you can of me using them separately. Not that it would matter though, as mentioning it once is enough to get the message across that I oppose both, but whatever. =/ Paying for rent of land apparently isn't a service to you... Rent is a voluntary agreement, taxation is a coercive debt imposed onto you because you were born. The analogy fails. ... Ah, how silly of me. Opting out of government services is so simple, all you have to do is live a life of poverty and homelessness. =/ Oh wait, that doesn't work either since all (or most, depending on which country you live) goods and services are taxed anyway... Presumably because they demand money for services... I'm not advocating free services. I'm advocating that these services are more efficient when left to the market. Which they are. Mafia and gangs are just small governments. I'm opposed to governments. There's no contradiction. Are you in support of gangs and mafias? ;) A town existing on state land, using state military to protect its sovereignty is apparently not expected to pay... Again, it's a question of voluntarism and efficiency, not free services. The "like it or leave it" argument works with a stateless society, but not with a state run society. If a bunch of persons decided to leave the states rule and start up there own little town and started to become prosperous, the state would eventually intervene and force their "services" on them. This is because the state has a fiat land claim. It "owns" every square inch of land from ocean to ocean (In the case of the U.S./ Canada etc.). So there you have it. Anti-tax is your credo. Anti-tax is what defines your cut-line. If something taxes it is a state, no matter how blunt of a definition that may be. ... facepalm The quote you're responding to is very clearly talking about fiat land-claims. It actually has the words "fiat land claim" directly in it. Again, Somalia wasn't stateless for three decades, so this civil war you're talking about is unrelated. Besides, Somalia improved not only in absolute terms, but also relative to Ethiopia and Kenya. Oops. Ethiopia and Kenya: Some of the poorest and most corrupt nations on earth. If you had faith in lack of state, I'd expect you to compare Somalia to a free state that isn't ravaged by poverty. What the hell are you talking about? There is no better comparison than the countries directly bordering Somalia. All three were poor, Somalia's state collapsed and it saw improvements that weren't seen in Ethiopia or Kenya despite all three starting at roughly the same point and despite there geographical similarities. It's almost as though at this point you were willing to say anything to just be able to pump out another post. =/ I said civil war for almost three decades which is true, there was something of a civil war before the state collapsed. What, you think all was good, then one day the state topples and anarchy takes over as a better system? Wha? Even within the context of your own sentence, what you've just said makes no sense. I said that if there was an ongoing civil war that began before the fall of the Barre regime, then the civil war that existed during the time that Somalia was stateless is not the result of it being stateless, therefore rendering your previous argument that anarchic Somalia sucked because it had civil war apocryphal. Whatever you want to call it, you're living in it now and need not fear death squads storming into your house and killing you with a machete Unless I happen to own the wrong kind of vegetation and try to defend my property, or something trivial like that, of course... or a new gang taking threatening to take control of half your country while demanding new laws, like no religion but Islam is permissible. This is called compromise. This as opposed to the state already controlling the entire country while demanding new laws? Like, no non-government form of currency is permissible?... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ They dropped imperialism, and emperors. Ah, I see. We need government so it can nuke less advanced countries and force democracy on them. I suppose that justifies the state. This still is in no way an example of a state successfully imposing itself on a country of anti-statists. Chieftains have political power. They can make laws, or edicts, or agreements with other Chieftains for special territorial privilege. Maybe by providing a special luxury to the chieftain you will be allowed to open booths in the village sacred site, or will be allowed to mine in the nature reserve. Seeing as you're so ardent in not looking into this, I'll just tell you what the chieftains of anarchic were responsible for. The chieftain of an Irish Tuatha was only responsible for presiding over the annual assembly, to serve as high priest and to lead the Tuatha in war (which was very rare in ancient Ireland). These chieftains had no power over the market, no ability to enact barriers to entry, no ability to subsidize or monopolize, no ability to conscript and no ability to coerce taxation. You could pay a chieftain for market advantages in the same way you can pay a tree to produce more wood... Ponits and links on the industiral revolution (I had to summarize you argument because I surpassed the charactar limit) These persons continued working for the large factories, didn't they? So at least they found it better than working for their families. Also, for the cost of goods to be high would mean the supply is low. If the supply is low, less persons are employable. So, perhaps the workers got paid a little more relatively speaking, but there was also more relative poverty because of this. The standard of living of the factory workers was shockingly bad when compared with the contemporary conditions of the upper classes and with the present conditions of the industrial masses. Hours of work were long, the sanitary conditions in the workshops deplorable. But the fact remains that for the surplus population which the enclosure movement had reduced to dire wretchedness and for which there was literally no room left in the frame of the prevailing system of production, work in the factories was salvation. These people thronged into the plants for no reason other than the urge to improve their standard of living. The processing trades of earlier ages had almost exclusively catered to the wants of the well-to-do. Their expansion was limited by the amount of luxuries the wealthier strata of the population could afford. Factory production, on the other hand, was geared toward the mass production of inexpensive goods for the common man. This represents an extraordinary step forward in everyone’s standard of living. The truth is that economic conditions were highly unsatisfactory on the eve of the Industrial Revolution. The traditional social system was not elastic enough to provide for the needs of a rapidly increasing population. Neither farming nor the guilds had any use for the additional hands. Business was imbued with the inherited spirit of privilege and exclusive monopoly; its institutional foundations were licenses and the grant of a patent of monopoly; its philosophy was restriction and the prohibition of competition both domestic and foreign. The number of people for whom there was no room left in the rigid system of paternalism and government tutelage of business grew rapidly. They were virtually outcasts. The apathetic majority of these wretched people lived from the crumbs that fell from the tables of the established castes. In the harvest season they earned a trifle by occasional help on farms; for the rest they depended upon private charity and communal poor relief. Thousands of the most vigorous youths of these strata were pressed into the service of the Royal Army and Navy; many of them were killed or maimed in action; many more perished ingloriously from the hardships of the barbarous discipline, from tropical diseases, or from syphilis. Other thousands, the boldest and most ruthless of their class, infested the country as vagabonds, beggars, tramps, robbers, and prostitutes. The authorities did not know of any means to cope with these individuals other than the poorhouse and the workhouse. The support the government gave to the popular resentment against the introduction of new inventions and labor-saving devices made things quite hopeless. http://www.youtube.com/ I advise you to read deeper about what sweatshops are like, I provided some historical links. Please read them, and also about modern sweatshops. They are terrible places and should not be called progress when, with some charity, proper working hours, safe facilities, and decent pay are all within reach. I agree that these things are in reach, but not with or because of the state. Sweat shops still exist now despite the state (in the third world) after all. I've already seen this kind of stuff before and it really means nothing to me, because the heart of his argument is a false dichotomy between being pulled into a machine and crushed into salsa, or dying from your jaw deteriorating due to phosphorous (both common occurrences, and among many fates) versus thieving or being a prostitute. The third path would be a regulated factory system, with strictly enforced safety, wage, and work hour guidelines. Sure, it might be less profitable, but I imagine that the fate of so many children is more important than the bottom line of factory owners. Happy workers tend to be more productive, so the capitalist has incentive to supply the aggregate demand for working condition standards. I completely agree that regulation stops much potential worker exploitation, but it's simply asinine to claim that this sort of regulation can only come from a firm equip with a fiat land claim and several coercive monopolies on various services. Especially when there is already monetary incentive for capitalists to offer good working conditions. Right, but as we all know, the price of something doesn't always reflect the cost to society, or the environment. Opportunity cost is also considered in the market. Ultimately, how the market shapes itself is decided on market demand. If the demand values a clean environment, then the market will resemble this demand unless there are forces antagonist to market demand that have incentive to be as such. For a capitalist, knuckling under to market demand is the most profitable track as it is the path of least resistance. Cartels such as the state, however, have both the incentive and ability to go against the market demand as they both monopolize force and education. Perhaps this sort of cartel is justifiable if the market demand is for the castration of all Mexicans, or something crazy like that, but historically it's been these cartels themselves that have propagated such insanity. I understand that the market is full of quasi-conscious neanderthals that demand insane things, even if still to a much lesser extent than total Mexican emasculation. This is why I say the stepping stone to anarchy will be meritocracy. Again: price doesn't necessarily reflect cost. In the case of 19th century England, the price of a cotton shirt did not reflect the cost in dead children, diseased workers, and dumped waste. Because of these simple facts you cannot expect a market to care about ethical or social issues. This is an argument from your personal preferences. You value the well-being of workers above market efficiency. That's fine, but understand this are your preferences and it's unreasonable and egotistical for you to violently force the world to conform to you. Having said that, the market has means of inspiring congenial working conditions without the state's extortion racket. Firstly, providing market demand is the path of least resistance therefore the most profitable. Secondly, the formation of unions has made state interference obsolete. If "union busting" becomes a serious problem, then anti-union busting becomes market demand. I won't pretend to know what supply will arise from this demand, but from what I can see the most obvious solution would be paid union protection (PUP, as it will be called ^-^). Actually neither. The economy was improved by the elimination of a corrupt state. Kind of like how if North Korea collapsed, even free-market capitalism would improve the situation better than totalitarianism. This is more a point about something being so bad that even an unregulated market is better. Wrong. The U.S. is prosperous to the extent that it is free enterprise. This is why state-run services like the post office suck, while FedEx doesn't. Just as creationists exclude scientific data, like transitional fossils, from their viewpoint you exclude all recorded governments and stateless regions in order to compare them side by side, and then you insist that one stateless area is representative of statelessness in general. Wrong again. I stand behind Anarchic Ireland because it is the best example of statelessness. No state formed to begin with, so there was no fumbling around to create an economy of scale after some government topple. As a result, it had (profusely) less war, less religion and lasted a millennium (!) all without taxation or fiat land claims. This isn't a question of aggregates and averages, but of recognizing the repercussions of statist societies vs. statelessness. In this case, Anarchic Ireland best represents statelessness and as a result, etc. etc. etc. Now, let's try taking the spin out of what you said: Somalia experienced growth in the face of civil war. Civil war is costly and depletes resources. Therefore if the civil war ended the growth would be higher. What can end a civil war? A state. What did not? Stateless Xeer. What you're saying is mere conjecture in the face of what actually happened. These factions didn't get their money from the Somali's themselves as a central government would have, so their ability to war wasn't directly tied to the income of the Somali's. Which means you're very wrong in assuming that a state would have allowed Somalia even greater economic growth both theoretically and factually as the actual events of Somalia's economic growth has shown. Back in the Greek, Egyptian, and Roman eras there isn't indication that literacy was ever as high as it is now. There isn't indication that it wasn't (though, it probably wasn't). My point is that the heavily statist middle ages came hand in hand with the single worst era of education and wealth suppression in European history. And, it wasn't until the abolishment of such heavy statism that these demands began to see a supply. Though, I know you'll just say that this is the fault of poor government, not government. Fine. A government that doesn't directly control class and occupation our-preforms one that does, then again a government that doesn't even subsidize the market out-preforms one that does. I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this and the end result depends on how you define government. So, how would you define government, avesk? (in your own words, of course.) Also, note what I said: The New Deal attempted to prevent another Great Depression. So? Both actually. More exactly, the first then the second occurred, since you need money to buy political favours. Kind of like, you need to be athletic before you take steroids otherwise they don't work as good, so once you're near the top you take them to really excel beyond everyone. Soon everyone uses them to just be able to compete since the bar has raised so high. Yeah, it's a real shame that scrawny young men use steroids (usually necessarily) to get "swole" while already "swole" young men are using them just to push past their genetic potential... but that's neither here nor there. It's only cost effective to exploit the working class so long as you can subdue your companies market elasticity via state favours to suppress competition. In order to get to the point where your company is profitable enough to buy state favours is to first supply market demand. This includes the demand for fair working conditions. (quote from article) Overgrazing in this example happens regardless of whether it is private or public land, the reason is that even if we respect boundaries the herdsmen will add to their flock to maximise productivity until each land plot becomes overgrased. Wtf? Are actually arguing that herdsmen will voluntarily buy more animals than they can upkeep in order to stay competitive on the market? That's like saying a company will purposefully undercut their products prices to sub-profitable rates just to remain competitive on the market (predatory pricing). If the property remains sovereign rather than collective, then there is no problem. Even if the property is contiguous, so long as they are separate, tragedy of the commons becomes, at best, tragedy of one guy too stupid to realize he's sacrificed productivity to remain competitive... which ended his ability to remain competitive anyway. Sure, the state does a great job of propping up guys like this. Come to think of it, that's probably why the state sucks so much. ;) Side: Much, much better...
You can't know how a country would behave without a state relative to its statist self. You'd have to look at it's non-statist counter parts and consider the variables. Of course you can know. Find two identical market niches, one regulated and one unregulated. Compare them while removing irrelevant consequences due to unique situations. Example: Intellectual Property in the USA and China. In the USA tight regulations has created all sorts of device incompatibility problems, has stifled the creation of cheaper lookalike/reproductions of expensive labels, and has resulted in expensive goods. In China it is almost the opposite: built-in decryption and/or lack of respect for patents means much more compatibility, reproductions are everywhere, and digital content is cheaper because DVDs are pirated which means they sell closer to production cost. Now adjust for censorship imposed by China and we see overall much more freedom when a big business is disallowed to affect laws. The difference is, this is true. (non-state) Monopolies are rare enough with a state and without one they're almost impossible and unsustainable even when they do happen. Standard Oil. Now watch as you ignore it, like how a creationist ignores a transitional fossil. Then you'll just keep repeating the rhetoric "monopolies don't happen on a free market." I suppose in your mind, monopolies cannot happen on a free market, so when they do happen, it's the fault of the evidence. A shit... well you beat me. I never looked at it that way... oh wait, yes I did and in fact explained to you several times already that hierarchy =/= a state. A company has a hierarchy. Are companies states too? Hierarchies emerge into states because states are another tier of management. So the Irish were insane by our contemporary standards. So? The rest of Europe was crazier still. Compared to the rest of Europe, Ireland had relatively few wars that lasted much less time. Hell, most of the warring in anarchic Ireland was against England. Wars were frequently due to in-fighting as it was expected for young men to pillage. I don't know if you've ever cracked open a history book, but Europe in the middle ages wasn't exactly pro-academia. Actually, between 800AD and about 1400AD the Islamic world was nearing and fading from the height of scientific knowledge. In Europe between 1400AD and 1650AD was a period of great minds. Definitely better than subsisting on war and skirmishes. but given the choice between, say, England ~1000 CE and Ireland ~1000 CE, I'd opt for Ireland because at the very least in Ireland I wouldn't have my hands scorched via ordeal by fire for simply being accused of the "crime" of coveting a neighbors property, or something stupid like that. No, you'd be a bothach or mug, toiling away for some landowner. You could of course join a band of fighters and try to raise your status, however... if you're not afraid of cutting into people or being cut yourself. In relative terms, Somalia shows that a nation sees improvement once taxes and fiat land claims are abolished even if that country continues to see civil war after the collapse. You cannot make those claims. You're just guessing that taxes and state are requisite, when all that was shown is that a repressive state ended. Why aren't you arguing for Xeer or Sharia? Those actually had a respectable impact on recent Somalia. What the hell are you talking about? There is no better comparison than the countries directly bordering Somalia. All three were poor, Somalia's state collapsed and it saw improvements that weren't seen in Ethiopia or Kenya despite all three starting at roughly the same point and despite there geographical similarities. You're comparing a collapsed state to two horrendously corrupt and poor states, and then propose that because the stateless one does better, this proves that states handicap development. Try comparing to a state that isn't handicapped. This reminds me of homeopathy, which does nothing, but it was lauded as successful because other "cures" from the time like bloodletting were actually harmful. Anarchy probably did little more than remove the stifling government that was there at the time, and we should be more interested in the Xeer. I said that if there was an ongoing civil war that began before the fall of the Barre regime, then the civil war that existed during the time that Somalia was stateless is not the result of it being stateless, therefore rendering your previous argument that anarchic Somalia sucked because it had civil war apocryphal. You never heard of ongoing civil war by newly developed factions? Unless I happen to own the wrong kind of vegetation and try to defend my property, or something trivial like that, of course... Not a death squad. This as opposed to the state already controlling the entire country while demanding new laws? Like, no non-government form of currency is permissible?... The state is presently accountable. An invasive state is not. Ah, I see. We need government so it can nuke less advanced countries and force democracy on them. I suppose that justifies the state. Exactly. This still is in no way an example of a state successfully imposing itself on a country of anti-statists. Ireland and Iceland, da? Seeing as you're so ardent in not looking into this, I'll just tell you what the chieftains of anarchic were responsible for. The chieftain of an Irish Tuatha was only responsible for presiding over the annual assembly, to serve as high priest and to lead the Tuatha in war (which was very rare in ancient Ireland). They had control of their clans and property. Buying favours from them would entail affecting their decisions with their clans. These chieftains had no power over the market, no ability to enact barriers to entry, no ability to subsidize or monopolize, no ability to conscript and no ability to coerce taxation. You could pay a chieftain for market advantages in the same way you can pay a tree to produce more wood... For example, as businessman A I buy a favour from chieftain B so that he requests his subordinates buy their goods from only my market. These persons continued working for the large factories, didn't they? So at least they found it better than working for their families. Also, for the cost of goods to be high would mean the supply is low. If the supply is low, less persons are employable. So, perhaps the workers got paid a little more relatively speaking, but there was also more relative poverty because of this. They didn't find it better. They found it necessary. Kind of like how the African slaves didn't find working in cotton fields better than fighting tribal wars in their homeland or living in villages, they found it a necessity. The factory owners chose to pay low wages, as little as possible, because there was high turnover. Workers were dispensible, death was everywhere. But the fact remains that for the surplus population which the enclosure movement had reduced to dire wretchedness and for which there was literally no room left in the frame of the prevailing system of production, work in the factories was salvation. These people thronged into the plants for no reason other than the urge to improve their standard of living. I'll share a story with you, so you might understand this a little better. A boy was interviewed about how he was recruited. He said that he and a bunch of children were asked if they wanted to go on a trip to the country, enjoy meats, and so on. He of course said yes and they were on their way. They would sign these contracts which mandated their servitude until 21 years old. There was much pomp as if they were selected for something special but they arrived at a labour facility. I read about how a boy, whose job it was working with thread the entire day, I believe twisting scraps together, would wait for the shift to end each day, and then walk to his bunk sore and cry himself to sleep, waiting, praying for death. These factories were little better than slave shops and we allowed them, because after all there were no laws against them, and they emerged from the technology, and once they gained momentum the protests fell on deaf ears because in parliament the wealthy had a louder voice than the working class. You have no idea how wretched this life was, and how it is what must occur when there are no prohibitions against it, because it exploits a commonly available environment: mass production technology, a surplus of labour, and a demand for cheap goods. I agree that these things are in reach, but not with or because of the state. Sweat shops still exist now despite the state (in the third world) after all. It took state intervention to abolish them. A mere hundred years ago people were working like this, but enforcement of those labour laws made these factories unheard of in the US and Britain. Happy workers tend to be more productive, so the capitalist has incentive to supply the aggregate demand for working condition standards. Whipped, penalised and beaten workers tend to be more productive too, with the advantage that you need not raise overhead costs because of a soaring replacement worker population. However, don't believe me, look into the standard practices of sweatshops. I completely agree that regulation stops much potential worker exploitation, but it's simply asinine to claim that this sort of regulation can only come from a firm equip with a fiat land claim and several coercive monopolies on various services. Especially when there is already monetary incentive for capitalists to offer good working conditions. So why then did these poor conditions continue from around the mid-1700s to the early 1900s? Why did it take bloody worker protests and state intervention if the secret to higher productivity was merely happy workers? This is an argument from your personal preferences. You value the well-being of workers above market efficiency. That's fine, but understand this are your preferences and it's unreasonable and egotistical for you to violently force the world to conform to you. I don't think it is, especially since the vast majority of workers would agree with me. Firstly, providing market demand is the path of least resistance therefore the most profitable. Secondly, the formation of unions has made state interference obsolete. If "union busting" becomes a serious problem, then anti-union busting becomes market demand. It took state intervention to officially declare unions legal, because the default position was that they were to be violently repressed. Wrong again. I stand behind Anarchic Ireland because it is the best example of statelessness. No state formed to begin with, so there was no fumbling around to create an economy of scale after some government topple. As a result, it had (profusely) less war, less religion and lasted a millennium (!) all without taxation or fiat land claims. I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ I'm sure you can see where I'm going with this and the end result depends on how you define government. So, how would you define government, avesk? (in your own words, of course.) A government is the rule of a region of land under a common declared symbol or bond, with a single authority managing all those below it until they enumerate all within the state. It's only cost effective to exploit the working class so long as you can subdue your companies market elasticity via state favours to suppress competition. Which seems to happen all the time. In order to get to the point where your company is profitable enough to buy state favours is to first supply market demand. This includes the demand for fair working conditions. Did you not learn from Standard Oil and the Industrial Revolution? Wtf? Are actually arguing that herdsmen will voluntarily buy more animals than they can upkeep in order to stay competitive on the market? That's like saying a company will purposefully undercut their products prices to sub-profitable rates just to remain competitive on the market (predatory pricing). Factory farming is an example of this. So was/is mass agriculture in some areas. Side: Much, much worse...
Of course you can know. Find two identical market niches, one regulated and one unregulated. Compare them while removing irrelevant consequences due to unique situations. Example: Intellectual Property in the USA and China. In the USA tight regulations has created all sorts of device incompatibility problems, has stifled the creation of cheaper lookalike/reproductions of expensive labels, and has resulted in expensive goods. In China it is almost the opposite: built-in decryption and/or lack of respect for patents means much more compatibility, reproductions are everywhere, and digital content is cheaper because DVDs are pirated which means they sell closer to production cost. Now adjust for censorship imposed by China and we see overall much more freedom when a big business is disallowed to affect laws. Communism = anti-statism now? Fine, then Hybrid = Monarchism. If "look-a-likes" are selling in China, it means there is demand for cheaper electronics AND these cheaper electronics are profitable. The fact that these replicates aren't sold here only proves that state regulation has enacted subsidies and regulations allowing large firms to overcharge for their products by suppressing the expansion of cheaper electronics. Actually, reading your comment, it sounds eerily like an anti-statist argument. Especially the "overall much more freedom when a big business is disallowed to affect laws." part. Hierarchies emerge into states because states are another tier of management. All states are hierarchies, but not all hierarchies are states. There's no reason why all hierarchies must end in massive fiat land claims and several coercive monopolies, this is just something you're assuming. Standard Oil. Now watch as you ignore it, like how a creationist Stopped reading here. I know where this is going and once again it's going to be wrong. Now that I think about it, you made this same point in our other debate, so there's no point in addressing it here as well. Wars were frequently due to in-fighting as it was expected for young men to pillage. You mean like when a bunch of Irish teenagers would get together and engaged in, in the very words you quoted, "hunting and raiding in forests during the warmer months"? Those damn teenagers, kicking up the bushes and whatnot. Surely this proves anarchism fails. XD Besides, I'd take a country with "in-fighting pillages" over the monolithic wars coming from the rest of Europe any day. Actually, between 800AD and about 1400AD the Islamic world was nearing and fading from the height of scientific knowledge. In Europe between 1400AD and 1650AD was a period of great minds. Definitely better than subsisting on war and skirmishes. This is mere opinion. "Nearing and fading from the height of scientific knowledge" and "a period of great minds." means nothing. Even then, this scientific knowledge could only come from natural demand for knowledge. Also, I agree that subsisting on war and skirmishes is stupid, this is part of the reason why I oppose the state in the first place. You cannot make those claims. You're just guessing that taxes and state are requisite, when all that was shown is that a repressive state ended. I absolutely CAN make these claims. - State and taxation ended - economy flourished I've spent the last couple weeks outlining the theory to you of why this would happen, then I've shown you an example of this actually happening. Sure, you can say this only shows that a "repressed state ended", but then you would just be ignoring everything that happened after the collapse.
Why aren't you arguing for Xeer or Sharia? Those actually had a respectable impact on recent Somalia. I'm not saying Xeer or Sharia are great laws, or even totally consistent, they merely show that law can be both emergent and functional. You're comparing a collapsed state to two horrendously corrupt and poor states, and then propose that because the stateless one does better, this proves that states handicap development. Try comparing to a state that isn't handicapped. ... ... ... Okay, I'll be more explicative. I'm starting the clock before the collapse and then comparing the three nation's progress. All three started as highly statist poverty stricken hell-holes, but one saw huge economic growth that wasn't seen by the other two. This nation was Somalia. The one with the collapsed state. Also, "this proves that states handicap development. Try comparing to a state that isn't handicapped." This is contradictory. Though, I'm assuming the second time you said "state" you meant something closer to "nation". Either way, this is a very anti-statist statement to make. You never heard of ongoing civil war by newly developed factions? You're doing that thing again. That thing were you back out of your previous statements by being vague. The point still stands that if the civil war you were talking about was ongoing from before the state collapsed, it was a war unconnected to the collapse. Therefore you would be lying to say that the collapsed state sparked the civil war. Not a death squad. There is no group more fitting of the title "death squad" than states. The state is presently accountable. An invasive state is not. See, this is the sort of vagueness I'm talking about. Am I to guess your arguments again? Accountable to whom? Us? The way the state is set up, it's clear they expect us to be accountable to them. Otherwise they wouldn't need to make their monopolies coercive. An invasive state would become accountable if it's invasion was a success, so it doesn't matter. Ireland and Iceland, da? Ireland proves only that Christianity was an easy religion to spread hundreds of years ago. The fact that England spent hundreds upon hundreds of years failing to take over Ireland via military campaigns proves that coercion is not enough to conquer an anarchy. They had control of their clans and property. Buying favours from them would entail affecting their decisions with their clans. No. I'm going to say this again. a Tuath was a NON-geographic organization. Tuatha owned absolutely no property and a chieftain ONLY owned his own property. Nobody else's. The Chieftain oversaw the tuath meeting, but he didn't have any more say than any other person. He didn't make edicts. He didn't have the final word. The entire event was voluntary. For example, as businessman A I buy a favour from chieftain B so that he requests his subordinates buy their goods from only my market. You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker by the post. So now capitalism fails because a businessman can pay a respected member of society to speak well of his product? Air tight argument you've got there. =/ They didn't find it better. They found it necessary. Kind of like how the African slaves didn't find working in cotton fields better than fighting tribal wars in their homeland or living in villages, they found it a necessity. The factory owners chose to pay low wages, as little as possible, because there was high turnover. Workers were dispensible, death was everywhere. All firms pay as little as they can get away with, but whomever offers the most desirable working conditions will be able to expand faster than their competition because workers will naturally gravitate towards their firms and factories. You seem so hell bent on the industrial revolution being a terrible time, but what you don't seem to realize is that the Industrial revolution lowered work hours, raised real wages, raised life expectancy and reduced the need for child labor compared to pre-industrial times. No matter how you look at it, the industrial revolution was an improvement on society. I'll share a story with you, so you might understand this a little better. A boy was interviewed about how he was recruited. He said that he and a bunch of children were asked if they wanted to go on a trip to the country, enjoy meats, and so on. He of course said yes and they were on their way. They would sign these contracts which mandated their servitude until 21 years old. There was much pomp as if they were selected for something special but they arrived at a labour facility. I read about how a boy, whose job it was working with thread the entire day, I believe twisting scraps together, would wait for the shift to end each day, and then walk to his bunk sore and cry himself to sleep, waiting, praying for death. These factories were little better than slave shops and we allowed them, because after all there were no laws against them, and they emerged from the technology, and once they gained momentum the protests fell on deaf ears because in parliament the wealthy had a louder voice than the working class. You have no idea how wretched this life was, and how it is what must occur when there are no prohibitions against it, because it exploits a commonly available environment: mass production technology, a surplus of labour, and a demand for cheap goods. And I suppose you know first hand how "wretched" this life was? You've already admitted in this sob-story that parliament (you said "wealthy" too, but since the wealthy only have extended market control thanks to the state, it doesn't matter) suppressed the voice of the public, so there's not much else to say here, but... This is the story of one boy. There's no real facts or statistics in it. It may not even be true. I mean, wishing for death? If he was really "wishing" for death he would have simply offed himself. The fact remains that the industrial revolution was a net utility. It took state intervention to abolish them. A mere hundred years ago people were working like this, but enforcement of those labour laws made these factories unheard of in the US and Britain. Again, demand for better working conditions comes from the public, not the state. This wasn't a matter of the state supporting the wishes of the market, but merely a matter of the state no longer suppressing it. When ever a new invention comes about, the inventor has the ability to overcharge for his product as he has a temporary monopoly on it. He can continue to exploit the market in this way until somebody reverse-engineers it or something. After that an economy of scale builds up until the price of said product represents it's actual market value. It's the same deal with the industrial revolution. Many of the inventions of the time were new (obviously), which gave the inventors a temporary advantage on the market that allowed them to be exploitative. Normally this phase doesn't last very long because other capitalists see how over-priced this new product/service is and enter it because there is a profit to be made. The market floods with new suppliers and each is forced to either provide a better service and/or cheaper product in order to remain competitive. The only way for the temporary monopoly phase to be extended is through state patents. A patent allows the inventor to extend his market mini-monopoly as no one else is allowed to produce the product/produce in the same manner. Whipped, penalised and beaten workers tend to be more productive too, No they don't. They're sluggish, shabby and tend to kill themselves. Clearly you've never owned a business. with the advantage that you need not raise overhead costs because of a soaring replacement worker population. However, don't believe me, look into the standard practices of sweatshops. Expendable workers get paid less than less-expendable workers. This is both obvious and true with or without a state. This doesn't mean that because they are expendable they will be whipped and beaten, merely that they don't see the same benefits. I mean, it doesn't even make sense from a capitalistic standpoint. Why pay someone to whip your workers when you can just fire the unproductive ones and replace them. It wouldn't be hard, seeing as there's such a surplus or workers, after all. Happy workers are more productive, this is a proven fact. It just wouldn't make any sense to go out of your way to make your workers more miserable when in the end it only hurts your own profit. So why then did these poor conditions continue from around the mid-1700s to the early 1900s? Why did it take bloody worker protests and state intervention if the secret to higher productivity was merely happy workers? Are you trying to say there was not a state at this time? Hmm? Quality of life has improved down the ages since the end of the middle ages. You're argument fails. I don't think it is, especially since the vast majority of workers would agree with me. Really? YOU, of all people, don't think it would be unreasonable for the world to concede to YOUR preferences? Big surprise there! XD It took state intervention to officially declare unions legal, because the default position was that they were to be violently repressed. Even weaker still. Come on, avesk. You really think this is a good argument??? I don't even know where to begin with something like this... The only reason why the state had to declare unions legal was because it first made them illegal. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ I suggest you read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ I don't know why you think I haven't read it already. I have, it just didn't say anything contrary to anything I've been saying. I suppose this is just another example of you, posting a link while offering no argument or even specifying what part of the link is meant to support you in an attempt to "vague up" the debate... again. Which seems to happen all the time. Precisely why the state needs to be abolished. Factory farming is an example of this. So was/is mass agriculture in some areas. And even weaker still. Factory farmers are making a profit. This is proof that they are not taking more animals than they can upkeep. Do you not understand how the market works? This is intro to economics 101 stuff. If you can't upkeep your livestock, you loose profit. Therefore if you're making a profit you are not conducting business beyond your means. Side: Much, much better...
If "look-a-likes" are selling in China, it means there is demand for cheaper electronics AND these cheaper electronics are profitable. The fact that these replicates aren't sold here only proves that state regulation has enacted subsidies and regulations allowing large firms to overcharge for their products by suppressing the expansion of cheaper electronics. Now, who enacted those regulations and subsidies? Government represents the people, but the wealthy have an intrinsic advantage. Therefore it must be that those regulations did not exist at one point, a monopoly or hegemony formed and undermined the power of democracy so that people were forced to pay more for something. Actually, reading your comment, it sounds eerily like an anti-statist argument. Especially the "overall much more freedom when a big business is disallowed to affect laws." part. Such simple thinking. What happens without a state and free market? Factions form, fight and a dominant one emerges. Businesses form, compete and a dominant monopoly forms. What does the monopoly do? It buys political favours from the faction. What happens with a state and a free market? Businesses form and compete, a monopoly forms, buys political favours. Cycle repeats. What happens in a state and regulated market? Regulations exist which punish businesses which try to become monopolies. Wealthy businesses may band together and buy political favours. People band together and try to punish this in an endless cycle. All states are hierarchies, but not all hierarchies are states. There's no reason why all hierarchies must end in massive fiat land claims and several coercive monopolies, this is just something you're assuming. Why did single-cellular life become multicellular? Stopped reading here. I know where this is going and once again it's going to be wrong. Just like a creationist. You'll quote Mises or some crackpot website to "debunk" reality. Just like how a creationist quotes Kent Hovind or Answers in Genesis. Did you know that the earth is 6000 years old? It isn't? Well you must be wrong because Mises... err... Answers in Genesis says so. Those damn teenagers, kicking up the bushes and whatnot. Surely this proves anarchism fails. XD Besides, I'd take a country with "in-fighting pillages" over the monolithic wars coming from the rest of Europe any day. Pillaging means theft and violence perpetrated against others, and this was an expected, normal part of life. Training for the inter-clan fights that needed warriors. This is just want we expect in anarchy. A lack of central authority breeds factions which fight for power. This is mere opinion. "Nearing and fading from the height of scientific knowledge" and "a period of great minds." means nothing. Even then, this scientific knowledge could only come from natural demand for knowledge. When you evolve past fighting for land and foraging for food, and have a stable society where you are provided for, higher demands develop for knowledge and so science flourishes. It also isn't opinion, try studying history. I absolutely CAN make these claims. - State and taxation ended - economy flourished I have one for you. The economy improved, then pirates returned to make a living. This proves that pirates are caused by a flourishing economy. Libertarians. Gotta love the stupid. ... ... ... Okay, I'll be more explicative. I'm starting the clock before the collapse and then comparing the three nation's progress. All three started as highly statist poverty stricken hell-holes, but one saw huge economic growth that wasn't seen by the other two. Three authoritarian states with monopolies and corruption. One loses the corrupt and authoritarian government, and the monopolies vanish. Gee, I wonder why a region without heavy-handed law, vote-rigging, and monopolies is doing better... You're doing that thing again. That thing were you back out of your previous statements by being vague. The point still stands that if the civil war you were talking about was ongoing from before the state collapsed, it was a war unconnected to the collapse. Therefore you would be lying to say that the collapsed state sparked the civil war. Simple minds again. The state was in near-anarchy and civil war before the collapse. Then it subsided. Next we saw clans fighting for power in guerrilla warfare, in other words a new civil war amongst new factions that formed after the state collapsed. Then it was quelled, and a transitional government was attempted. Long story short, Transitional government versus Islamists is yet another civil war that broke out. I count at least three civil wars in Somalia. The one which formed to take Barre out. The one that formed in the power vacuum that occurred. The one between the UN transitional government and the Islamists. There is no group more fitting of the title "death squad" than states. More non sequitur brought to you by a simple mind. The point is, you don't fear for your life every day because gangs with machetes aren't busting down doors in your village. See, this is the sort of vagueness I'm talking about. Am I to guess your arguments again? Accountable to whom? Us? The way the state is set up, it's clear they expect us to be accountable to them. Otherwise they wouldn't need to make their monopolies coercive. An invasive state would become accountable if it's invasion was a success, so it doesn't matter. An existing state is accountable to the people within that nation. An invasive state is accountable to, obviously, the foreigners who make up its citizens. Ireland proves only that Christianity was an easy religion to spread hundreds of years ago. The fact that England spent hundreds upon hundreds of years failing to take over Ireland via military campaigns proves that coercion is not enough to conquer an anarchy. Except that coercion did eventually conquer Ireland. You're arguments are getting weaker and weaker by the post. So now capitalism fails because a businessman can pay a respected member of society to speak well of his product? Air tight argument you've got there. =/ I said requests. This is an example of business corrupting the principles of trade. All firms pay as little as they can get away with, but whomever offers the most desirable working conditions will be able to expand faster than their competition because workers will naturally gravitate towards their firms and factories. Except they didn't. In over a century labour reform was essentially nil. History proves you wrong. In modern sweatshops they do not work towards fair practices, but fight them at every level. You seem so hell bent on the industrial revolution being a terrible time, but what you don't seem to realize is that the Industrial revolution lowered work hours, raised real wages, raised life expectancy and reduced the need for child labor compared to pre-industrial times. No it didn't. Quit comparing the Industrial Revolution to feudalism. People worked 16 hours a day and it wasn't until decades later that they were permitted an afternoon leave. Wages were so low that the people lived in windowless, cramped rooms, drank from polluted water because they could not afford spring water, or liquor and cider. Death was rampant. Children occupied much of the workforce and were paid so much less than adults despite that they needed nutrition more than adults and their bones were becoming flexible from malnutrition. You are simply regurgitating what you read from Mises and libertarian propaganda. If you had an ounce of integrity you would research the Industrial revolution from independent sources. Your view doesn't even make sense. Before mass production the population was lower and so there was more space in the big cities for residents. The waterways weren't polluted yet from factories. Factories, as part of mass production existed to maximise productivity by placing people as close together and working them as long as possible. Before factories there were guilds and workshops but they didn't need to be as cramped, the loss of productivity was compensated for by higher prices on goods. Factories put these safer, more comfortable work environments out of business, and this is where the Luddites came from. Anger at losing a way of life that was relatively comfortable for a forced life of toil for 16 hours a day, with beatings, for less pay and inferior goods. No matter how you look at it, the industrial revolution was an improvement on society. I wish dumbasses like you could be transported to early 19th century England. And I suppose you know first hand how "wretched" this life was? You've already admitted in this sob-story that parliament (you said "wealthy" too, but since the wealthy only have extended market control thanks to the state, it doesn't matter) suppressed the voice of the public, so there's not much else to say here, but... Do you wish to live as a cotton-picking slave? You never experienced it first-hand. Maybe it's all sunshine and lollypops. If it was a chieftain, or council, they would have ignored the plight of the lower class because the nobility would have their ear. But of course, when the unsettling facts stare you in the face, they're just sob stories. Thank god you're part of an unenlightened minority, because the rest of us who learn from history would rather not go through this again. The only way for the temporary monopoly phase to be extended is through state patents. A patent allows the inventor to extend his market mini-monopoly as no one else is allowed to produce the product/produce in the same manner. Which monopolies extend using their wealth and clout. That's why IP has an ownership duration of 75 years after the owner's death. The wealthy have a louder voice than the rest of us. This never changes. No they don't. They're sluggish, shabby and tend to kill themselves. Clearly you've never owned a business. What's this now? You know better than all the factory owners and robber barons spanning almost two centuries? This doesn't mean that because they are expendable they will be whipped and beaten, merely that they don't see the same benefits. I mean, it doesn't even make sense from a capitalistic standpoint. Why pay someone to whip your workers when you can just fire the unproductive ones and replace them. It wouldn't be hard, seeing as there's such a surplus or workers, after all. What don't you get about high turnover and sweatshops? The labour supply always exists. Each job station is cramped and the workers are treated like units, not allowed to have individuality, with rules that punish any form of independent thought. Pay may be docked, beatings issued, because it is an uncomfortable workplace, with long hours, and the workers outnumber you. You are exploiting people and there is always the chance that they might retaliate. Hence you keep them in line with fear. If they are injured you replace them. If they die, big deal. They are replaceable. Your primary concern is extracting work out of them and keeping them submissive works. Are you trying to say there was not a state at this time? Hmm? Quality of life has improved down the ages since the end of the middle ages. You're argument fails. I am saying that it took an entity bigger than the factories to hold them responsible. The quality of life improved, then took a major hit in the Industrial Revolution, then improved again once regulations were enforced. Even weaker still. Come on, avesk. You really think this is a good argument??? I don't even know where to begin with something like this... The only reason why the state had to declare unions legal was because it first made them illegal. The Industrial Revolution happened in the mid-1700s. So it would make sense that the wealthy had parliament pass laws to suppress their workers. The wealthy have a louder voice. And even weaker still. Factory farmers are making a profit. This is proof that they are not taking more animals than they can upkeep. Do you not understand how the market works? This is intro to economics 101 stuff. If you can't upkeep your livestock, you loose profit. Therefore if you're making a profit you are not conducting business beyond your means. They are making a profit at the expense of damaging the environment around them that they own. Tragedy of the commons. Precisely why the state needs to be abolished. Stupidity maybe? It doesn't matter if it's a state, or clan, or tribal council. Wealthy people buy favours from political entities. Side: Much, much worse...
Now, who enacted those regulations and subsidies? Government represents the people, but the wealthy have an intrinsic advantage. Therefore it must be that those regulations did not exist at one point, a monopoly or hegemony formed and undermined the power of democracy so that people were forced to pay more for something. I can't believe you still don't get this... State+wealthy=subsidies(e.g. BtE) These subsidies are a problem, so to remove them either the wealthy has to go, or the state has to go. The wealthy can't be removed because what defines "wealthy" is arbitrary and as long as there is trade, there will be those more "wealthy" than others. This leaves only the state. Secondly, you're "point" about these monopolies forming BEFORE the regulations is retarded. If a company had built a sustainable monopoly before enacting any regulations, then there would be no need to enact these regulation in the first place. You're seeing these regulations being enacted and thinking "ah, good. Now it's much harder for any firm to create a monopoly" but, you're completely ignoring that these regulations are only being put in place to allow already large firms to grow without the threat of competition. The very regulations you want to see happen are the very reason why monopolies can happen. What happens without a state and free market? Factions form, fight and a dominant one emerges. Businesses form, compete and a dominant monopoly forms. What does the monopoly do? It buys political favours from the faction. Typical Avesk, loading your argument with the same un-backed assertions that you've already made. =/ What happens in a state and regulated market? Regulations exist which punish businesses which try to become monopolies. Wealthy businesses may band together and buy political favours. People band together and try to punish this in an endless cycle. "Regulation" is not the opposite of free. State control is. At least you understand that with a state business buy favours from the state, we can build on that. Now, you just need to understand that without a state in the first place, there's no political body to buy economic favours from. Why did single-cellular life become multicellular? Once again, your analogy fails hard. 1. There are still single cell lifeforms NOW, which, given the analogy, proves that not all hierarchies turn into states. 2. Multi-cellular life forms are an emergent phenomenon, they're not a top-down order as a state is, so they're not even comparable. Just like a creationist. You'll quote Mises or some crackpot website to "debunk" reality. Just like how a creationist quotes Kent Hovind or Answers in Genesis. Did you know that the earth is 6000 years old? It isn't? Well you must be wrong because Mises... err... Answers in Genesis says so. Jeez, no matter how un-equivalent two things are, you'll try to make it fit into a Christianity analogy like a develop-mentally handicapped toddler trying to fit the square peg into a round hole... "Mises said it, therefore it's wrong!" << there's a word for such reasoning. It's called an ad hominem. Pillaging means theft and violence perpetrated against others, and this was an expected, normal part of life. Training for the inter-clan fights that needed warriors. This is just want we expect in anarchy. A lack of central authority breeds factions which fight for power. So you're just going to totally ignore that the few Irish feuds of the time were to a piss-ant scale in comparison to the rest of Europe, eh? Most of the feuding in Ireland was against England, not other Irish. The same thing was seen in anarchic-Somalia. The factions warred with the Islamist and U.N. invaders, not each other (or at least to an insignificant amount). Persons are violent and they were much more violent 1000 years ago. You're argument isn't a critic of anarchism, it's a critic of reality. When you evolve past fighting for land and foraging for food, and have a stable society where you are provided for, higher demands develop for knowledge and so science flourishes. You've contradicted yourself. If we're evolved past fighting for land and foraging then there would be no need for any firm, statist or free, to uphold law. If we haven't evolved past this, then it becomes a matter of which works better. Seeing as the Iraqi guerilla army has been able to hold off the U.S. mega-army the superior form of protection is clear. It also isn't opinion, try studying history. Wtf are you talking about? Just because it's in a history book doesn't mean it isn't opinion. XD Judging something as "great" is an opinion. Judging someone as "wise" is an opinion. Judging a country as "advanced" is an opinion. If you honestly can't tell the difference between a fact and an opinion then it's clear to me how you can be so backwards on your views of the state. =/ I have one for you. The economy improved, then pirates returned to make a living. This proves that pirates are caused by a flourishing economy. Libertarians. Gotta love the stupid. I'm guessing this was just a bad example on your part because what you're saying is technically true. These pirates would have seen that there is money to be made in Somalia now that it's becoming prosperous, so they would move in. I'm sure there were other factors, but you're conclusion could be argued well. I mean, the Islamist and U.N. invaders did the very same thing for the very same reason... just how the hell did you come to the conclusion that this argument debunks libertarianism? Every post you make is progressively less intelligent. Hell, what you said wasn't even an attempt to debunk my argument in the first place. =/ Three authoritarian states with monopolies and corruption. One loses the corrupt and authoritarian government, and the monopolies vanish. Gee, I wonder why a region without heavy-handed law, vote-rigging, and monopolies is doing better... It's starting to look like it will take the actual collapse of the U.S. government to get you to understand exactly what I'm talking about. Are you just incapable of looking past the superficial? Are you just incapable of seeing why Somalia got better and seeing the similarities between it and the U.S.? The U.S. has monopolies, heavy handed-law and authoritarianism; though, significantly less than most African countries, but since the U.S. is significantly better off than most African countries this makes sense. So logically the U.S. would also do better without heavy-handed law, monopolies and authoritarianism. I wouldn't refer to a firm void of these things as being a state, but perhaps you would. I don't know, since you haven't actually said anything about exactly what parts of government you have a hard-on for. Simple minds again. The state was in near-anarchy and civil war before the collapse. Then it subsided. Next we saw clans fighting for power in guerrilla warfare, in other words a new civil war amongst new factions that formed after the state collapsed. Then it was quelled, and a transitional government was attempted. Long story short, Transitional government versus Islamists is yet another civil war that broke out. Side: Much, much better...
These subsidies are a problem, so to remove them either the wealthy has to go, or the state has to go. The wealthy can't be removed because what defines "wealthy" is arbitrary and as long as there is trade, there will be those more "wealthy" than others. This leaves only the state. Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes) Do groups form hierarchies? ("...") Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...") Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe). Secondly, you're "point" about these monopolies forming BEFORE the regulations is retarded. If a company had built a sustainable monopoly before enacting any regulations, then there would be no need to enact these regulation in the first place. Rule of nature: monopolies happen. Second rule of nature: monopolies are transient. Third rule of nature: a monopoly will seek to prolong its existence (in this case through political meddling). Now, you just need to understand that without a state in the first place, there's no political body to buy economic favours from. Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes) Do groups form hierarchies? ("...") Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...") Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe). Once again, your analogy fails hard. 1. There are still single cell lifeforms NOW, which, given the analogy, proves that not all hierarchies turn into states. 2. Multi-cellular life forms are an emergent phenomenon, they're not a top-down order as a state is, so they're not even comparable. If you were smart you would read my reply to mean "large super-hierarchies have an intrinsic advantage in efficiency as compared to many small hierarchies or individuals acting on their own. This is why states exist as the dominant political end-game." You might also appreciate that a state is originally an emergent phenomenon. Jeez, no matter how un-equivalent two things are, you'll try to make it fit into a Christianity analogy like a develop-mentally handicapped toddler trying to fit the square peg into a round hole... "Mises said it, therefore it's wrong!" << there's a word for such reasoning. It's called an ad hominem. Your comments on economic theory are so wrong it's usually funny, therefore when you quote some authority which is actually a think-tank with an obvious agenda, it looks like a crackpot to me. My favourite lines so far: "sweatshops are good!!! rofl" followed by "somalia is better for being an anarchy in civil war omglol!!!" So you're just going to totally ignore that the few Irish feuds of the time were to a piss-ant scale in comparison to the rest of Europe, eh? Most of the feuding in Ireland was against England, not other Irish. The same thing was seen in anarchic-Somalia. The factions warred with the Islamist and U.N. invaders, not each other (or at least to an insignificant amount). How long did Gaelic Ireland exist? Almost a thousand years? The in-fighting was a common part of growing up, from what I read. It actually seems like a part of growing up was becoming a criminal in a gang. Over a thousand or so years, this adds up to a lot of wasteful violence. I consider that a failure. Should I add "Irish teen gangs are cool lol!!!" to your memorable quotes? You've contradicted yourself. If we're evolved past fighting for land and foraging then there would be no need for any firm, statist or free, to uphold law. If we haven't evolved past this, then it becomes a matter of which works better. Seeing as the Iraqi guerilla army has been able to hold off the U.S. mega-army the superior form of protection is clear. We have apparently transitioned "evolved" past foraging and hunting game. We lead longer, sedentary lives that allow us to pursue arts, culture, and knowledge. I see no contradiction there. Pursuing these things doesn't require that we be entirely peaceful, just that we are no longer preoccupied with hunting. We succeeded in capturing Iraq. The insurgents are a problem for stability, not conquest. Put more bluntly, if we devalued life and only wished to spread fear and distrust like the insurgents do, we have the technology to turn the entire Middle East into a glowing, glass-top wasteland within hours. Those guerrillas do not have this technology. Maybe that is our weakness. If we made an example of Iran for its supply of aid to the insurgents all these years, by reducing it to a radioactive death-zone with dirty bombs, maybe we would actually have respect from these so-called men in arms. Wtf are you talking about? Just because it's in a history book doesn't mean it isn't opinion. XD It is a fact that that period saw many advancements in science by the Islamic world, and that the 1400s and later saw the slow birth of the scientific method in the west. Hell, what you said wasn't even an attempt to debunk my argument in the first place. =/ Correlation does not equal causation. I guess I was too subtle with my over-the-top pirate analogy. You see I thought if I just stated outright the flaw in your reasoning, you wouldn't see how the flaw applied, so I invented an absurd parody to highlight it. It's starting to look like it will take the actual collapse of the U.S. government to get you to understand exactly what I'm talking about. Are you just incapable of looking past the superficial? Are you just incapable of seeing why Somalia got better and seeing the similarities between it and the U.S.? I see how Somalia improved in some areas, but also collapsed in others. I don't toe a party line and allow myself to see the complexity of a situation. Side: Much, much worse...
Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe). Yes, yes, the wealthy will always have an advantage over the poor in that they have access to a greater disposable income. That's not the problem and that's not what I'm talking about. The problem isn't wealthy persons being wealthy, the problem wealthy persons lobbying the state to cripple competition. Rule of nature: monopolies happen. Second rule of nature: monopolies are transient. Third rule of nature: a monopoly will seek to prolong its existence (in this case through political meddling). This is yet another argument you've pulled right out of your ass. There is no law of nature causing to monopolies to happen! XD If you were to say it is the law of nature for monopolies to NOT happen, that would be closer to the truth, but to say nature dictates that monopolies would happen is stupid. As though physics points to market monopolies. XD If you were smart you would read my reply to mean "large super-hierarchies have an intrinsic advantage in efficiency as compared to many small hierarchies or individuals acting on their own. This is why states exist as the dominant political end-game." You might also appreciate that a state is originally an emergent phenomenon. Yeah, I know. I'm an idiot because I've given up guessing what exactly you're trying to argue. =/ States have power because persons project power onto them. States without public support collapse hard and fast. The state emerges from psychology, not from some economic superiority. When dealing with economics you have to be able to differentiate between the two. Your comments on economic theory are so wrong it's usually funny, therefore when you quote some authority which is actually a think-tank with an obvious agenda, it looks like a crackpot to me. My favourite lines so far: "sweatshops are good!!! rofl" followed by "somalia is better for being an anarchy in civil war omglol!!!" Mises is an authority now? Do you think before you type? You're basically admitting that your previous comment was an ad-hominem attack. While we're sharing our favourite quotes, lets look at a few of yours. "The only way to stop monopolies is to allow one firm a coercive monopoly on all of societies most vital services hurr-durr!" "You can get market advantages by lobbying persons with no market influence derp-de-derp!" Or my personal favourite... "You shouldn't compare Somalia to the countries most like it to see if it improved after that fall of the state. You should compare it to much more successful, yet much less relevant states! Hurp-a-Durp!!!" How long did Gaelic Ireland exist? Almost a thousand years? The in-fighting was a common part of growing up, from what I read. It actually seems like a part of growing up was becoming a criminal in a gang. Over a thousand or so years, this adds up to a lot of wasteful violence. I consider that a failure. Should I add "Irish teen gangs are cool lol!!!" to your memorable quotes? You're just being willfully ignorant at this point. It was more that a thousand years and all the violence and death in that time was nothing compared to the rest of Europe. This "in-fighting" argument of your is a joke. "in-fighting" is something that happened everywhere. The difference being states had massive wars on top of internal discrepancies I would prefer to live in an area with a few punk-kid gangs than a massive monarchical gang. Should I add "Gangs who's ruler wears a fancy crown are cool!" to your list of quotes? We have apparently transitioned "evolved" past foraging and hunting game. Oh, so now the argument is "evolved out of hunter-gatherer" rather than "we've evolved past violence", eh? Nice little switch-a-roo there. I see no contradiction there. Pursuing these things doesn't require that we be entirely peaceful, just that we are no longer preoccupied with hunting. Yeah, there's no contradiction under these new argument reforms you just made. =/ We succeeded in capturing Iraq. The insurgents are a problem for stability, not conquest. Put more bluntly, if we devalued life and only wished to spread fear and distrust like the insurgents do, we have the technology to turn the entire Middle East into a glowing, glass-top wasteland within hours. Those guerrillas do not have this technology. It's also not profitable to nuke an area you want to control, which makes conquest of a stateless society even less likely. Also, succeeded in capturing Iraq? What qualifies as capturing? Getting power over it? Given the insurgents you just spoke of, that hasn't happened. Defeating the state army? That happened years ago and it didn't matter, because of the insurgents. Putting it in a god damn poke-ball? That looks to be the most likely right now. XD Maybe that is our weakness. If we made an example of Iran for its supply of aid to the insurgents all these years, by reducing it to a radioactive death-zone with dirty bombs, maybe we would actually have respect from these so-called men in arms. You're not even going to pretend to be rational at this point, eh? It is a fact that that period saw many advancements in science by the Islamic world, and that the 1400s and later saw the slow birth of the scientific method in the west. And the desire that sparked these advancements wasn't a state invention. It came bottom-up from the public. And when the state exploded in power, these advancements dwindled to nearly nothing. Correlation does not equal causation. I guess I was too subtle with my over-the-top pirate analogy. You see I thought if I just stated outright the flaw in your reasoning, you wouldn't see how the flaw applied, so I invented an absurd parody to highlight it. Yeah, except the only absurdity in it was in you thinking you made some brilliant counter-point. Correlation does not equal causation, but causation requires correlation and in this case correlation is in both Somalia improving after the state's collapse and in the uprising of pirates to take advantage of this improvement. The only difference as I see it is that the argument for Somalia's improvement has been broken down and had it's subtleties and mechanisms explained. Also, since the adjoined countries didn't see this growth it rules out external reasons and coincidence. Soooooo, SOMETHING around the time of the Somali state's collapse caused massive growth in Somalia. Most persons, both statist and not, looked at this and hypothesized that the reason for this had to do with the fall of the state and when you do a little digging into the event, it turns out to be true. I see how Somalia improved in some areas, but also collapsed in others. I don't toe a party line and allow myself to see the complexity of a situation. The quickest areas to absorb the collapse where areas that functioned outside of the assumption of a state. Obviously the services that the state monopolized where harder to build up since they did function under the assumption of a state. Side: Much, much better...
Yes, yes, the wealthy will always have an advantage over the poor in that they have access to a greater disposable income. That's not the problem and that's not what I'm talking about. It exists regardless of state, or economic system. It is the problem. For example: The problem isn't wealthy persons being wealthy, the problem wealthy persons lobbying the state to cripple competition. In an anarchy this becomes: The problem isn't wealthy persons being wealthy, the problem wealthy persons paying our chieftains to cripple competition. Or: The problem isn't wealthy persons being wealthy, the problem wealthy persons paying our elders to cripple competition. How? Those with the political influence (chieftains, elders) may change clan edicts or create new ones that benefit the wealthy. This is yet another argument you've pulled right out of your ass. There is no law of nature causing to monopolies to happen! XD Monopolies happen because the larger you become, the more efficient you become at making a product, and the more able you become at distributing it. If you were to say it is the law of nature for monopolies to NOT happen, that would be closer to the truth, but to say nature dictates that monopolies would happen is stupid. As though physics points to market monopolies. XD It is a mathematical problem. The larger you are, the cheaper input goods become (because you may provide your own inputs). The cheaper it is to produce goods (because mass production streamlines the process further and further). The easier it is to distribute those goods (because you become more and more ubiquitous in sell points). This is called economy of scale. The bigger you are, the larger your natural advantage in competing with a typical business. Yeah, I know. I'm an idiot because I've given up guessing what exactly you're trying to argue. =/ It doesn't take guessing. If you're not as quick-thinking as me, I could simply treat you as a child, if that is your wish. States have power because persons project power onto them. States without public support collapse hard and fast. The state emerges from psychology, not from some economic superiority. When dealing with economics you have to be able to differentiate between the two. States also have an advantage because they orchestrate large groups to work together. Mises is an authority now? Do you think before you type? You're basically admitting that your previous comment was an ad-hominem attack. Mises is a think-tank which advocates something which is historically unwise. "The only way to stop monopolies is to allow one firm a coercive monopoly on all of societies most vital services hurr-durr!" "You can get market advantages by lobbying persons with no market influence derp-de-derp!" Or my personal favourite... "You shouldn't compare Somalia to the countries most like it to see if it improved after that fall of the state. You should compare it to much more successful, yet much less relevant states! Hurp-a-Durp!!!" I never said those. You're just being willfully ignorant at this point. It was more that a thousand years and all the violence and death in that time was nothing compared to the rest of Europe. This "in-fighting" argument of your is a joke. "in-fighting" is something that happened everywhere. The difference being states had massive wars on top of internal discrepancies I would prefer to live in an area with a few punk-kid gangs than a massive monarchical gang. Do I really need to point out why this isn't a rebuttal? Anarchies always infight. States achieve stability. Besides that comparing an anarchy to a medieval theocracy doesn't make the anarchy somehow good. Oh, so now the argument is "evolved out of hunter-gatherer" rather than "we've evolved past violence", eh? Nice little switch-a-roo there. I never said we evolved past violence. I said we evolved out of a violent lifestyle. Big difference. It's also not profitable to nuke an area you want to control, which makes conquest of a stateless society even less likely. Also, succeeded in capturing Iraq? What qualifies as capturing? Getting power over it? Given the insurgents you just spoke of, that hasn't happened. Defeating the state army? That happened years ago and it didn't matter, because of the insurgents. Putting it in a god damn poke-ball? That looks to be the most likely right now. XD I was comparing relative military and technological strength. In other words a few suicide bombs is no threat to a military with a budget which dwarfs the spending of the next most wealthy nations combined. We captured their governments, and established our own. Insurgents are an annoyance, a threat if there becomes a power vacuum or complete unrest. Is a poke-ball a torture device? And the desire that sparked these advancements wasn't a state invention. It came bottom-up from the public. And when the state exploded in power, these advancements dwindled to nearly nothing. In an anarchy the people are too busy fighting each other and rival factions, hunting and gathering, to worry about science. Those states slowly brought enough stability that people could investigate (whereas before they were toiling in fields and slaves). Soooooo, SOMETHING around the time of the Somali state's collapse caused massive growth in Somalia. Most persons, both statist and not, looked at this and hypothesized that the reason for this had to do with the fall of the state and when you do a little digging into the event, it turns out to be true. Again, did I need to lead your hand? Correlation is not causation means that despite Somalia's correlation that the state's absence seemed to lead to improved economic growth, it does not lead to the conclusion that removing states improves economic growth. There is insufficient evidence to draw this conclusion. The quickest areas to absorb the collapse where areas that functioned outside of the assumption of a state. Obviously the services that the state monopolized where harder to build up since they did function under the assumption of a state. It's hard to build a monopoly when guns are shooting your workers and grenades are exploding your factories... Side: Much, much worse...
How? Those with the political influence (chieftains, elders) may change clan edicts or create new ones that benefit the wealthy. Irish chieftains had no economic influence and couldn't enact edicts. But, you already knew that because I've said it a dozen times now... Monopolies happen because the larger you become, the more efficient you become at making a product, and the more able you become at distributing it. Economics 101: the larger you get, the more efficient you become at making a product, which means you can further increase your profit by selling the same product at a cheaper price. As soon as you try to enact monopoly rates, you're no longer supplying at the market value which gives room for smaller firms to expand. There's your $20 lesson on economics. It doesn't take guessing. If you're not as quick-thinking as me, I could simply treat you as a child, if that is your wish. It's not a matter of being quick-thinking, you're just in the habit of making bad arguments and not providing any context for them. I never said those. Not in so many words, but it doesn't deviate any more than yours did from mine. Do I really need to point out why this isn't a rebuttal? Anarchies always infight. States achieve stability. Besides that comparing an anarchy to a medieval theocracy doesn't make the anarchy somehow good. If states are so stable, then why haven't any of them outlasted anarchic Ireland? Logically, if they are so stable there should either be countless examples of 1000+ year long states or no examples of statelessness lasting over a decade. No, it doesn't make it good, it just proves that it's better and when you look at why it is better you'll see that the very reasons making anarchic Ireland superior to England can be applied to nearly all states. I never said we evolved past violence. I said we evolved out of a violent lifestyle. Big difference. A semantics difference perhaps. Violent persons live violent lifestyles. I was comparing relative military and technological strength. In other words a few suicide bombs is no threat to a military with a budget which dwarfs the spending of the next most wealthy nations combined. We captured their governments, and established our own. Insurgents are an annoyance, a threat if there becomes a power vacuum or complete unrest. Which happened in Iraq and held off the U.S. government war machine about 100x as long as the state army did so far and with virtually zero budget. In an anarchy the people are too busy fighting each other and rival factions, hunting and gathering, to worry about science. Those states slowly brought enough stability that people could investigate (whereas before they were toiling in fields and slaves). Wrong. States only come to power through war, especially during the middle ages when war didn't stop just because you attained power. Also, experimental science exploded after the middle ages, when state power took a nose dive. Again, did I need to lead your hand? Correlation is not causation means that despite Somalia's correlation that the state's absence seemed to lead to improved economic growth, it does not lead to the conclusion that removing states improves economic growth. There is insufficient evidence to draw this conclusion. I've explained this to you in a causal manner so many times already, I figured at the very least you would understand it if I cut out the variables for you. You still don't... =/ It's hard to build a monopoly when guns are shooting your workers and grenades are exploding your factories... You know, given the picture you paint of Somalia I would expect that Somalia's population would of significantly thinned out by now. Since it hasn't, this leads me to believe firms were able to conduct trade just fine. Since there was civil war and violence before the collapse, your argument is moot. Especially since the only monopolies in Somalia were state monopolies that never showed up after the collapse. Side: Much, much better...
Irish chieftains had no economic influence and couldn't enact edicts. But, you already knew that because I've said it a dozen times now... Anyone with authority may issue edicts or orders or change rules. There is nothing stopping them from breaking precedent either, just look at Somalia for a billion examples. Economics 101: the larger you get, the more efficient you become at making a product, which means you can further increase your profit by selling the same product at a cheaper price. As soon as you try to enact monopoly rates, you're no longer supplying at the market value which gives room for smaller firms to expand. Did you miss the part where you grow larger and absorb smaller competitors, until you are a monopoly, and then you enact monopoly rates because no one can compete against your inherent advantage. It's not a matter of being quick-thinking, you're just in the habit of making bad arguments and not providing any context for them. I regularly debate and talk with intelligent people well beyond normal, and I am used to my dialog being followed without each and every point being connected. I assume that you can follow me. However if you are of average intelligence then this is unforgivable of me, it is necessary for me out of social etiquette to explain more thoroughly. Therefore I request that you tell me if you have trouble following my arguments because they are too quick for you. Not in so many words, but it doesn't deviate any more than yours did from mine. Seriously, I never said anything that could be construed as those comments. You on the other hand said clearly that anarchy plagued Somalia is better now for it, and other lines more or less like what I condensed. If states are so stable, then why haven't any of them outlasted anarchic Ireland? Logically, if they are so stable there should either be countless examples of 1000+ year long states or no examples of statelessness lasting over a decade. There should be Jeopardy music playing in the background as you are forced to answer your own question. A stateless region appears stable to you because there is no state which can collapse, instead there are factions which rise and fall in power. A state is a delicate balance of power and citizens' wants being fulfilled. It can easily topple, over which a new state takes power. No, it doesn't make it good, it just proves that it's better and when you look at why it is better you'll see that the very reasons making anarchic Ireland superior to England can be applied to nearly all states. So in your mind a thousand factions fighting each other daily is better than a single faction taking power and once every few decades or centuries being replaced. Makes sense... A semantics difference perhaps. Violent persons live violent lifestyles. Please learn to read English. Which happened in Iraq and held off the U.S. government war machine about 100x as long as the state army did so far and with virtually zero budget. Virtually zero? The insurgents are being funded by other States covertly, Iran and (I think it was also) Afghanistan, plus all sorts of drug trading. Despite all that we have claimed the area as our own. If we had better strategists and commanders (I blame the Bush Administration for jumping into this unprepared) we may have made it less of a sectarian quagmire with Human Rights Violations. Wrong. States only come to power through war, especially during the middle ages when war didn't stop just because you attained power. Also, experimental science exploded after the middle ages, when state power took a nose dive. States go through periods of war, as opposed to constant skirmishing which is the nature of anarchy. I think you mean Religious power took a nose dive. You know, given the picture you paint of Somalia I would expect that Somalia's population would of significantly thinned out by now. Since it hasn't, this leads me to believe firms were able to conduct trade just fine. Since there was civil war and violence before the collapse, your argument is moot. Especially since the only monopolies in Somalia were state monopolies that never showed up after the collapse. If it isn't Al-Shabaab, it's the ICU and subsidiaries. Somalia is plagued by inter-faction fighting, terrorism, and sectarian violence. I really don't know what to say to a person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it has a free market. Side: Much, much worse...
Anyone with authority may issue edicts or orders or change rules. There is nothing stopping them from breaking precedent either, just look at Somalia for a billion examples. You just... don't understand anything beyond the superficial. Just because a persons title translates to "chieftain" in English doesn't magically give them super powers over the market. At best, the chieftain could request that the other Tuath members buy a certain man's product. He couldn't force them to, he couldn't enact barriers to entry and stop competition from forming, he had no power outside of a simple request. If the other men followed his advice or not is up to them. How old are you? Up until now I just assumed you were around my age, perhaps a couple years older, but judging from your fundamental lack of understanding beyond the superficial, either you are a pathological liar or you're brain literally isn't developed enough to see such an obvious difference. It would explain why you also seem to be having such a difficult time considering more than the argument directly laid out in front of you... and your child-like egotism. Did you miss the part where you grow larger and absorb smaller competitors, until you are a monopoly, and then you enact monopoly rates because no one can compete against your inherent advantage. See, this is an example of what I was talking about. It's painfully obvious that if a firm's advantage is high productivity and low rates, then raising the rates hinders their advantage, giving room for another firm to grow. Just being "big" isn't enough to get customers. Persons would, and in fact DO pay smaller firms for a product if a large firm starts charging at monopoly rates. Besides, since a "natural" monopoly isn't coercive, simply enacting monopoly rates would almost over night drop productivity because there are many persons who would sooner go without this product than pay for it at the monopoly rate. Have you even ever taken a class on economics? I mean, this is so basic and far behind the scope this conversation was originally meant to be in. How can you honestly think you're a "genius" when you don't even understand the absolute basics of the market? Next you'll be telling me that "supply and demand is an inherently flawed theory". XD Passive aggressive mental masterbation No, you just make bad arguments and provide links in lieu of context and substance. Seriously, I never said anything that could be construed as those comments. You on the other hand said clearly that anarchy plagued Somalia is better now for it, and other lines more or less like what I condensed. I'm STILL arguing with you on those points under the assumption that these are you arguments and you're STILL responding to them (even in this very post) in a way that validates them. I know you have difficulty holding in your head things I've written that aren't directly in front of you, but fuck, it gets ridiculous at a certain point. A stateless region appears stable to you because there is no state which can collapse, instead there are factions which rise and fall in power. A state is a delicate balance of power and citizens' wants being fulfilled. It can easily topple, over which a new state takes power. Air-tight as a wiffle ball, as per usual. No states emerged in the entire 1000 years of anarchic Ireland. These faction were non-geographic and had no market influence beyond voluntarism. If states really are for the best, you would expect anarchic Ireland to be a tale of extreme poverty and uncertainty, but they were about as well off as the rest of Europe expect there was no threat of depression and no wars (at least, not notably when compared to the rest of Europe). So in your mind a thousand factions fighting each other daily is better than a single faction taking power and once every few decades or centuries being replaced. Makes sense... Once again, fighting between Tuatha was uncommon. Much less common than the states of Europe warring with each other. Also, since currency wasn't monopolized there could be no depressions. So yeah, it does. Virtually zero? The insurgents are being funded by other States covertly, Iran and (I think it was also) Afghanistan, plus all sorts of drug trading. Despite all that we have claimed the area as our own. If we had better strategists and commanders (I blame the Bush Administration for jumping into this unprepared) we may have made it less of a sectarian quagmire with Human Rights Violations. Do you have evidence supporting this claim that the guerilla armies where receiving state funding, or is this just conjecture? States go through periods of war, as opposed to constant skirmishing which is the nature of anarchy. I think you mean Religious power took a nose dive. Well, at the time they were very much synonymous. If it isn't Al-Shabaab, it's the ICU and subsidiaries. Somalia is plagued by inter-faction fighting, terrorism, and sectarian violence. I really don't know what to say to a person who thinks this is perfectly acceptable, as long as it has a free market. Again, a very poor argument. The standard of living in Somalia went up after the end of taxation. There was war beforehand, there was war after, the only real difference is individuals had more wealth, health care, utilities, etc. after the collapse. Side: Much, much better...
You just... don't understand anything beyond the superficial. Just because a persons title translates to "chieftain" in English doesn't magically give them super powers over the market. If a person can wield authority over others he has political influence over, then he can cause them to make decisions that are not based on the unbiased rules of competition. At best, the chieftain could request that the other Tuath members buy a certain man's product. He couldn't force them to, he couldn't enact barriers to entry and stop competition from forming, he had no power outside of a simple request. If the other men followed his advice or not is up to them. What is the word for this? I'm not going to immediately address this statement but imagine the psychology behind it. Now, you're a young, well-off man with no experience in the poorest nations. You feel entitled to wealth. I assume this because you defend the wealthy, which means you think wealth comes with no personal responsibility, which means you came into money from your parents and not through hard work. You therefore hate taxes because it's your money. That's all you understand. Lack of responsibility means you cannot see it any other way. Therefore you're attracted to libertarianism, because nothing says "It's my money dammit!" like libertarianism. You hate governments. This is a bit harder to figure out. Maybe your family runs a business and the state has made it tough to comply with regulations. Somewhere the state has crossed you emotionally, and your innate appeal to libertarianism (read: "My money! Dammit!") means it's only a stone's throw to become anarchist. So in your mind a dialectic formed, a romanticised one: the noble tribe versus the corrupt state. In your thinking the state is synonymous with everything that is bad about humanity, while the tribe represents independence, self-reliance, individuality. So while I can clearly explain to you that politics is a fact of human nature, and it is what allows a person to force others into doing things even if he isn't a state official, because social bonds and consequences are capable of coercing a group into choices that are against their interests, you will simply deny it because you have an emotional need to blame the state for all problems. How old are you? Up until now I just assumed you were around my age, perhaps a couple years older, but judging from your fundamental lack of understanding beyond the superficial, either you are a pathological liar or you're brain literally isn't developed enough to see such an obvious difference. You're projecting. See, this is an example of what I was talking about. It's painfully obvious that if a firm's advantage is high productivity and low rates, then raising the rates hinders their advantage, giving room for another firm to grow. Just being "big" isn't enough to get customers. Persons would, and in fact DO pay smaller firms for a product if a large firm starts charging at monopoly rates. If competition exists that is equal, you work hard to do better than it. Eventually you will outcompete it, but crucially you may engage in practices that are not anticipated by economic theory. You see, you think only in terms of economic theory, which simplifies a real-world phenomenon. Factors that are not anticipated include the unethical actions that businesses take as social institutions, like blocking trade routes, forming secret deals, spreading misinformation about competition, lying about what is being sold, etc. At some point you can outcompete your main competitors, and this is where you become large enough that new competitors don't stand a chance when competing with your products directly. This is because your business is much more efficient at producing a good, and it is more ubiquitous in distribution points. You have the advantage. You may even own trade routes which your competition requires to compete with you, in which case you are making money off of your competition as they try to outsell you. Have you even ever taken a class on economics? I mean, this is so basic and far behind the scope this conversation was originally meant to be in. How can you honestly think you're a "genius" when you don't even understand the absolute basics of the market? Next you'll be telling me that "supply and demand is an inherently flawed theory". XD Anyone who knows anything, knows that theory is simple model designed to approximate a natural system. Natural systems are frequently infinitely complicated, and even small variables unaccounted for can have drastic results on the system not presently explained by the theory. This is why libertarians are mocked openly. Your entire knowledge of economics is based on theory. This means that you have no appreciation for the real world system. You just consult your theory each time you need to reflect on new information, and instead of being a good scientist who alters his theory to fit new information, you discard new information that doesn't fit your theory as erroneous. Example: "Monopolies just don't happen in a free market!" (Because according to free market theory competition may always arise to displace growing companies. In theory the economic landscape is infinite, a monopoly cannot as per model own the entire market even though as per reality it can succeed in "good enough solutions" which violate theory. You simply ignore this because it doesn't fit theory. Have you ever heard the expression "Evolution is cleverer than you?" It's the same in economics. The market behaves like a virtual ecology, and evolves clever solutions to problems which are thought insurmountable according to current theory. The market is cleverer than your theory. That is why I laugh at your simple understanding of economics. Passive aggressive mental masterbation No, you just make bad arguments and provide links in lieu of context and substance. Your understanding is too narrow. I overestimated you many times. I'm STILL arguing with you on those points under the assumption that these are you arguments and you're STILL responding to them (even in this very post) in a way that validates them. I know you have difficulty holding in your head things I've written that aren't directly in front of you, but fuck, it gets ridiculous at a certain point. Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, you haven't reflected enough on what you're saying that you don't understand the gravity of your implications? Air-tight as a wiffle ball, as per usual. No states emerged in the entire 1000 years of anarchic Ireland. These faction were non-geographic and had no market influence beyond voluntarism. If states really are for the best, you would expect anarchic Ireland to be a tale of extreme poverty and uncertainty, but they were about as well off as the rest of Europe expect there was no threat of depression and no wars (at least, not notably when compared to the rest of Europe). Present-day Somalia helps us understand this. When there are rival factions with nearly equal power fighting, or competing, then it is possible for attrition to forestall a state for a very long time. However, a state will eventually emerge as more stable political alliances form. This is why even states themselves can form metastates like the European Union. It is the fate of Earth, our survival permitting, to have one world metametastate eventually. Once again, fighting between Tuatha was uncommon. Much less common than the states of Europe warring with each other. Also, since currency wasn't monopolized there could be no depressions. So yeah, it does. Wikipedia disagrees with you about Gaelic Ireland. Do you have evidence supporting this claim that the guerilla armies where receiving state funding, or is this just conjecture? Look up the Iraq War Logs. These classified documents have intel which suggests Iranian funding of the insurgents. Again, a very poor argument. The standard of living in Somalia went up after the end of taxation. There was war beforehand, there was war after, the only real difference is individuals had more wealth, health care, utilities, etc. after the collapse. What did I tell you about quoting only portions of statistics and data which favour your position? You have to look at everything, including that which contradicts you. Side: Much, much worse...
Theory on me It's a nice theory, but the recurring theme of my posts has been for fair competition on the market, not my opposition to taxation. Don't get me wrong, I do oppose taxation, but only because taxation is the means of sustaining the states many coercive monopolies, which are the opposite of fair competition, therefore I oppose taxation. FYI, I grew up with my mom (single parent) with my brother and sister living a lower-middle class lifestyle. The states done nothing to me personally (at least, no more than anyone else), I oppose that state for intellectual reasons alone. If we were to have verbal communication, you would see I talk about the state in much the same way I would talk about physics, but since we can't you'll just have to take my word for it. If competition exists that is equal, you work hard to do better than it. Eventually you will outcompete it, but crucially you may engage in practices that are not anticipated by economic theory. You see, you think only in terms of economic theory, which simplifies a real-world phenomenon. Factors that are not anticipated include the unethical actions that businesses take as social institutions, like blocking trade routes, forming secret deals, spreading misinformation about competition, lying about what is being sold, etc. At some point you can outcompete your main competitors, and this is where you become large enough that new competitors don't stand a chance when competing with your products directly. This is because your business is much more efficient at producing a good, and it is more ubiquitous in distribution points. You have the advantage. You may even own trade routes which your competition requires to compete with you, in which case you are making money off of your competition as they try to outsell you. Persons solve problems all the time. It's what they do. At the very least, even if all the "trade rout blocking" and "unethical behavior (?)" you mention were to happen and unsolvable, it would still result in a more firm-fair market and require these large firms to be more competitive anyway. That's not all I have to say on this, but taking a quick glance at the rest of this post, it looks like I'll get it all out anyway. Anyone who knows anything, knows that theory is simple model designed to approximate a natural system. Natural systems are frequently infinitely complicated, and even small variables unaccounted for can have drastic results on the system not presently explained by the theory. This is why libertarians are mocked openly. Your entire knowledge of economics is based on theory. This means that you have no appreciation for the real world system. You just consult your theory each time you need to reflect on new information, and instead of being a good scientist who alters his theory to fit new information, you discard new information that doesn't fit your theory as erroneous. Example: "Monopolies just don't happen in a free market!" (Because according to free market theory competition may always arise to displace growing companies. In theory the economic landscape is infinite, a monopoly cannot as per model own the entire market even though as per reality it can succeed in "good enough solutions" which violate theory. You simply ignore this because it doesn't fit theory. Have you ever heard the expression "Evolution is cleverer than you?" It's the same in economics. The market behaves like a virtual ecology, and evolves clever solutions to problems which are thought insurmountable according to current theory. The market is cleverer than your theory. That is why I laugh at your simple understanding of economics. ... ... ... ... ... ... Wow. Okay... congratulations. You just stupefied me by saying by far the most... I don't even know a word for it. I'm just going to get right into this. So, your argument is essentially "theories are not perfect, therefore anything you have to say that relies on theory is automatically flawed". Talk about a fucking cop-out. No theory has yet to account for all possibility. That's a given. Hell, that's literally the entire purpose of calling it a theory. The point is to look at the most common occurrences and derive probability based on them. Every morning you wake up and roll out of bed. Usually your feet hit the ground and your day continues, but there's a chance you might slip right through the floor, or that your leg might explode or something like that. Your feet touching the ground with no consequence is just a theory, but it so accurately relates to reality that you can comfortably build your morning around the assumption that if you put your foot on the ground, your leg wont explode. The same can be said for economic theory. The theory "natural monopolies don't happen/ are unsustainable" (depending on how you define a monopoly) may only be a theory, but since it has held true thus far AND there's strong logic standing behind it, one can comfortably derive that monopolies will not happen naturally. You can even take it a step further and recognize that monopolies are more likely when the state is present as that's pretty much what the state is. It should never be necessary to have to explain something like this in a debate. I mean, this is a-priori stuff. I get the feeling this is a "last resort" sort of thing. You've run out of arguments, so as a last resort you've decided your just going to write off anything I say because it's theory, well guess what, the same can be said about you and your "hybrid" theory. The only difference is my theories come from the Austrian School of Economics, the school that has produced more correct prophecies than any other school of economists in all of human history. What have your theories done? What have you proven? Which of your prophecies have come to fruition? Where's your school of economics? If I can't be right because theories can't be right, how can you be? Once again your argument is abstract and non-cognitive. You say a lot, but your words have no substance. You haven't actually shown anything I've said to be wrong here, you've just asserted it. Your understanding is too narrow. I overestimated you many times. Judging by your last argument, the overestimating has been on my part. Did you ever consider that maybe, just maybe, you haven't reflected enough on what you're saying that you don't understand the gravity of your implications? Have you ever considered posting an argument with statistical substance? Even once? If I'm incorrect, it should be easy for you to post counter evidence that stands behind actual figures, not just non-cognitive conjecture. Looking back on your previous posts, there's very, very little actual substance to your arguments. Present-day Somalia helps us understand this. When there are rival factions with nearly equal power fighting, or competing, then it is possible for attrition to forestall a state for a very long time. However, a state will eventually emerge as more stable political alliances form. This is why even states themselves can form metastates like the European Union. It is the fate of Earth, our survival permitting, to have one world metametastate eventually. Somalia isn't a story of factions emerging and fighting for dominance. You are alone on that theory. Every other economist to chime in recognized that Somalia is a story of a state collapsing and other states rushing in to establish power. The current Somali government wasn't formed by the Somalians, it was formed by other already existing states. Wikipedia disagrees with you about Gaelic Ireland. This would have been a very easy argument for you to provide statistical substance to, but you didn't. Well, go on. Show me where on Wikipedia it shows Ireland going through a depression caused by non-monopolized currency. Show me where on Wikipedia it lists these apparent battles between different tuatha. In all of Wikipedia, the only time it even mentions warfare between tuatha is in this single sentence "Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans." but there are so many problems with this. 1. Exactly how much war are we talking about? To what extent? 2. The article it links to admits to having NO SOURCES. 3. It's talking about pre-600 C.E., which is before the time of anarchic Ireland anyway. You're wrong again. What did I tell you about quoting only portions of statistics and data which favour your position? You have to look at everything, including that which contradicts you. Well, I've been giving you all the chances in the world to show me these statistics. No ones stopping you. Go on, give me some actual numbers. Side: Much, much better...
It's a nice theory, but the recurring theme of my posts has been for fair competition on the market, not my opposition to taxation. Don't get me wrong, I do oppose taxation, but only because taxation is the means of sustaining the states many coercive monopolies, which are the opposite of fair competition, therefore I oppose taxation. So you oppose taxation. FYI, I grew up with my mom (single parent) with my brother and sister living a lower-middle class lifestyle. The states done nothing to me personally (at least, no more than anyone else), I oppose that state for intellectual reasons alone. If we were to have verbal communication, you would see I talk about the state in much the same way I would talk about physics, but since we can't you'll just have to take my word for it. You have an emotional reason for being anti-state. If it was purely intellectual you wouldn't be grasping at straws like Somalia and Ireland. Something is biasing you and you may not even know what it is, or might not be prepared to admit it here. Persons solve problems all the time. It's what they do. At the very least, even if all the "trade rout blocking" and "unethical behavior (?)" you mention were to happen and unsolvable, it would still result in a more firm-fair market and require these large firms to be more competitive anyway. In the 19th century, industrialists became famous for monopolising specific utilities, services and goods markets. It became so that you frequently had to pay the monopoly you were competing directly with, for services or goods that only they provided. For example if you wanted to compete with Standard Oil, you had to use railways that they controlled. I keep bringing this up because Standard Oil is one of the greatest examples of what is so terribly wrong with monopolies but also how natural they are in a world that has no way to prevent them (meaning no laws that block insider trading and rates). Microsoft has a history of behaving in a similar manner. You are now forced to pay them money on most new computers that you want to buy, because they sign deals with hardware companies. Intellectual Property owes much of its heavy-handed contribution in legislature to them and the RIAA and MPAA. Thanks to Microsoft, open-sourced software has a lot of fear surrounding it in the general population. These are all anti-competitive practices which markets allow. ... ... ... ... ... ... Wow. Okay... congratulations. You just stupefied me by saying by far the most... I don't even know a word for it. I'm just going to get right into this. So, your argument is essentially "theories are not perfect, therefore anything you have to say that relies on theory is automatically flawed". Talk about a fucking cop-out. Maybe I should have written it in French. No. I said that theories are imperfect so you need to treat evidence as more authoritative. In other words, because theory is not all-encompassing, when you have new information which contradicts it, you don't discard the data, you modify the theory. The same can be said for economic theory. The theory "natural monopolies don't happen/ are unsustainable" (depending on how you define a monopoly) may only be a theory, but since it has held true thus far AND there's strong logic standing behind it, one can comfortably derive that monopolies will not happen naturally. You can even take it a step further and recognize that monopolies are more likely when the state is present as that's pretty much what the state is. Case in point you just ignored Standard Oil in your statement and elected to support the theory, instead of modifying the theory to accept that monopolies happen. You also ignored Microsoft and De Beers as important modern examples. Why do monopolies happen? Because they are more efficient than a bunch of small, competing businesses. Monopolies have a natural advantage. The only difference is my theories come from the Austrian School of Economics, the school that has produced more correct prophecies than any other school of economists in all of human history. What have your theories done? What have you proven? Which of your prophecies have come to fruition? Where's your school of economics? If I can't be right because theories can't be right, how can you be? This reminds me of some Christians I've debated with who claim that because some generic prophesies in the bible have been fulfilled, everything else in the bible must be true. I've already had this discussion with you before. The only vindication that predictions give is to the model that made those predictions. Free market economics isn't a part of that. If you're trying to say that a free market works because some arcane models unrelated to it could be interpreted as predicting our recession, then you've just used the same reasoning as those aforementioned Christians. It also misses the point entirely that we shouldn't judge an economic model's viability by its present ability to be predicted successfully, but instead by its ability to be fair towards the classes both in regulatory mechanisms and in distribution of wealth. It should never be necessary to have to explain something like this in a debate. I mean, this is a-priori stuff. I get the feeling this is a "last resort" sort of thing. You've run out of arguments, so as a last resort you've decided your just going to write off anything I say because it's theory, well guess what, the same can be said about you and your "hybrid" theory. If you learned to read, maybe I wouldn't be addressing this now. If biology, my subject of interest, worked like your economics, we wouldn't have modern genetic theory and epigenetics. That's because Mendelian Genetics says that genes only behave a certain way, and all the evidence that interactions are more complicated at the molecular level would be ignored by people like you. Think about that every time you say "monopolies don't happen in an unregulated market." It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, which is the market that economics derives from. Evolution has no intent, no bias, no corruptibility however its history is full of examples where a single species has dominated an environment. Once again your argument is abstract and non-cognitive. You say a lot, but your words have no substance. You haven't actually shown anything I've said to be wrong here, you've just asserted it. Standard Oil, De Beers, US Steel, Microsoft. Now watch as you ignore them. Have you ever considered posting an argument with statistical substance? Even once? If I'm incorrect, it should be easy for you to post counter evidence that stands behind actual figures, not just non-cognitive conjecture. Looking back on your previous posts, there's very, very little actual substance to your arguments. Statistics are useful for subjects which are complicated, ambiguous, and well-documented. The Industrial Revolution was not well-documented. The occurrence of modern monopolies is not ambiguous, but well-documented and certain. In short, it is enough that I can show you examples of monopolies. Referring to Somalia, it isn't exactly easy to find detailed statistics in a war-ravaged collapsed state. Somalia isn't a story of factions emerging and fighting for dominance. You are alone on that theory. Every other economist to chime in recognized that Somalia is a story of a state collapsing and other states rushing in to establish power. I wonder if FSTDT takes quotes from Libertarian fundamentalists. I think I'll post this there. Of course, it's entirely possible that your "knowledge" of Somalia comes only from Mises and Youtube, so instead of doing your fucking homework you are just spouting inanities. This would have been a very easy argument for you to provide statistical substance to, but you didn't. Well, go on. Show me where on Wikipedia it shows Ireland going through a depression caused by non-monopolized currency. Show me where on Wikipedia it lists these apparent battles between different tuatha. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans.[28] Throughout the Middle Ages and for some time after, outsiders often wrote that the style of Irish warfare differed greatly from what they deemed to be the norm.[28] The Gaelic Irish preferred hit-and-run raids (the creach), which involved catching the enemy unaware and storming their strongholds. If this worked they would then seize any valuables (mainly livestock) and potentially valuable hostages, burn the crops, and escape.[28] The cattle raid was often referred to as a táin bó in Gaelic literature. Although hit-and-run raiding was the preferred tactic in medieval times, the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib recounts lengthy pitched battles and the use of boats in tandem with land forces.[29] It was not unusual for armies to launch long-range attacks, setting up camps along the way.[29] http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ Flanagan, Marie Therese (1996). "Warfare in Twelfth-Century Ireland". A Military History of Ireland. Cambridge University Press. pp. 52-75. In all of Wikipedia, the only time it even mentions warfare between tuatha is in this single sentence "Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans." but there are so many problems with this. 1. Exactly how much war are we talking about? To what extent? 2. The article it links to admits to having NO SOURCES. 3. It's talking about pre-600 C.E., which is before the time of anarchic Ireland anyway. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ I'm baffled by how 15th century translates to 600CE. Of course, if you expect modern quality statistics for a region that was fighting itself over a thousand years with different evolving customs and politics, and all of this happening during the dark, lower and high middle ages, they I think you might be a bit batty. In any case I think it is enough that historians consider the period in constant turmoil. Well, I've been giving you all the chances in the world to show me these statistics. No ones stopping you. Go on, give me some actual numbers. The statistics show that there was a slight increase in average life span, a major drop in infant mortality, improved radio/television/internet access, etc. However you ignored completely Al Shabaab, Islamic Courts Union, the Transitional Government, the warlords who horded foreign supplies, the disputes about Sharia and especially the public executions, and so on. You only favoured those things that made your position look good, instead of looking at it all. Side: Much, much worse...
So you oppose taxation. I just said that, but I don't oppose the state because I oppose taxation, I oppose taxation because I oppose the state. You have an emotional reason for being anti-state. If it was purely intellectual you wouldn't be grasping at straws like Somalia and Ireland. Something is biasing you and you may not even know what it is, or might not be prepared to admit it here. That doesn't make sense. I'm using Ireland and Somalia as examples of functional anti-statism, therefore I'm emotional? That doesn't follow at all. I could say "you keep grasping at straws, like the IR was bad, therefore you're emotional." In the 19th century, industrialists became famous for monopolising specific utilities, services and goods markets. It became so that you frequently had to pay the monopoly you were competing directly with, for services or goods that only they provided. For example if you wanted to compete with Standard Oil, you had to use railways that they controlled. I keep bringing this up because Standard Oil is one of the greatest examples of what is so terribly wrong with monopolies but also how natural they are in a world that has no way to prevent them (meaning no laws that block insider trading and rates). Okay, we've gone through this already. Standard oil is not an example of a free market monopoly. Since oil could only be purchased by the petro dollar, the U.S. government has high incentive to keep oil alive and since oil is already an inelastic demand, you see this sort of exploitation. States would have to invest in U.S. dollars in order to get oil, which both allowed the U.S. to grow despite running two major deficits and paved the way for oil companies to collude and become price makers, when they otherwise would be price takers. Microsoft has a history of behaving in a similar manner. You are now forced to pay them money on most new computers that you want to buy, because they sign deals with hardware companies. Intellectual Property owes much of its heavy-handed contribution in legislature to them and the RIAA and MPAA. Thanks to Microsoft, open-sourced software has a lot of fear surrounding it in the general population. These are all anti-competitive practices which markets allow. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly and it especially doesn't have a coercive monopoly. I would take firms making deals to help each other out over the states coercive monopolies any day. But a Mac. =/ Maybe I should have written it in French. No. I said that theories are imperfect so you need to treat evidence as more authoritative. In other words, because theory is not all-encompassing, when you have new information which contradicts it, you don't discard the data, you modify the theory. I know exactly what you said. 1. Theories are imperfect because there is always information they don't account for 2. Theories must be changed when new information arises (which will always happen given No.1) 3. Therefore, any theory I come up with is automatically flawed. The economic theories I propose come from over a hundred years of direct observation by the Austrian School of economics, which in turn are derived from thousands of years of human history. Given this, they have produced more accurate predictions than any other school of thought. The ones using flawed theories are not us, it's the rest of you statists. Perhaps you should take your own advice. Case in point you just ignored Standard Oil in your statement and elected to support the theory, instead of modifying the theory to accept that monopolies happen. You also ignored Microsoft and De Beers as important modern examples. You threw out standard oil and I went into great detail to show you how it's not an example of a free market monopoly. You didn't debunk it, waited a few posts and then threw it out again. If you focused on my actual argument even half as much as you focused on me, this would of been a much quicker debate. Why do monopolies happen? Because they are more efficient than a bunch of small, competing businesses. Monopolies have a natural advantage. Like I've said, repeatedly, if a monopoly forms from being more efficient than every other like firm in existence (it hasn't happened yet, but lets just see where this takes us) than as soon as it stops being more efficient (monopoly rates) it makes room for smaller firms to under sell them. This reminds me of some Christians I've debated with who claim that because some generic prophesies in the bible have been fulfilled, everything else in the bible must be true. I'm surprised your arms aren't tired of dragging that dead horse around everywhere. I've already had this discussion with you before. The only vindication that predictions give is to the model that made those predictions. Free market economics isn't a part of that. If you're trying to say that a free market works because some arcane models unrelated to it could be interpreted as predicting our recession, then you've just used the same reasoning as those aforementioned Christians. Wrong. The predictions have came true because the theorists proposing them have had an understanding of the economy to such an extent that they can accurately make deductions even on major crashes. It is same line of reasoning that lead Mises to foresee the great depression that also points towards anti-statism. Once again, your argument is non-cognitive and full of un-backed assertions. It also misses the point entirely that we shouldn't judge an economic model's viability by its present ability to be predicted successfully, but instead by its ability to be fair towards the classes both in regulatory mechanisms and in distribution of wealth. Utter failure. You're saying that one should not accept economic theory based on its proven accuracy, but instead should be accepted based on what you think sounds "fair"? It doesn't matter if YOU think it sounds fair if it isn't applicable to reality. Logic 101. Surely you understand this. If you learned to read, maybe I wouldn't be addressing this now. If biology, my subject of interest, worked like your economics, we wouldn't have modern genetic theory and epigenetics. That's because Mendelian Genetics says that genes only behave a certain way, and all the evidence that interactions are more complicated at the molecular level would be ignored by people like you. Think about that every time you say "monopolies don't happen in an unregulated market." It doesn't even make sense from an evolutionary standpoint, which is the market that economics derives from. Evolution has no intent, no bias, no corruptibility however its history is full of examples where a single species has dominated an environment. Perhaps if you learned to understand things past the superficial, I wouldn't have to be typing this. I'm not saying monopolies don't happen on free enterprise because firms only act a certain way, I'm saying it because there is no mechanism in a free market to produce monopolies. As long as the market is competitive (which is to say, so long as there is a market) monopolies cannot form. But even if they did (fallback) it would only be sustainable to the extent that they remain better than the rest of their competition. As soon as they act abusive (monopoly rates, etc.) they defer their customer base to other firms. You have no appreciation for context. Standard Oil, De Beers, US Steel, Microsoft. Now watch as you ignore them. Yet another wrong prediction from the statist pseudo-economists. ;) You're re-bringing up two of these that I've already debunked, but you have yet to counter debunk. But, if you want to make the case that De Beers and US Steel were able to enact monopoly rates with no drawback from the market I'm all eyes. Statistics are useful for subjects which are complicated, ambiguous, and well-documented. The Industrial Revolution was not well-documented. The occurrence of modern monopolies is not ambiguous, but well-documented and certain. In short, it is enough that I can show you examples of monopolies. Referring to Somalia, it isn't exactly easy to find detailed statistics in a war-ravaged collapsed state. Bullshit. I found many statistics just fine. Your essentially saying my statistics are wrong because you can't find counter statistics. This is childish. You wouldn't take this sort of bullshit from a Christian, why should I take it from you? I wonder if FSTDT takes quotes from Libertarian fundamentalists. I think I'll post this there. Of course, it's entirely possible that your "knowledge" of Somalia comes only from Mises and Youtube, so instead of doing your fucking homework you are just spouting inanities. Take note, once again there is no actual argument here, just you expressing your opinions on me, again. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Gaelic Ireland was a land of continuous warfare, as túatha fought for supremacy against each-other and (later) against the Anglo-Normans.[28] Throughout the Middle Ages and for some time after, outsiders often wrote that the style of Irish warfare differed greatly from what they deemed to be the norm.[28] The Gaelic Irish preferred hit-and-run raids (the creach), which involved catching the enemy unaware and storming their strongholds. If this worked they would then seize any valuables (mainly livestock) and potentially valuable hostages, burn the crops, and escape.[28] The cattle raid was often referred to as a táin bó in Gaelic literature. Although hit-and-run raiding was the preferred tactic in medieval times, the Cogad Gáedel re Gallaib recounts lengthy pitched battles and the use of boats in tandem with land forces.[29] It was not unusual for armies to launch long-range attacks, setting up camps along the way.[29] I addressed this exact point in my very next argument. Why did you feel the need to copy/paste this? This is just stupid. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ Flanagan, Marie Therese (1996). "Warfare in Twelfth-Century Ireland". A Military History of Ireland. Cambridge University Press. pp. 52-75. Not Wikipedia and has nothing to do with depressions brought on by free market currency, but i'll check it out anyway. =/ http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/ I'm baffled by how 15th century translates to 600CE. Of course, if you expect modern quality statistics for a region that was fighting itself over a thousand years with different evolving customs and politics, and all of this happening during the dark, lower and high middle ages, they I think you might be a bit batty. In any case I think it is enough that historians consider the period in constant turmoil. Alright smart ass, relative to the Wikipedia article, they were referring to pre 600 Ireland as that's the only time it lists these supposed wars. Anyway, you haven't shown any actual statistics, I am sympathetic however to your situation as finding solid evidence of these wars from so long ago is no easy task, but I managed to find statistics supporting me, you should be able to do the same. Historians consider this time turmoil because Ireland was under constant invasion. The statistics show that there was a slight increase in average life span, a major drop in infant mortality, improved radio/television/internet access, etc. However you ignored completely Al Shabaab, Islamic Courts Union, the Transitional Government, the warlords who horded foreign supplies, the disputes about Sharia and especially the public executions, and so on. You only favoured those things that made your position look good, instead of looking at it all. Well, I've been giving you all the chances in the world to show me these statistics. No ones stopping you. Go on, give me some actual numbers. Side: Much, much better...
That doesn't make sense. I'm using Ireland and Somalia as examples of functional anti-statism, therefore I'm emotional? That doesn't follow at all. They are functional insofar as they exist(ed) towards a purpose. By any higher criteria they fail to function. That's the point. A state in perpetual fighting is not a good place to live. You're grasping at straws for using these examples. It's like if in advocating communism I used Stalin's Russia as an example of communism that worked. Sure, the people were miserable, and there were no human rights... but the collectives produced output, and that's all that matters! Okay, we've gone through this already. Standard oil is not an example of a free market monopoly. Missing the point? Rockefeller and his associates actively impeded competitors in ways that would be illegal in a regulated market, such as blocking competitors' distribution routes and using insider prices for associate companies in order to run competition into the ground. States would have to invest in U.S. dollars in order to get oil, which both allowed the U.S. to grow despite running two major deficits and paved the way for oil companies to collude and become price makers, when they otherwise would be price takers. Standard Oil grew because of Rockefeller's unethical practices and shrewd decisions. If the free market doesn't favour monopolies then your argument would look like it applied to a bunch of small businesses in the oil industry. Put another way, why didn't state interference affect all oil companies and cause them all to become competing giants. Standard Oil grew amongst many competitors when what you said would affect all of them, not just one business. Microsoft doesn't have a monopoly and it especially doesn't have a coercive monopoly. I would take firms making deals to help each other out over the states coercive monopolies any day. But a Mac. =/ Maybe since you don't keep up, I'll elaborate. Microsoft has used something called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" to harm competition. It signs deals with premade computer manufacturers to use its operating system. It supplies money to overseas hardware developers which produce a bios that just so happens to be incompatible with Linux. It uses patents to try and intimidate rival software and operating system developers. It was even fined for failing to conform to standards of antitrust in the EU. I know exactly what you said. 1. Theories are imperfect because there is always information they don't account for 2. Theories must be changed when new information arises (which will always happen given No.1) 3. Therefore, any theory I come up with is automatically flawed. Apparently not. You should draw from what I said that discarding data which doesn't fit your theory is backwards. The economic theories I propose come from over a hundred years of direct observation by the Austrian School of economics, which in turn are derived from thousands of years of human history. Given this, they have produced more accurate predictions than any other school of thought. The ones using flawed theories are not us, it's the rest of you statists. Free market is a type of economy, which is historically exploitative and prone to market bubbles. Predictions of how markets will behave is a form of mathematical theory derived from statistics gathered from history and present day economic interactions. Predicting when the next recession will hit is not because of a model inherent to free market economy but the theory developed from looking at economic behaviours. In other words, buying into Mises predictions does not mean their economic suggestions necessarily correct. You threw out standard oil and I went into great detail to show you how it's not an example of a free market monopoly. You didn't debunk it, waited a few posts and then threw it out again. If you focused on my actual argument even half as much as you focused on me, this would of been a much quicker debate. Like I said, you just ignore examples of monopoly. Theory says that monopoly is impossible, monopoly happens, it must be the fault of something else because the theory is always right. You would get a lot more respect if you replied along the lines of "Yes, monopolies are inevitable. How do we deal with them?" Pretending that you have the perfect solution to prevent monopolies, which just so happens to revoke your financial responsibility towards society, and ignores any counter-examples out of hand makes you into a crackpot. Like I've said, repeatedly, if a monopoly forms from being more efficient than every other like firm in existence (it hasn't happened yet, but lets just see where this takes us) than as soon as it stops being more efficient (monopoly rates) it makes room for smaller firms to under sell them. It would make you so much more credible if you didn't heavily rely on economic theory instead of practical experience. Economy of scale means that a monopoly has a natural advantage. Now let's look into human behaviour. How will humans subvert economic theory? They will buy out services and goods that possible competitors would need to stand a chance of threatening them. If we're talking about a state, they will buy political sanction. Then they will charge monopoly rates. Possible competitors will be snuffed out because they are impeded at several levels. Wrong. The predictions have came true because the theorists proposing them have had an understanding of the economy to such an extent that they can accurately make deductions even on major crashes. It is same line of reasoning that lead Mises to foresee the great depression that also points towards anti-statism. Yet it couldn't be the case that they see a lack of state as a means to obtain even more power... Gullible to the end. Once again, your argument is non-cognitive and full of un-backed assertions. Yet it is the case that I patiently wade through your shallow thoughts hoping for a sign of common sense. Utter failure. You're saying that one should not accept economic theory based on its proven accuracy, but instead should be accepted based on what you think sounds "fair"? It doesn't matter if YOU think it sounds fair if it isn't applicable to reality. Logic 101. Surely you understand this. Note the qualifier "viable." Eugenics is a completely true and accurate model for predicting how to improve the health of society's members but it is not viable for most of us. Perhaps if you learned to understand things past the superficial, I wouldn't have to be typing this. I'm not saying monopolies don't happen on free enterprise because firms only act a certain way, I'm saying it because there is no mechanism in a free market to produce monopolies. Economy of scale exists in a regulated market and a free market. Human nature exists in a regulated market and a free market. Monopolies exist independently of regulation because the bigger a business is, the more efficient it becomes at its ability to produce goods and profits. Bigger businesses have more power than smaller ones and may act in more unethical ways to stifle competition. A small business cannot buy all roads in the state so as to charge competitors but a big business can, for example. But hey, if your thinking is limited to what your book on economics says, no wonder you cannot understand why people in power will cheat the system to keep it. As long as the market is competitive (which is to say, so long as there is a market) monopolies cannot form. But even if they did (fallback) it would only be sustainable to the extent that they remain better than the rest of their competition. As soon as they act abusive (monopoly rates, etc.) they defer their customer base to other firms. Now let's play the "Market is smarter than you" game! As long as the market is competitive (let's end competition as per Microsoft, Standard Oil, and De Beers; this means FUD, buying patents that competitors would need, buying up trade routes as per Standard Oil, and in De Beers' case flooding the market with cheap goods like your competitors because you've bought up so much supply). As long as they remain better (if they end competition then they become better at staying in power). As long as they act abusive (Price Fixing as per De Beers, software that dictates terms to you as per Microsoft; made possible because competition has been made to vanish). You're re-bringing up two of these that I've already debunked, but you have yet to counter debunk. But, if you want to make the case that De Beers and US Steel were able to enact monopoly rates with no drawback from the market I'm all eyes. De Beers bought up supply, then eliminated competitors by flooding the market with cheap goods that the competitors were selling premium. When they were out of the market, De Beers proceeded to engage in price fixing. Bullshit. I found many statistics just fine. Your essentially saying my statistics are wrong because you can't find counter statistics. This is childish. You wouldn't take this sort of bullshit from a Christian, why should I take it from you? It's amazing how selective your English comprehension is. I said that the topics we are discussing have little in the way of statistical data and so it would be a weak argument to argue from statistics because the data is weak. It is incomplete. Put a very simple way, if your statistics are talking about number of televisions but not the number dead from civil war, then your data is distorted. Alright smart ass, relative to the Wikipedia article, they were referring to pre 600 Ireland as that's the only time it lists these supposed wars. Did you bother to read the PDF title? It says on the paper, 15th century Ireland. Anyway, you haven't shown any actual statistics, I am sympathetic however to your situation as finding solid evidence of these wars from so long ago is no easy task, but I managed to find statistics supporting me, you should be able to do the same. It is enough that historians find the period fraught with war. Historians consider this time turmoil because Ireland was under constant invasion. If you scanned the document you'd know that Ireland was in turmoil because of rival leaders in Ireland fighting for supremacy. Well, I've been giving you all the chances in the world to show me these statistics. No ones stopping you. Go on, give me some actual numbers. I gave you authoritative sources which describe the warlike area. Side: Much, much worse...
They are functional insofar as they exist(ed) towards a purpose. By any higher criteria they fail to function. That's the point. A state in perpetual fighting is not a good place to live. You're grasping at straws for using these examples. It's like if in advocating communism I used Stalin's Russia as an example of communism that worked. Sure, the people were miserable, and there were no human rights... but the collectives produced output, and that's all that matters! That doesn't follow either. What criteria are using to decide Somalia became less habitable? Life expectancy went up, wealth went up, health care went up, children were more likely to survive. There was war both before and after the collapse, the only real change was the state collapsed and the economy grew dramatically after that. It's a pretty open and shut case that Somalia was better off without the state. Missing the point? Rockefeller and his associates actively impeded competitors in ways that would be illegal in a regulated market, such as blocking competitors' distribution routes and using insider prices for associate companies in order to run competition into the ground. Like Gates, Rockefeller was the victim of a vindictive political assault on his company for the "sin" of rapid innovation, a vast expansion of production, and rapidly-declining prices. As with Microsoft, the political attack on Standard Oil was launched by Rockefeller’s less-successful rivals who sought to achieve through politics (i.e., legalized theft) what they failed to accomplish in the marketplace. Standard Oil was such an extraordinarily efficient company that even Rockefeller’s harshest journalistic critic, Ida Tarbell, described it as "a marvelous example of economy." The efficiencies of economies of scale and vertical integration caused the price of refined petroleum to fall from over 30 cents per gallon in 1869 to 10 cents by 1874, and to 5.9 cents in 1897. During the same period Rockefeller reduced his average costs from 3 cents to 0.29 cents per gallon. History contradicts you. If Rockefeller found a way to cripple competition with only free market mechanisms, then why didn't he enact monopoly rates? He did just the opposite and made his product cheaper! Once again, either you are wrong or reality is wrong. Standard Oil grew because of Rockefeller's unethical practices and shrewd decisions. If the free market doesn't favour monopolies then your argument would look like it applied to a bunch of small businesses in the oil industry. Put another way, why didn't state interference affect all oil companies and cause them all to become competing giants. Standard Oil grew amongst many competitors when what you said would affect all of them, not just one business. The situation with oil now is much different that it was in Rockefeller's time. Since the middle east only sold oil in U.S. dollars for so long, the U.S. stood to make a lot of money. This ensured that the already inelastic demand for oil would continue. Which means, the stage was set for a group like OPEC to cartel the oil companies. Normally, monopoly (oligopoly) rates would drive business away from oil to a new energy form, so oil companies had incentive to charge at competitive rates despite being capable of forming a cartel (since their product has an inelastic demand curve), but since demand for oil was coming right from the U.S. government (since it's wealth is tied to the petro dollar) A cartel could form and taxes would cover the cost. Maybe since you don't keep up, I'll elaborate. Microsoft has used something called "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" and "Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt" to harm competition. It signs deals with premade computer manufacturers to use its operating system. It supplies money to overseas hardware developers which produce a bios that just so happens to be incompatible with Linux. It uses patents to try and intimidate rival software and operating system developers. It was even fined for failing to conform to standards of antitrust in the EU. - all firms talk smack about their competition. This happens with or without a state so this isn't an argument for the state, it's an argument against reality. - It makes perfect sense to not have your products be compatible with your competitions products. Again, this happens with or without a state so this isn't an argument for the state, it's an argument against reality. - Patents are only possible with a state You should draw from what I said that discarding data which doesn't fit your theory is backwards. You haven't shown my understanding of your previous post to be wrong. Besides, I've discarded nothing. I've made a claim, you've denied it, I've debunked your argument and now I'm waiting on you to provide substance supporting you. Free market is a type of economy, which is historically exploitative and prone to market bubbles. Non-cognitively asserted with no evidence or argument. Enter avesk. =/ Predictions of how markets will behave is a form of mathematical theory derived from statistics gathered from history and present day economic interactions. Predicting when the next recession will hit is not because of a model inherent to free market economy but the theory developed from looking at economic behaviours. In other words, buying into Mises predictions does not mean their economic suggestions necessarily correct. Show me specifically where Mises' logic goes wrong. He made his prediction not by chance, but because he legitimately understood the economy. This same understanding that lead him to predict the great depression also leads to anti-statism, since the state is the reason why such crashes happen in the first place. Have you even ever read up on Mises outside of what I've been writing to you? Like I said, you just ignore examples of monopoly. I literally just gave you an open invitation to make the case for these firms. That is the exact opposite of ignoring. Theory says that monopoly is impossible, monopoly happens, it must be the fault of something else because the theory is always right. You would get a lot more respect if you replied along the lines of "Yes, monopolies are inevitable. How do we deal with them?" Pretending that you have the perfect solution to prevent monopolies, which just so happens to revoke your financial responsibility towards society, and ignores any counter-examples out of hand makes you into a crackpot. And you completely turned down this chance. Alright, you've convinced me you have no argument here, you're just saying things so long as they sound like they kinda sorta support you. Even with government subsidies and barriers to entry, oligopolies almost never happen LET ALONE monopolies. If monopolies almost never happen WITH government intervention making such thing easier to accomplish, how do you figure they would happen more often (or even at all) with a state? Use actual historical examples to prove your point (and no, dropping a name does not count as an actual argument). It would make you so much more credible if you didn't heavily rely on economic theory instead of practical experience. Economy of scale means that a monopoly has a natural advantage. Now let's look into human behaviour. How will humans subvert economic theory? They will buy out services and goods that possible competitors would need to stand a chance of threatening them. If we're talking about a state, they will buy political sanction. Then they will charge monopoly rates. Possible competitors will be snuffed out because they are impeded at several levels. Wrong on so many levels. Economic theory is based on actual occurrences within the market. If you theory is correct, then your market predictions will come true, if they don't, chances are you're a statist. You say that monopolies will form because monopolies have a market advantage... therefore they can form a monopoly. I'm going to leave that one as it is. ;) The last part of your argument is pulled right out of your ass. So (for example) a large nail-making firm will go out and buy up all the steel they can so that other nail making firms won't be able to make nails? Absolutely ridiculous. Even if such a firm was willing to commit financial suicide in such a way, the increased sale of steel would be interpreted as an increase in demand for steel, so more steel producers show up in order to get a piece of the action, thus increasing the amount of steel and lowering its value. This very act would result in just the opposite of crippling your competition. This can be applied to all forms of retail and production. Yet it couldn't be the case that they see a lack of state as a means to obtain even more power... Gullible to the end. Now your a common conspiracy theorist. You have no evidence to back up this claim (no surprise), it's just asserted and it doesn't even make sense. Note the qualifier "viable." Eugenics is a completely true and accurate model for predicting how to improve the health of society's members but it is not viable for most of us. Ah, so now the argument changes from "Anti-statism can't work" to "it's just not viable". Regardless if a theory accurately reflects how the market works, then one can derive correct predictions from it. Since mine have and your haven't, either you are wrong or reality is wrong. Yet it is the case that I patiently wade through your shallow thoughts hoping for a sign of common sense. Easy to say when your arguments have no substance. Economy of scale exists in a regulated market and a free market. Human nature exists in a regulated market and a free market. Monopolies exist independently of regulation because the bigger a business is, the more efficient it becomes at its ability to produce goods and profits. Bigger businesses have more power than smaller ones and may act in more unethical ways to stifle competition. A small business cannot buy all roads in the state so as to charge competitors but a big business can, for example. But hey, if your thinking is limited to what your book on economics says, no wonder you cannot understand why people in power will cheat the system to keep it. LOL! Now I'm wrong because I'm actually educated on the matter? Alright avesk. XD Your argument is that wealthy firms can buy up all the roads and not let their competitors use them? What? How would they enact such rules? Are they going to search every vehicle gestapo style? Are they going to buy every road that leads out of every town? Do you have any idea how large a firm would have to be relative to all its competition to do such a thing? Even WITH state support, no firm has been capable of such a thing. Now let's play the "Market is smarter than you" game! As long as the market is competitive (let's end competition as per Microsoft, Standard Oil, and De Beers; this means FUD, buying patents that competitors would need, buying up trade routes as per Standard Oil, and in De Beers' case flooding the market with cheap goods like your competitors because you've bought up so much supply). Wow. Alright, I've already dealt with the Microsoft thing. I googled "standard oil buying trade routes" because that was news to me, but the only thing that came up was this very post you made claiming this. Flooding the market with cheap goods is a perfectly fine way to make money. If the demand for cheap goods is there then what's the problem? It seems like you're just trying to make the free market fit your idea of it. De Beers bought up supply, then eliminated competitors by flooding the market with cheap goods that the competitors were selling premium. When they were out of the market, De Beers proceeded to engage in price fixing. If De Beers was able to profit from selling a cheap product, then it's competition was over selling. De Beers is well known for its monopolistic practices throughout the 20th century, whereby it used its dominant position to manipulate the international diamond market. The company used several methods to exercise this control over the market: Firstly, it convinced independent producers to join its single channel monopoly, it flooded the market with diamonds similar to those of producers who refused to join the cartel, and lastly, it purchased and stockpiled diamonds produced by other manufacturers in order to control prices through supply. However, the transformation of the company, from the late nineties to present, to a more responsible one is starting to become more widely known. A range of factors contributed to the need for change in the De Beers model in 2000. In the 1990s, it became increasingly evident that De Beers' industry custodianship and supply-controlled model was no longer viable. De Beers was also unable to conduct business in several jurisdictions where it had interests or a corporate presence due to their dominance in the diamond industry. In addition, more producers from varied locations such as Russia, Canada and Australia chose to start distributing diamonds outside of the De Beers channel, thus effectively ending the monopoly. There you go. When a problem arises, the market is completely capable of solving it. Why did their model stop being viable? It doesn't say, but I would bet my ass it had to do with the reasons I outlined earlier It's amazing how selective your English comprehension is. I said that the topics we are discussing have little in the way of statistical data and so it would be a weak argument to argue from statistics because the data is weak. It is incomplete. Put a very simple way, if your statistics are talking about number of televisions but not the number dead from civil war, then your data is distorted. Bull. Shit. It took me about 4 seconds to pull of statistics on life expectancy in Somalia pre and post collapse. It went UP 5 years, which means it actually became EASIER to survive after the state collapsed. Either you didn't look very hard or YOU'RE cherry picking (the lack of) data. ;) Did you bother to read the PDF title? It says on the paper, 15th century Ireland. I was asking specifically about Wikipedia and on Wikipedia it only talks about these wars relative to pre-600 C.E. Ireland. Your new source is fine and all, and I addressed it, but in this particular point I wasn't talking about it. It is enough that historians find the period fraught with war. No, no it's not. If there's no facts, then what are these historians basing their information on? I happen to know for a fact that for a very long time historians were polled on whether Ireland was peaceful or not, since the only data suggests war from foreign invaders. If you scanned the document you'd know that Ireland was in turmoil because of rival leaders in Ireland fighting for supremacy. The "fighting for supremacy" was mostly the Uí Néill against the Eóganachta, which weren't even really tuatha. the Uí Néill won and their power peaked during the 8th century. After that, they lost power and no records of tuatha warring are shown after that. I gave you authoritative sources which describe the warlike area. Words are easy to misinterpret. That's why I'm more of a numbers guy. If the Irish tuatha really did result in more death and corruption than the mega-states throughout the rest of Europe, then fine, otherwise, not so fine. Side: Much, much better...
I only dispute your claim as to the nature of Free-Market entities in that when you say that Rockefeller did not instate Monopoly prices, but that he lowered them, He is a singularity. He was a rather nice man and also held a philosophy similar to that of Nikola Tesla, who believed in Free World Energy, in that he wished for everyone to prosper under Gasoline, as long as he held power and fame. He was a very charismatic man who enjoyed being such and being in the spotlight. I also believe this was a time period where he was fighting his filanthropist son over the philosophical legitimacy of his (Rockefeller Sr.'s) Company. Although I have no proof, this could aid my argument in that Rockefeller not instating a monopoly is a singularity. Side: It is flawed
... I count at least three civil wars in Somalia. The one which formed to take Barre out. The one that formed in the power vacuum that occurred. The one between the UN transitional government and the Islamists. Then your previous comment about the "two decades of civil war" in relation to Somalia's statelessness was wrong. Very wrong... I still have no idea where you got that number from. I guess you just pulled that argument right out of your ass. The most violent years in Somalia were the years following 1991 when the United Nations was physically present, attempting to impose a central government. When the United Nations withdrew in 1995, the expectation of a future central government began to recede, and things began to stabilize. But the United Nations continued it efforts to re-establish a government through a series of some sixteen failed "peace conferences." In 2000 it set up a straw government, the Transitional National Government (TNG). However, not only did the northern Somali clans not recognize the TNG, it was unable to control its intended capital city of Mogadishu. Today a combined "peace-keeping mission" of United States–backed troops from Ethiopia, Somalia's traditional enemy, and Uganda under the aegis of the African Union is in Mogadishu attempting to prop up the TNG and secure its control over the rest of Somalia. The violence following the Barre regime's collapse came from already existing states trying to establish power, not from the Somali's themselves trying to rule each other. More non sequitur brought to you by a simple mind. The point is, you don't fear for your life every day because gangs with machetes aren't busting down doors in your village. How the hell is this a non-sequitur? YOU brought up the phrase "death-squad", I merely showed you how the phrase is best applied to states. Also, this is the first time you've called "non-sequitur" on me, so how exactly is this "more"? It seems you'd type pretty much anything so long as it sounds like it supports you. =/ Sure, there's no gang busting down my door, unless I happen to own the wrong kind of vegetation or if I try to opt-out of state services. So, I suppose I'm safe so long as no gang finds reason to convince themselves that they have reason to invade my home... yeah that sure is a rock solid argument for the state. =/ An existing state is accountable to the people within that nation. An invasive state is accountable to, obviously, the foreigners who make up its citizens. And a free market defense agency is accountable to its customers, the difference is the free market agency is subjected to competition, requiring it to constantly improve in order to get customers. Except that coercion did eventually conquer Ireland. How is this a counter argument? Once again you've just re-asserted what you've already been saying. I repeat: Ireland proves only that Christianity was an easy religion to spread hundreds of years ago. The fact that England spent hundreds upon hundreds of years failing to take over Ireland via military campaigns proves that coercion is not enough to conquer an anarchy. I said requests. This is an example of business corrupting the principles of trade. Yeah, corruption happening at request is more likely than corruption happening due to a payment. I hardly see how the method of request matters. Except they didn't. In over a century labour reform was essentially nil. History proves you wrong. In modern sweatshops they do not work towards fair practices, but fight them at every level. Do you know what the number one request from sweatshop workers is? For the shop to expand so that their relatives can also get jobs there. In an article about a Nike sweatshop in Vietnam, Johan Norberg wrote, "But when I talk to a young Vietnamese woman, Tsi-Chi, at the factory, it is not the wages she is most happy about. Sure, she makes five times more than she did, she earns more than her husband, and she can now afford to build an extension to her house. But the most important thing, she says, is that she doesn't have to work outdoors on a farm any more... Farming means 10 to 14 hours a day in the burning sun or the intensive rain... The most persistent demand Nike hears from the workers is for an expansion of the factories so that their relatives can be offered a job as well." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ After the Child Labor Deterrence Act was introduced in the US, an estimated 50,000 children were dismissed from their garment industry jobs in Asia, leaving many to resort to jobs such as "stone-crushing, street hustling, and prostitution." UNICEF's 1997 State of the World's Children study found these alternative jobs "more hazardous and exploitative than garment production." Looks like your the one arguing against history. ;) Quit comparing the Industrial Revolution to feudalism. Yeah, I hear it can be a real bitch when someone brings up a point you can't counter. Maybe someday I'll know what that's like. ;) What else am I going to compare it to? Monarchism? Tribalism? Should I compare it to how chimps interact? Obviously I'm going to compare a market with sweatshops to what the market was like before it had sweatshops to see if it improved or not. How could this not make sense to you? Are you missing a chromosome or something? Rest of the rant of how crappy sweatshops are Yeah, it's easy to point at working conditions back in the industrial revolution relative to contemporary standards and say it sucked, but relative to what preceded it, it was a step forward. I'm struggling to be more explicit, but this really is the simplest way to explain it. If you just don't understand how something can be better than what preceded it yet still have room for improvement, then you've got bigger problems on your hands than this debate against me. Do you wish to live as a cotton-picking slave? You never experienced it first-hand. Maybe it's all sunshine and lollypops. If it was a chieftain, or council, they would have ignored the plight of the lower class because the nobility would have their ear. But of course, when the unsettling facts stare you in the face, they're just sob stories. Thank god you're part of an unenlightened minority, because the rest of us who learn from history would rather not go through this again. What facts? This was ONE story that may not even have been true. There were no statistics, there was nothing to go on other than your word and I already know you're not above being manipulative. Which monopolies extend using their wealth and clout. That's why IP has an ownership duration of 75 years after the owner's death. The wealthy have a louder voice than the rest of us. This never changes. Yeah, so the only way to solve this is to remove the firm that allows the wealthy this power. What's this now? You know better than all the factory owners and robber barons spanning almost two centuries? No, that would be you. I just happen to know the same thing that these factory workers and "robber barons" knew, that unhappy workers are sluggish, shabby and more prone to killing themselves. Why do I even have to defend this point? Is it not obvious that unhappy persons don't work as efficiently as happy persons and that the depressed are more likely to kill themselves? What don't you get about high turnover and sweatshops? The labour supply always exists. Each job station is cramped and the workers are treated like units, not allowed to have individuality, with rules that punish any form of independent thought. Pay may be docked, beatings issued, because it is an uncomfortable workplace, with long hours, and the workers outnumber you. You are exploiting people and there is always the chance that they might retaliate. Hence you keep them in line with fear. If they are injured you replace them. If they die, big deal. They are replaceable. Your primary concern is extracting work out of them and keeping them submissive works. Don't you see how this makes no sense? These persons are already working for you, they're doing the job. What reason is there to needlessly beat them? As you've said, the supply for these workers is high. Why the hell would you sooner beat your workers when you can easily fire them and hire a worker that actually wants that job? Back in the industrial revolution there was a "window tax". this tax made it so fewer windows where placed around sweat shops. This made them needlessly dark and dreary. The owners would have liked to add more windows, it would make the workers more cheery and improve productivity, but the tax... There's just no reason to beat these workers. You're argument would make more sense if we were talking about doctors or something. There are far fewer doctors, so most firms couldn't afford loosing them. This type of situation it would make more sense to beat your workers, but when the supply is so high, it would be far more cots effective to just higher a better worker. The quality of life improved, then took a major hit in the Industrial Revolution, then improved again once regulations were enforced. What the hell are you talking about? Once again you're just pulling arguments right out of your ass. Real income per person doubled between 1760 and 1860. Therefore, the share of income going to the lowest 65 percent of the population would have had to fall by half for them to be worse off after all that growth. It didn’t. In 1760 the lowest 65 percent received about 29 percent of total income in Britain; in 1860 they got about 25 percent. So the lowest 65 percent were substantially better off. Their average real income had increased by over 70 percent. Never had the British been better off prior to the industrial revolution. The Industrial Revolution happened in the mid-1700s. So it would make sense that the wealthy had parliament pass laws to suppress their workers. The wealthy have a louder voice. Which is exactly why the state should be abolished. You can't lobby for state control over the market when there is no state. They are making a profit at the expense of damaging the environment around them that they own. Tragedy of the commons. No, avesk. Come on. =/ I know you know this point is wrong. You're insulting both of our intelligences by continuing to defend it. If a factory farmer is farming beyond his factories means then he is damaging his own farm, not everyone else's. So this example is by definition not an example of barriers to entry. Factory farms are private property, they aren't public. =/ Besides, the factory farm is this farmers source of revenue. If he can't upkeep it then he goes out of business and a more competent farmer steps in. Stupidity maybe? It doesn't matter if it's a state, or clan, or tribal council. Wealthy people buy favours from political entities. A "chieftain" with no market influence cannot sell market regulations. Your statement is as stupid as saying you can get a tree to produce more wood by offering it money. You could buy market favours from a Tuath chieftain in the same way you can buy market favours from the president of a local book club. =/ Side: Much, much better...
Then your previous comment about the "two decades of civil war" in relation to Somalia's statelessness was wrong. Very wrong... I still have no idea where you got that number from. I guess you just pulled that argument right out of your ass. No, it was correct. It just depends on how you quantify the violence. If you define civil wars as strictly between large factions, then the civil wars started in the late eighties and ended in the mid to late nineties. If you also include smaller factions fighting, due to offshoots from the ICU, then it continues to the mid 2000s. The violence following the Barre regime's collapse came from already existing states trying to establish power, not from the Somali's themselves trying to rule each other. You really have no clue, huh? The ICU had success because the Islamic Somalis wanted Sharia courts and Islamic supremacy. The Transitional Government had success because secular (and I think it was Christian also) Somalis wanted a new government. The wars came because, as usual, Islamic terrorists and warlords wanted to seize a moment of instability to establish power under the guise of religion. How the hell is this a non-sequitur? YOU brought up the phrase "death-squad", I merely showed you how the phrase is best applied to states. Also, this is the first time you've called "non-sequitur" on me, so how exactly is this "more"? It seems you'd type pretty much anything so long as it sounds like it supports you. =/ Are you at threat of having your limbs chopped off by a machete? No? Then you do not fear death squads. End of discussion. It is irrelevant, I.E. it does not follow that a government is a death squad, despite your attempt to change the topic. Sure, there's no gang busting down my door, unless I happen to own the wrong kind of vegetation or if I try to opt-out of state services. So, I suppose I'm safe so long as no gang finds reason to convince themselves that they have reason to invade my home... yeah that sure is a rock solid argument for the state. =/ Police follow rules and are accountable by courts. Death squads are not. Hyperbole and innuendo do not make an argument. And a free market defense agency is accountable to its customers, the difference is the free market agency is subjected to competition, requiring it to constantly improve in order to get customers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/ http://english.aljazeera.net/ Does that answer your hypothesis? Actually, does it even need to be said that you don't want companies armed with guns competing with each other for profits? Seriously? How is this a counter argument? Once again you've just re-asserted what you've already been saying. Coercion was enough to conquer an "anarchy." Yeah, corruption happening at request is more likely than corruption happening due to a payment. I hardly see how the method of request matters. If you pay a leader of a clan to request that his followers buy your goods, then no longer is competition driving your quality of service. You have rigged the system. Do you know what the number one request from sweatshop workers is? For the shop to expand so that their relatives can also get jobs there. Are you really this slow? When you exploit a group of people, it is possible to abuse them without them even knowing about it, because from their perspective they are receiving an improvement to a prior life. Sweatshops provide extremely low wages to their workers, cramped and unsafe working conditions, and longer hours than would be allowed in the developed world. It is an improvement to them because farming is labourous work, but it is still exploitative to them because the company could afford to employ them in standards like those which we enjoy here: unions, good wages, retirement funds, safe conditions, etc. I'm not even going to listen to your spurious reasoning here because you are happy to employ people at slave wages, knowing full-well how badly we treat those people because you live in luxury in the west and can see the difference, but you choose to live here rather than work in those sweatshops yourself. I really hate stupid, selfish people. Looks like your the one arguing against history. ;) Have you ever worked as a child in a sweatshop? Are you in one now? Is it a matter of habit to find children missing limbs and fingers where you live? No? Then shut the hell up and appreciate that the elimination of child labour and opening of public schools has improved our living conditions. What else am I going to compare it to? Monarchism? Tribalism? Should I compare it to how chimps interact? Obviously I'm going to compare a market with sweatshops to what the market was like before it had sweatshops to see if it improved or not. How could this not make sense to you? Are you missing a chromosome or something? Feudalism ended in England long before the Industrial Revolution. Comparing the Industrial Revolution to it is like comparing McDonalds' jobs to factory jobs in the 18th century and concluding that we should appreciate them, despite that decades ago working at a small restaurant would be considered more enjoyable work. Specifically, Feudalism declined between the late 14th and mid-16th centuries. The Industrial Revolution started around the early to mid-18th century. Reforms occurred after feudalism like a money-based economy and centralised government. Yeah, it's easy to point at working conditions back in the industrial revolution relative to contemporary standards and say it sucked, but relative to what preceded it, it was a step forward. I'm struggling to be more explicit, but this really is the simplest way to explain it. Relative to what preceded it, it was terrible. The only advantage to the Industrial Revolution was a major rise in goods produced. The cost was health, poor working and living conditions, crowded cities, and a steep difference in wealth. Think of the Industrial Revolution like Mecha-feudalism as revenge for Feudalism's fall centuries earlier. Instead of owning land and signing vassals, you owned factories and signed workers. They were your slaves, basically. If you just don't understand how something can be better than what preceded it yet still have room for improvement, then you've got bigger problems on your hands than this debate against me. This is not the issue. The issue is that those methods which improved upon it and reformed it, are what you're fighting against. You're against oversight, accountability, regulation. You want factories to return to those conditions. What facts? This was ONE story that may not even have been true. There were no statistics, there was nothing to go on other than your word and I already know you're not above being manipulative. It was one out of a long list of personal accounts. But ignoring that, the facts are that the wealthy will always corrupt the local political hierarchy. A state is irrelevant to this. You like to pretend that only states are corruptible. Yeah, so the only way to solve this is to remove the firm that allows the wealthy this power. Repeat: Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes) Do groups form hierarchies? ("...") Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...") Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe) No, that would be you. I just happen to know the same thing that these factory workers and "robber barons" knew, that unhappy workers are sluggish, shabby and more prone to killing themselves. Why do I even have to defend this point? Is it not obvious that unhappy persons don't work as efficiently as happy persons and that the depressed are more likely to kill themselves? Point blank: if they "knew" as you do, then there wouldn't have been the need for unions, labour reforms, and so-on. The factory owners would have worked to improve the conditions themselves. They fought against labour reforms which suggests that they didn't know, or knew better than you. Don't you see how this makes no sense? These persons are already working for you, they're doing the job. What reason is there to needlessly beat them? As you've said, the supply for these workers is high. Why the hell would you sooner beat your workers when you can easily fire them and hire a worker that actually wants that job? You know, I understand your problem now. You're too wide-eyed to understand how cruel and callous people are. The factory owners spanned over a hundred years and still found that the best way to get work done was to intimidate their workers. Back in the industrial revolution there was a "window tax". this tax made it so fewer windows where placed around sweat shops. This made them needlessly dark and dreary. The owners would have liked to add more windows, it would make the workers more cheery and improve productivity, but the tax... Not congruent with the other information. The managers docked workers for a long list of offenses related to individuality, they beat workers too. It is not within their nature, therefore, that they should wish to bring good cheer to the workers. Especially when it was the factory owners which fought labour reforms. Real income per person doubled between 1760 and 1860. Therefore, the share of income going to the lowest 65 percent of the population would have had to fall by half for them to be worse off after all that growth. It didn’t. In 1760 the lowest 65 percent received about 29 percent of total income in Britain; in 1860 they got about 25 percent. So the lowest 65 percent were substantially better off. Their average real income had increased by over 70 percent. 1760: No regulations on factory labour. 1860: Many labour regulations have already been passed, they were simply not enforced. Still, it must be said that their wages were pitifully low anyway, so 70% of almost-nothing isn't very impressive especially as they were starving or malnourished most of them time. Never had the British been better off prior to the industrial revolution. Who exactly? The wealthy were better off. Those in parliament were better off. The workers were not better off. The Industrial revolution killed so many, left the rest malnourished, injured, and diseased. Seriously have you any concept of what life was like in those days? Living quarters would suddenly collapse due to poor construction, tuberculosis and cholera were common epidemics, the local water supply was toxic from sewage and industrial waste, and there was nothing but constant toil. Before that the population was lower, living arrangements were more spacious, jobs had more space for workers, etc. Which is exactly why the state should be abolished. You can't lobby for state control over the market when there is no state. Repeat: Do people form groups? (Correct answer: yes) Do groups form hierarchies? ("...") Is such a hierarchy more efficient and powerful than the individual? ("...") Therefore, the wealthy, that always exist in any system, will have a political advantage, no matter what kind of state you build or if you imagine an anarchy (read: stateless collective or tribe) If a factory farmer is farming beyond his factories means then he is damaging his own farm, not everyone else's. So this example is by definition not an example of barriers to entry. Factory farms are private property, they aren't public. =/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_bowl The Dust Bowl or the Dirty Thirties was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands from 1930 to 1936 (in some areas until 1940). The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. A "chieftain" with no market influence cannot sell market regulations. Your statement is as stupid as saying you can get a tree to produce more wood by offering it money. You could buy market favours from a Tuath chieftain in the same way you can buy market favours from the president of a local book club. =/ So if I take a moment to think like you do, then when the state vanishes, magically it becomes impossible for money to trade hands between authorities for favours. It's almost as if you live in an alternate reality where the rules of social interaction are completely different. Why do you think it is possible for the wealthy to subvert a state's existence? Do states have collection boxes next to all their leaders? Is money only possible in a state? It is possible because a state is an authority, like any which forms in a group of humans, and authorities may be bought and sold. Side: Much, much worse...
No, it was correct. It just depends on how you quantify the violence. If you define civil wars as strictly between large factions, then the civil wars started in the late eighties and ended in the mid to late nineties. If you also include smaller factions fighting, due to offshoots from the ICU, then it continues to the mid 2000s. You spoke of 2 decades of civil war in relation to the collapse of Somalia's state when the collapse wasn't even two decades ago. Which means you were either mistaken, or deliberately being deceitful. You really have no clue, huh? The ICU had success because the Islamic Somalis wanted Sharia courts and Islamic supremacy. The Transitional Government had success because secular (and I think it was Christian also) Somalis wanted a new government. The wars came because, as usual, Islamic terrorists and warlords wanted to seize a moment of instability to establish power under the guise of religion. What does this have to do with what I wrote? Wanted Islamic supremacy? Islam was already the reigning religion in Somalia and Islamic courts already existed long before the collapse. You say the wars happened because of terrorists and warlords, the U.N. invaders fall under this category too, buddy. Are you at threat of having your limbs chopped off by a machete? No? Then you do not fear death squads. End of discussion. It is irrelevant, I.E. it does not follow that a government is a death squad, despite your attempt to change the topic. There aren't states that threaten to do just that? Even in the united states, the death sentence exists. They go overseas and kill hundreds upon thousands of persons, including civilians. What else would you call a squad that causes such death? Perhaps... a death squad? You just can't admit when you're wrong. =/ Police follow rules and are accountable by courts. Death squads are not. Hyperbole and innuendo do not make an argument. And the courts are accountable to the state and the state is accountable to the public, right? Since it all leads back to the public anyway, why not cut out the middle man (state)? But, I guess that's sums up out entire dispute anyway. =/ Does that answer your hypothesis? Actually, does it even need to be said that you don't want companies armed with guns competing with each other for profits? Seriously? The first link didn't work. Blackwater's marked growth is clearly the consequences of state-sponsored military action, but even then everyone basically agrees that Blackwater and other private military corporations (“PMCs”) are far more cost-effective than government-administered military forces for virtually any engagement. Sure you can point to a little over a dozen occasions where blackwater agents have fired on civilians, but do you really want to play the "who's killed more" game? Really? =/ I don't want armed firms competing with each other. This is a given, but it's also Utopian. Newsflash, states do the same thing. If you think state armies stop profit wars then you are one very naive individual, avesk. If you pay a leader of a clan to request that his followers buy your goods, then no longer is competition driving your quality of service. You have rigged the system. Once again, Paying someone to promote your product/service is NOT analogous to paying a political party to stifle competition. I can't believe you would be opposed to such a thing. Do you really find promotion to be "wrong"? Are you saying you want the state to stop private firms from promoting their products? You're retarded. This sort of promotion happens with or without a state, so this isn't an argument against anarchism, it's a critic of reality. Are you really this slow? When you exploit a group of people, it is possible to abuse them without them even knowing about it, because from their perspective they are receiving an improvement to a prior life. Are you really this retarded? Any firm that doesn't instantly bring up a persons quality of life to ours must be corrupt, eh? It doesn't matter that the firm actually does improve their quality of life, it's still "evil". I'm not even going to listen to your spurious reasoning here because you are happy to employ people at slave wages, knowing full-well how badly we treat those people because you live in luxury in the west and can see the difference, but you choose to live here rather than work in those sweatshops yourself. I really hate stupid, selfish people. I'd rather these persons receive "slave" wages then sub-slave wages. But I suppose YOU would rather these persons receive sub-slave wages so long as your backwards conscience is clear. I really hate egotistical, Utopian asshats. Have you ever worked as a child in a sweatshop? Are you in one now? Is it a matter of habit to find children missing limbs and fingers where you live? No? Then shut the hell up and appreciate that the elimination of child labour and opening of public schools has improved our living conditions. Lol. So you're just going to ignore my argument because I don't work in sweatshops? Face it, you're arguing against history. These persons quality of life has improved because of these sweatshops and you just can't handle that. You're egotistical and childish. If anything, YOU need to appreciate the elimination of child prostitution and slave labour brought on by these sweatshops. If you weren't so quick to attack that which you've been trained to hate, you'd realize that since these persons are making more money, there's less reason for their children to need jobs. Which means they can get educated and compete for good jobs on a global scale. But, I suppose it takes just a little too much maturity for you to handle. Feudalism ended in England long before the Industrial Revolution. Comparing the Industrial Revolution to it is like comparing McDonalds' jobs to factory jobs in the 18th century and concluding that we should appreciate them, despite that decades ago working at a small restaurant would be considered more enjoyable work. Specifically, Feudalism declined between the late 14th and mid-16th centuries. The Industrial Revolution started around the early to mid-18th century. Reforms occurred after feudalism like a money-based economy and centralised government. You know, I never actually said anything about feudalism. YOU did. So it looks like you're arguing against yourself here. My whole argument has been that the industrial revolution was an improvement relative to the quality of life that preceded it. Regardless of if you would call that feudalism, monarchism, whatever, it was an improvement. Relative to what preceded it, it was terrible. The only advantage to the Industrial Revolution was a major rise in goods produced. The cost was health, poor working and living conditions, crowded cities, and a steep difference in wealth. Think of the Industrial Revolution like Mecha-feudalism as revenge for Feudalism's fall centuries earlier. Instead of owning land and signing vassals, you owned factories and signed workers. They were your slaves, basically. Yet another argument pulled from your ass. I mean, this one doesn't even make sense relative to ITSELF! The only advantage was more goods produced? How the hell does that even make sense? How would it be possible for all this capital to be produced if no one could afford it? I just... don't know how to respond to something so utterly stupid. Real income doubled. Persons had more disposable income so they could afford better homes and health-care. Britain's population DOUBLED. The life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829. You couldn't possibly be more wrong on this topic. I'm starting to think you actually have a literal mental deficiency. I mean, you don't even seem to have a wikipedian understanding of history and economics. This is not the issue. The issue is that those methods which improved upon it and reformed it, are what you're fighting against. You're against oversight, accountability, regulation. You want factories to return to those conditions. Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never once said I was against those things. In fact, I've specifically said just the opposite. Our dispute is over whether a state is more efficient at managing the market than free-enterprise. It was one out of a long list of personal accounts. But ignoring that, the facts are that the wealthy will always corrupt the local political hierarchy. A state is irrelevant to this. You like to pretend that only states are corruptible. I'm going to get an aneurysm if I keep reading your arguments, I just know it... =/ A CEO paying a respected member of some community to say good things about his product to other persons is NOT an example of corruption... if I say anything else, you're just going to twist it and barrage me with an entire posts worth of logical fallacies, so I'm going to leave it at that. Point blank: if they "knew" as you do, then there wouldn't have been the need for unions, labour reforms, and so-on. The factory owners would have worked to improve the conditions themselves. They fought against labour reforms which suggests that they didn't know, or knew better than you. That's your argument? The existence of unions proves that beating your employees is more cost effective than not beating your employees?... I'm just... really glad you have no political sway. Really, really glad. Like I've already said, but am going to have to repeat since you seem incapable of accounting arguments I've made that aren't directly in front of you, without a state to cripple your competition, the only way to attract workers is to provide good working conditions. When you CAN lobby the state to cripple competition you can get away with more because your industry becomes (more) inelastic. You know, I understand your problem now. You're too wide-eyed to understand how cruel and callous people are. The factory owners spanned over a hundred years and still found that the best way to get work done was to intimidate their workers. No, the problem is YOU'RE too wide-eyed to understand that the government puts themselves first and everyone else second. Perhaps wide-eyed is not the right term, more accurately, you're to eyes-pointing-in-opposite-directions. Not congruent with the other information. The managers docked workers for a long list of offenses related to individuality, they beat workers too. It is not within their nature, therefore, that they should wish to bring good cheer to the workers. Especially when it was the factory owners which fought labour reforms. What does this have to do with the window tax? I'm going to guess you're trying to say that these owners are cruel persons, therefore they would not put in more windows if they could afford it... Since you already disagree that happy workers are more productive, there's nothing else to say here. 1760: No regulations on factory labour. 1860: Many labour regulations have already been passed, they were simply not enforced. You already know what I'm going to say to this, so I'm moving on. Still, it must be said that their wages were pitifully low anyway, so 70% of almost-nothing isn't very impressive especially as they were starving or malnourished most of them time. So you're just going to write off any progress just because it didn't automatically bring them up to our level? Look, I know you don't like the idea of statelessness and all, but at this point you've got to see you're fighting a loosing battle. I know you know you're making a bad argument, at the very least you should drop it and move on to some of your less stupid arguments. =/ Who exactly? The wealthy were better off. Those in parliament were better off. The workers were not better off. The Industrial revolution killed so many, left the rest malnourished, injured, and diseased. Seriously have you any concept of what life was like in those days? Living quarters would suddenly collapse due to poor construction, tuberculosis and cholera were common epidemics, the local water supply was toxic from sewage and industrial waste, and there was nothing but constant toil. Before that the population was lower, living arrangements were more spacious, jobs had more space for workers, etc. I already told you exactly how much wealthier the workers got and they become much wealthier in comparison than the upper-class. Go back and re-read it because I'm sick of re-writing my arguments to you. Especially since I usually have to re-write them in back-to-back posts. =/ The Dust Bowl or the Dirty Thirties was a period of severe dust storms causing major ecological and agricultural damage to American and Canadian prairie lands from 1930 to 1936 (in some areas until 1940). The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. So? So if I take a moment to think like you do, then when the state vanishes, magically it becomes impossible for money to trade hands between authorities for favours. It's almost as if you live in an alternate reality where the rules of social interaction are completely different. Yeah, you think you can pay persons with no market sway for market favours, I'M the delusional one. =/ Why do you think it is possible for the wealthy to subvert a state's existence? Do states have collection boxes next to all their leaders? Is money only possible in a state? It is possible because a state is an authority, like any which forms in a group of humans, and authorities may be bought and sold. Subvert? I never said anything about that, in fact I've very clearly stated that it's because of the states power that the wealthy are able to corrupt the economy. Nice try though. ;) Side: Much, much better...
You spoke of 2 decades of civil war in relation to the collapse of Somalia's state when the collapse wasn't even two decades ago. Which means you were either mistaken, or deliberately being deceitful. I said almost two decades of civil war when speaking of post collapse. I said almost three decades of civil war when considering pre-collapse. What does this have to do with what I wrote? Wanted Islamic supremacy? Islam was already the reigning religion in Somalia and Islamic courts already existed long before the collapse. The ICU was post-collapse. You say the wars happened because of terrorists and warlords, the U.N. invaders fall under this category too, buddy. Basically, warlords existed post-collapse and were hoarding foreign aid and using it as currency. The UN Peacekeeping force along with US support tried to offer assistance but warlords made the situation violent, then it became a military campaign to eliminate the warlords. This failed miserably and the US cut its losses. Islamic elements (Al-Shebab I believe it was called) started to gain power, and were militant. Ethiopia, a predominantly Christian neighbor, invaded possibly because of this threat. The Somalis were almost universally outraged and fought back, and the ICU formed. The ICU rooted out most of the warlords (though it could be argued that a faction which wishes to bring Sharia into an anarchic region is like a warlord). Then fast forward and we have various instances of a transition government being formed but the ICU and split factions fight it. Eventually some sort of deal was struck between the ICU and the UN transitional government (thank god for common stupidity and the desire of Somalis to be abused by Islamic Law). There aren't states that threaten to do just that? Even in the united states, the death sentence exists. They go overseas and kill hundreds upon thousands of persons, including civilians. What else would you call a squad that causes such death? Perhaps... a death squad? Oh, so now you wish to compare Canada to Pinochet's Chile and Kim Jung-il's North Korea, in order to insinuate that you fear death squads. I guess this is what you get when hyperbole crosses into the domain of equivocation and lost context. And the courts are accountable to the state and the state is accountable to the public, right? Since it all leads back to the public anyway, why not cut out the middle man (state)? But, I guess that's sums up out entire dispute anyway. =/ Because anarchy doesn't work. Somalia demonstrates this. The first link didn't work. Blackwater's marked growth is clearly the consequences of state-sponsored military action, but even then everyone basically agrees that Blackwater and other private military corporations (“PMCs”) are far more cost-effective than government-administered military forces for virtually any engagement. It works for me, maybe try again or run it through a proxy since your ISP might filter it. So if I understand you, when confronted with reports of Private Military Contractors which is related to the subject of the debate that we are discussing here (Private Police, difference is scope), and those reports indicate that the private contractors operated with impunity, failed to discipline internally their employees and behaved violently where state military would not your observation is that they were cost effective. Wow, this is why I keep coming back to debate you. It's a comic goldmine. You know maybe the PMCs are cheaper because they don't have any military tribunals, no oversight, and no legal system internally. Sure you can point to a little over a dozen occasions where blackwater agents have fired on civilians, but do you really want to play the "who's killed more" game? Really? =/ It doesn't matter who has killed more. That's not the topic. The topic is competence. Historically our military has screwed up, but at least we punish the people responsible, and even when that has failed we have made revisions to the system to keep it from happening again. PMCs operated with impunity and will never be held accountable for their thuggish behaviours because of diplomatic directives, and your beloved market seems to have no effect on them. I don't want armed firms competing with each other. This is a given, but it's also Utopian. Newsflash, states do the same thing. If you think state armies stop profit wars then you are one very naive individual, avesk. Do I even need to comment on this? When there isn't a state, lots of little businesses and tribes and corporations and factions fight with each other constantly (See Somalia and your damned Ireland which you ignore). A state keeps this violence at bay with police and militias, so even if states fight with each other, if the world were an anarchy it would be all those states divided into dozens of factions per state, fighting with each other. A violence fractal. Once again, Paying someone to promote your product/service is NOT analogous to paying a political party to stifle competition. I can't believe you would be opposed to such a thing. Do you really find promotion to be "wrong"? Are you saying you want the state to stop private firms from promoting their products? You're retarded. The stupid. It burns. If a market works as a demand and quality driven meritocracy, then paying an authority to contract his underlings to buy your goods violates this purpose and the system is fatally flawed. Of course, when a business pays a state senator to use their services in a big project, this is known as Pork Barrel spending and is frowned upon. When a business does the same thing in an anarchy, to the local faction leader, you call it "promotion" to downplay the corruption. This sort of promotion happens with or without a state, so this isn't an argument against anarchism, it's a critic of reality. Bingo! You hit the answer that defines why an anarchy doesn't magically solve Capitalism's problems. Do we even need to go any further? You just admitted yourself what I've been saying to you for the past... um... two months? Anarchy: money buys political favours. State: money buys political favours. What's the difference? No civil wars due to competing local factions, and oversight upon businesses and institutions to prevent and punish corruption. Are you really this retarded? Any firm that doesn't instantly bring up a persons quality of life to ours must be corrupt, eh? It doesn't matter that the firm actually does improve their quality of life, it's still "evil". Easy to make a strawman of what I said rather than address my actual argument. I said repeatedly that wealthy business owners who move their businesses overseas do so, that they may pay the workers next to nothing for their labour while selling those goods here at Developed World Pro-Union and Labour Law-Certified Prices. In other words, and this is critical, the factory owners can afford to pay their workers a better wage, one that doesn't require them to work at literal sweatshop shifts in order to make ends meet, but the owners choose to pay insufficiently. The market isn't solving this problem, it is perpetuating it. Lol. So you're just going to ignore my argument because I don't work in sweatshops? Face it, you're arguing against history. These persons quality of life has improved because of these sweatshops and you just can't handle that. You're egotistical and childish. If anything, YOU need to appreciate the elimination of child prostitution and slave labour brought on by these sweatshops. I don't really know what to say to this. I have linked to resources which describe the terror of past Sweatshops. There are all sorts of resources that paint a vivid and miserable picture for what it's like to work at a sweatshop for your life. This is commonly accessible information. What do you say to someone who is unmoved by how bad sweatshops are, and whose argument is essentially "Sweatshops are great! They are just a bit less shitty than slave labour! Let's make more of 'em!" How do you intellectually or emotionally embarrass or shock someone who is defending "a little bit less shitty?" If you weren't so quick to attack that which you've been trained to hate, you'd realize that since these persons are making more money, there's less reason for their children to need jobs. Which means they can get educated and compete for good jobs on a global scale. But, I suppose it takes just a little too much maturity for you to handle. At these wages there is usually incentive to raise more children as workers in your family, so that the combined family profit makes life vaguely comfortable. You know, I never actually said anything about feudalism. YOU did. So it looks like you're arguing against yourself here. My whole argument has been that the industrial revolution was an improvement relative to the quality of life that preceded it. Regardless of if you would call that feudalism, monarchism, whatever, it was an improvement. Did you ever watch those Youtube videos you sent me, and read your own MISES links? They compare the Industrial Revolution to Feudalism, or something vaguely resembling it. Yet another argument pulled from your ass. I mean, this one doesn't even make sense relative to ITSELF! The only advantage was more goods produced? How the hell does that even make sense? How would it be possible for all this capital to be produced if no one could afford it? I just... don't know how to respond to something so utterly stupid. Real income doubled. Persons had more disposable income so they could afford better homes and health-care. I thought it was obvious but... mass production made productivity extremely high for cheap goods... used I guess by a population that was as high as 70% infected with tuberculosis, average age of death between 35 and 40 years, plagued by constant cholera epidemics and general chronic sickness from the water and malnutrition, and constant drinking of alcohol (some would subsist on cider and similar beverages because the water was toxic). So they were comfortable in their cheap garments... as they died from disease and accidents. Britain's population DOUBLED. The life expectancy of children increased dramatically. The percentage of the children born in London who died before the age of five decreased from 74.5% in 1730–1749 to 31.8% in 1810–1829. So? Children occupied (varying reports) between 50 and 70% of the workforce depending on time, source, and job. In the hard labour work like mining they were expected to die by their mid-twenties. Phossy Jaw killed so many young girls that movements sprang up to combat Phossy Jaw. It was typical to see limbless children walking the streets, and by some accounts children's grave markers lined fields. Do you ever bother to look into this topic beyond the first numbers that MISES quotes to you? You couldn't possibly be more wrong on this topic. I'm starting to think you actually have a literal mental deficiency. I mean, you don't even seem to have a wikipedian understanding of history and economics. In a bet between me being mentally deficient and you being mistaken... guess where you ought to throw your money? You're arguing with a genius... so... Wrong, wrong, wrong. I've never once said I was against those things. In fact, I've specifically said just the opposite. Our dispute is over whether a state is more efficient at managing the market than free-enterprise. Free enterprise means no oversight, rules or regulation. You advocate this and ending the state. It's like you're telling me "I'm not against regulation, I just want an economy without regulation." A CEO paying a respected member of some community to say good things about his product to other persons is NOT an example of corruption... if I say anything else, you're just going to twist it and barrage me with an entire posts worth of logical fallacies, so I'm going to leave it at that. We already addressed this. You think that corruption exists with or without a state, but that without a state, corruption of the market ceases (am I the only one seeing the wide contradiction here?). Like I've already said, but am going to have to repeat since you seem incapable of accounting arguments I've made that aren't directly in front of you, without a state to cripple your competition, the only way to attract workers is to provide good working conditions. When you CAN lobby the state to cripple competition you can get away with more because your industry becomes (more) inelastic. Ah so the fault of all those Factory hellholes wasn't the factories themselves for acting profitably, no, it was states for being corruptible (something that you acknowledged is a fact of reality with or without a state). No, the problem is YOU'RE too wide-eyed to understand that the government puts themselves first and everyone else second. Perhaps wide-eyed is not the right term, more accurately, you're to eyes-pointing-in-opposite-directions. How is this relevant? We were discussing factory owners who put their own interests ahead of all of their workers for decades. Are you trying to convince me that if government does the same, it's alright for factory owners to do so? What does this have to do with the window tax? I'm going to guess you're trying to say that these owners are cruel persons, therefore they would not put in more windows if they could afford it... I'm saying that the owners didn't care to make their workers cheery, and besides open windows were believed to spread consumption in that day and age anyway. So you're just going to write off any progress just because it didn't automatically bring them up to our level? Look, I know you don't like the idea of statelessness and all, but at this point you've got to see you're fighting a loosing battle. I know you know you're making a bad argument, at the very least you should drop it and move on to some of your less stupid arguments. =/ How much wealth lined the pockets of the factory owners, yet they were happy to dock large sums of pay for all kinds of minor in-factory rules infractions, and they were happy to pay less than enough for their workers to stay well-fed and comfortable. So? Reply to: If a factory farmer is farming beyond his factories means then he is damaging his own farm, not everyone else's. So this example is by definition not an example of barriers to entry. Factory farms are private property, they aren't public. =/ Was: The phenomenon was caused by severe drought coupled with decades of extensive farming without crop rotation, fallow fields, cover crops or other techniques to prevent erosion.[1] Deep plowing of the virgin topsoil of the Great Plains had displaced the natural grasses that normally kept the soil in place and trapped moisture even during periods of drought and high winds. In other words, as predicted by The Tragedy of the Commons, the workers used up a common resource (land) selfishly and ended up harming themselves and everyone for it. Yeah, you think you can pay persons with no market sway for market favours, I'M the delusional one. =/ Can a chieftain have his men buy from a certain merchant? Yes. That is an example of market sway. Subvert? I never said anything about that, in fact I've very clearly stated that it's because of the states power that the wealthy are able to corrupt the economy. You already acknowledged that the wealthy corrupt regardless of state. Side: Much, much worse...
I said almost two decades of civil war when speaking of post collapse. I said almost three decades of civil war when considering pre-collapse. I know and you were wrong, since it hasn't been two decades since Somalia's collapse. Hence, you were wrong. The ICU was post-collapse. And this is an example of law naturally emerging. Perhaps you and me wouldn't much like Islamic law, but that's what the Somali's wanted and that's what they did about it. So, if we wanted secular law, it would follow that that's exactly what we would do. Basically, warlords existed post-collapse and were hoarding foreign aid and using it as currency. The UN Peacekeeping force along with US support tried to offer assistance but warlords made the situation violent, then it became a military campaign to eliminate the warlords. This failed miserably and the US cut its losses. Yeah, yeah, everybody but the Islamists were good guys. =/ The U.N. tried to establish power just like they did. Oh, so now you wish to compare Canada to Pinochet's Chile and Kim Jung-il's North Korea, in order to insinuate that you fear death squads. I guess this is what you get when hyperbole crosses into the domain of equivocation and lost context. My argument is against all states, so yeah, I'm going to bring up the crazier ones as well. And it is a mater of fact that these super violent states exist, I'm not wrong about that. Besides, the end punishment for any crime is death. Think about it, lets say you don't pay your taxes. You have chosen to not use government services, your home is totally self sufficient yadda, yadda, yadda. What happens? Well, you get a letter, perhaps a few more letters, then they'll send someone to your house to collect it. If you still don't pay, they'll give you a court notice, perhaps a couple more, then if you still don't pay they'll come and try to forcefully extract you from your home. If you try to defend yourself you will be shot. Those are the states two options, either kill you or leave and they can't leave because that would show how weak they actually are. At the end of the day, all the letters and tax-collectors in the world mean nothing if they won't kill you in the end. Hence, death squad. Sure, there's a chance your defense fails and they kidnap you, but then if you try to leave you'll be shot anyway. Because anarchy doesn't work. Anarchy doesn't work because anarchy doesn't work, eh? Ookay there. It works for me, maybe try again or run it through a proxy since your ISP might filter it. Still nothing, I'm going to try it on another computer, but I won't be able to until tomorrow. Hang tight! So if I understand you, when confronted with reports of Private Military Contractors which is related to the subject of the debate that we are discussing here (Private Police, difference is scope), and those reports indicate that the private contractors operated with impunity, failed to discipline internally their employees and behaved violently where state military would not your observation is that they were cost effective. Wow, this is why I keep coming back to debate you. It's a comic goldmine. You know maybe the PMCs are cheaper because they don't have any military tribunals, no oversight, and no legal system internally. What? That's not what I said. I brought it up, absolutely, but my point was that when dealing with such firms there will always be occasions of violence and impunity, man will literally have to evolve out of violence before such firms become obsolete, but when you take into account that the state armies behave with impunity to a much greater extent and are less cost-effective, Private armies start to look pretty damn good. The internal legal system of the united states army is the united states, I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the blackwater army's internal legal system of blackwater. The oversight is in both cases, the public (demand). The difference is, with private protection you can switch firms if you don't like the way yours operates. It doesn't matter who has killed more. That's not the topic. The topic is competence. Historically our military has screwed up, but at least we punish the people responsible, and even when that has failed we have made revisions to the system to keep it from happening again. PMCs operated with impunity and will never be held accountable for their thuggish behaviours because of diplomatic directives, and your beloved market seems to have no effect on them. Competence? You want to speak of competence when private military has already shown itself to be thousands of times for cost-effective? Sure, the state punishes those who screw up, so long as we hear about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the state has kept a lot of shit bottled up. We have every reason to believe that private armies in developed countries would behave with even less impunity than, say, Iraqi guerrillas. This is because, point blank, we are in a more humane psycho-class then they are. If the U.S. army was ordered to invade Washington and assume control, do you think they'd do it? Probably not, but if the did, we'd be fucked. Now, look at private armies. Would they do it? Well, since they are persons from the same psycho-class, probably not. And since they aren't nearly as big as the U.S. army and there are other firms around, they have even less incentive to try since they would fail almost immediately. Do I even need to comment on this? When there isn't a state, lots of little businesses and tribes and corporations and factions fight with each other constantly (See Somalia and your damned Ireland which you ignore). A state keeps this violence at bay with police and militias, so even if states fight with each other, if the world were an anarchy it would be all those states divided into dozens of factions per state, fighting with each other. A violence fractal. Even if several mini-states occurred, there would be much less violence as seen with Ireland and England. Anarchic Ireland had no notable wars, just some infighting. The death count alone is enough to see which is more violent. like I've said, the market reflects public demand. If the public fears protection firms that get too big and too aggressive, they'll loose customers. Remember, for the state to be abolished it would have to be assumed that most of the population no longer believes in the nobility of the state anyway, so it's pretty damn unlikely that they would go and form their own when they are consciously against the state to begin with. Don't get me wrong, I fully understand that this isn't a one-step thing. Jumping straight from state to no state typically doesn't end well, even if it is an improvement in the mean time. It'll take a gradual backing-out of state operations. There's nothing wrong with that. If a market works as a demand and quality driven meritocracy, then paying an authority to contract his underlings to buy your goods violates this purpose and the system is fatally flawed. Ooop, oh, there's that manipulative streak again. There is no authority here, authority assumes the power to make desisions free of questioning. Chieftains had no such power. Firms get into contracts to use a certain companies products, firms promote their product through product placement and whatnot, this all happens regardless of a state, if you have a problem with this then you are arguing against reality, not against me. Of course, when a business pays a state senator to use their services in a big project, this is known as Pork Barrel spending and is frowned upon. When a business does the same thing in an anarchy, to the local faction leader, you call it "promotion" to downplay the corruption. There's a very clear difference between paying a senator to cripple your competition and a firm paying an actor or a book club president or something to say good things about your product. Stop pretending to be stupid, I know you know the difference. Bingo! You hit the answer that defines why an anarchy doesn't magically solve Capitalism's problems. Do we even need to go any further? You just admitted yourself what I've been saying to you for the past... um... two months? Anarchy: money buys political favours. State: money buys political favours. What's the difference? No civil wars due to competing local factions, and oversight upon businesses and institutions to prevent and punish corruption. ... Okay, I was very clearly talking about private firms paying for promotion. That happens regardless of a state. Did you actually make this big of a mistake, or did you think I just don't understand my own arguments and you could trick me into folding? Easy to make a strawman of what I said rather than address my actual argument. You would know. Though, this was in fact what you were saying, you're complaining about nothing. I said repeatedly that wealthy business owners who move their businesses overseas do so, that they may pay the workers next to nothing for their labour while selling those goods here at Developed World Pro-Union and Labour Law-Certified Prices. In other words, and this is critical, the factory owners can afford to pay their workers a better wage, one that doesn't require them to work at literal sweatshop shifts in order to make ends meet, but the owners choose to pay insufficiently. The market isn't solving this problem, it is perpetuating it. If a person overseas is working for 3 cents an hour, but his labour is worth 10 dollars an hour in North America, then it makes perfect sense for a firm to go over there and pay 6 cents an hour and keep the profit. What's wrong with that? If you can survive on 3 cents an hour, 6 cents is a fucking goldmine. If there are no restrictions stopping firms from doing this, then many firms go overseas and create an economy of scale, thus wages increase due to firms competing for workers and since everyone is making more money their children can spend more time in school and less time working. It's not as though these persons can't continue working as prostitutes and farm slaves if they really want to, they just aren't that stupid. I don't really know what to say to this. I have linked to resources which describe the terror of past Sweatshops. There are all sorts of resources that paint a vivid and miserable picture for what it's like to work at a sweatshop for your life. This is commonly accessible information. What do you say to someone who is unmoved by how bad sweatshops are, and whose argument is essentially "Sweatshops are great! They are just a bit less shitty than slave labour! Let's make more of 'em!" How do you intellectually or emotionally embarrass or shock someone who is defending "a little bit less shitty?" I really don't know what to say to this, I've sent you links giving actual statistics on what was going on during the industrial revolution and current sweatshops. There are all sorts of resources that don't have to rely on emotion appeals to prove the industrial revolution was a step forward for the common man. What do you say to someone whom is unswayed by actual figures and statistics and whose argument is essentially "Everyone else's happiness comes second to my sense of morality, therefore all sweatshops are wrong and should be abolished by a mega-firm". How do you intellectually or emotionally embarrass or shock someone who is defending "My morals are more important then some slave's living standard"? You're an egotistical childish half-wit. Nothing more. At these wages there is usually incentive to raise more children as workers in your family, so that the combined family profit makes life vaguely comfortable. So? Did you ever watch those Youtube videos you sent me, and read your own MISES links? They compare the Industrial Revolution to Feudalism, or something vaguely resembling it. Or something vaguely resembling it, huh? Look, I'm not Mises and I'm not youtube. All I've said was compared to what preceded it, the industrial revolution was a step forward. The industrial revolution was in fact better than feudalism and everything that preceded feudalism for that matter, so your argument doesn't make any sense. I thought it was obvious but... mass production made productivity extremely high for cheap goods... used I guess by a population that was as high as 70% infected with tuberculosis, average age of death between 35 and 40 years, plagued by constant cholera epidemics and general chronic sickness from the water and malnutrition, and constant drinking of alcohol (some would subsist on cider and similar beverages because the water was toxic). So they were comfortable in their cheap garments... as they died from disease and accidents. WTF is this? How am I supposed to have any intellectual respect for you when you keep spouting out arguments like this? The common man became about twice as wealthy and was able to afford better homes, clothes, water, health-care, etc. End of story. I don't particularly care if they were loose with the booze or if un-cured diseases existed at the time. It's not as though these "evil" capitalists were dumping sewage into the drinking water, stroking their long wire-y mustaches thinking "Nya, now to murder off both my work supply and customer base! Nya!" These persons had little to no knowledge about what caused diseases let alone how to cure them. So? Children occupied (varying reports) between 50 and 70% of the workforce depending on time, source, and job. In the hard labour work like mining they were expected to die by their mid-twenties. Phossy Jaw killed so many young girls that movements sprang up to combat Phossy Jaw. It was typical to see limbless children walking the streets, and by some accounts children's grave markers lined fields. Do you ever bother to look into this topic beyond the first numbers that MISES quotes to you? Life expectancy of adults went up too. Though, to be totally fair, since there were so many new diseases, life expectancy was less certain. Feel free to pull out more examples of bad things happening during the IR, the facts and statistics remain that it was a step forward in living standards and we'd still be living like peasants had it not happened. In a bet between me being mentally deficient and you being mistaken... guess where you ought to throw your money? You're arguing with a genius... so... "I am an egotistical child" ~Signed, aveskde Free enterprise means no oversight, rules or regulation. You advocate this and ending the state. It's like you're telling me "I'm not against regulation, I just want an economy without regulation." You're lying right to my (internet) face about my position. Did you think I wouldn't see this? Free enterprise means no barriers to entry. It means no firm can lobby a state to cripple competition. "Regulation" is a naturally occurring thing by definition and oversight when there is only one, very bribe-able firm to "oversight" is laughable. I want an economy without state controls. There, now you have no excuse to straw-man me anymore. Not, that you did in the first place, but now there is recorded proof. We already addressed this. You think that corruption exists with or without a state, but that without a state, corruption of the market ceases (am I the only one seeing the wide contradiction here?). You see a contradiction only because you're blatantly making up my position... again. Just once I'd like to read a post from you that isn't riddled with logical fallacies. Are all "geniuses" this stupid? Ah so the fault of all those Factory hellholes wasn't the factories themselves for acting profitably, no, it was states for being corruptible (something that you acknowledged is a fact of reality with or without a state). Jeez, when you straw-man another person's position you run with it right to the end of your post, don't you. ;) Are you trying to convince me that if government does the same, it's alright for factory owners to do so? ... I don't know how you could have possibly gotten that out of my post... you're going to have to tell me what brought you to this conclusion. I'm saying that the owners didn't care to make their workers cheery, and besides open windows were believed to spread consumption in that day and age anyway. I'm sure you've at least seen this relative to yourself. YOU are more productive when you aren't miserable. It's the same deal with everyone else. So, logically, firm owners have an incentive to make their workers happy, or at least not make them miserable. Especially since persons are more willing to work for a firm offering good working conditions. I know, I know, there was a surplus of workers so if you had a firm you were guaranteed to get somebody, but if you wanted the pick of the lot you'd have to offer something more than your competition. Even then, since the worker supply is so high, there's just no reason to beat your workers when you can just as easily not beat them. How much wealth lined the pockets of the factory owners, yet they were happy to dock large sums of pay for all kinds of minor in-factory rules infractions, and they were happy to pay less than enough for their workers to stay well-fed and comfortable. So you're just going to write off any progress just because it didn't automatically bring them up to our level? =/ I don't know why you're still trying to argue this, the statistics are against you. Your words are empty. In other words, as predicted by The Tragedy of the Commons, the workers used up a common resource (land) selfishly and ended up harming themselves and everyone for it. Unclaimed land being used up is not analogous to private land being used up. Private land is not a common and you won't find many examples of farmers over-using their own land. Can a chieftain have his men buy from a certain merchant? Yes. That is an example of market sway. Again, if you can't tell the difference between paying a respected member of society to say good things about your product and a firm lobbying a state to cripple competition, you don't know a damn thing about economics. Side: Much, much better...
I know and you were wrong, since it hasn't been two decades since Somalia's collapse. Hence, you were wrong. Presumably you cannot read. And this is an example of law naturally emerging. Perhaps you and me wouldn't much like Islamic law, but that's what the Somali's wanted and that's what they did about it. I'm going to try a different approach and treat you with respect from here on out. Please don't make this a vain effort. If Somalis are fighting for Sharia, law that is widely against their interests, then you have your answer for how emergent law and markets need not evolve to be entities conducive to the population. The U.N. tried to establish power just like they did. Yes, they were "good guys." Besides, the end punishment for any crime is death. Think about it, lets say you don't pay your taxes. You have chosen to not use government services, your home is totally self sufficient yadda, yadda, yadda. What happens? If you live within a state, you use its services. You use its military services, police services, its courts and government. You can't get something for nothing. Sure, there's a chance your defense fails and they kidnap you, but then if you try to leave you'll be shot anyway. If you stiff your landlords on the bill, there are consequences. Accept your personal responsibility. but when you take into account that the state armies behave with impunity to a much greater extent Actually not. If you follow politics, states are accountable to each other. I don't see how this is any more legitimate than the blackwater army's internal legal system of blackwater. If the US military commits war crimes, it will be held accountable by an international tribunal. It may even be retaliated against by other states. Blackwater has no state status, so it cannot be tried by state means. We just have to trust it, effectively, until law catches up. The oversight is in both cases, the public (demand). The difference is, with private protection you can switch firms if you don't like the way yours operates. There were more private military corporations than blackwater, and the market didn't cause them to be ethical. They all acted thuggish. If the U.S. army was ordered to invade Washington and assume control, do you think they'd do it? Probably not, but if the did, we'd be fucked. A coup d'etat is a faction-based dispute. This means the counter-force are loyal military parties. Now, look at private armies. Would they do it? Well, since they are persons from the same psycho-class, probably not. And since they aren't nearly as big as the U.S. army and there are other firms around, they have even less incentive to try since they would fail almost immediately. When you say things like this it makes me come a little unhinged at the audacity in the statement. This is why I become disrespectful. However I will try not to be this time. A corporation may answer to the state, but as you observe it may form complex relationships with the state and this impedes law enforcement. This is exacerbated when monopolies form. They rival government in political power. Now, let me ask you point-blank: do you want Oil Companies like BP with their own privately-funded armies? Would you want Microsoft to have its own military wing? Honestly, do you not see the insanity in such a thing? Even if several mini-states occurred, there would be much less violence as seen with Ireland and England. Anarchic Ireland had no notable wars, just some infighting. The death count alone is enough to see which is more violent. I read up on Gaelic Ireland and Somalia. Do you know what happened there? Constant fighting. Inter-faction disputes. You keep ignoring and downplaying this. There is no law and order in a region which has no common laws and heads of state. There is competition between men with guns. Ooop, oh, there's that manipulative streak again. There is no authority here, authority assumes the power to make desisions free of questioning. Chieftains had no such power. Do you ever get tired of ad hoc definitions? Do you realise that you just argued that a head of state is not an authority? Heads of states are questioned in their actions, in a process of checks and balances, and transparency. Authority means the ability to command those below you. If people listen to you, and are kept in line by force or consequences (do I even need to go on here? you know where this is going), then you may corrupt the market by forcing those below you to act in ways that are not competitive. Did you actually make this big of a mistake, or did you think I just don't understand my own arguments and you could trick me into folding? You acknowledged what I had been arguing all along. It's a hallelujah moment. If a person overseas is working for 3 cents an hour, but his labour is worth 10 dollars an hour in North America, then it makes perfect sense for a firm to go over there and pay 6 cents an hour and keep the profit. What's wrong with that? If you can survive on 3 cents an hour, 6 cents is a fucking goldmine. Can you spot the problems here? If someone is making such profits, then they are amassing wealth, and wealth always translates into power. You just acknowledged that capitalism redistributes wealth and thus power in a way that is completely uneven. Second: such uneven distribution of wealth causes social turmoil, due to feelings of outrage and desperation brought on by poverty. I'm trying really hard to remain cordial. Your crass lack of responsibility makes it difficult. If there are no restrictions stopping firms from doing this, then many firms go overseas and create an economy of scale, thus wages increase due to firms competing for workers and since everyone is making more money their children can spend more time in school and less time working. Except it doesn't. Look at how poor the people in the IR were. Unions increase wages, not competition. How do you intellectually or emotionally embarrass or shock someone who is defending "My morals are more important then some slave's living standard"? Correct. You are the one arguing in favour of slave wages because your morality cannot allow the factories and businessmen be held accountable for mistreating their workers. All I've said was compared to what preceded it, the industrial revolution was a step forward. The industrial revolution was in fact better than feudalism and everything that preceded feudalism for that matter, so your argument doesn't make any sense. I'll be more explicit. The Industrial Revolution was by no means a step forward by the standards of welfare for the working class. This is incontrovertible. It is impossible to argue that moving from standard production working guilds and shops, to more cramped facilities with longer hours, and more massive exploitation of dangerous labour, could be better for the workers' welfare. Feudalism ended well before the Industrial Revolution, therefore you must compare it to something else. English society was already moving towards a more fair society when they dropped a land-based economy. IR changed this by requiring people to work in wretched conditions, like slaves all over again. The common man became about twice as wealthy and was able to afford better homes, clothes, water, health-care, etc. End of story. Wages only allowed for the bare minimum. There was rampant malnutrition. Healthcare? Laughable. You have no idea what 18th and 19th century life was like. "Water" is particularly laughable since they could only afford to drink polluted river water. It's not as though these "evil" capitalists were dumping sewage into the drinking water, stroking their long wire-y mustaches thinking "Nya, now to murder off both my work supply and customer base! Nya!" Factories dumped toxic waste into the city water supply. This is why the rivers were such poor sources of water, in addition to the sewage. Remember: no regulations on business means no concern for environment. Would you trust a factory to make the extra effort to safely dispose of waste? Did I mention that the upper class had imported spring water? Life expectancy of adults went up too. Though, to be totally fair, since there were so many new diseases, life expectancy was less certain. Life expectancy figures went up because infant mortality dropped, not because working class adults lived longer. They actually died at a young age en mass, it's just that when you compute an average with a lot of small numbers (the age of dead infants) it brings the ALE way down. You're lying right to my (internet) face about my position. Did you think I wouldn't see this? I'll just quote this: Free enterprise means no barriers to entry. and I want an economy without state controls. You don't want a lack of regulations, you just want a lack of regulations. I'm sure you've at least seen this relative to yourself. YOU are more productive when you aren't miserable. It's the same deal with everyone else. So, logically, firm owners have an incentive to make their workers happy,... ...Even then, since the worker supply is so high, there's just no reason to beat your workers when you can just as easily not beat them. Listen. I am not disputing that a happy worker is productive. Why then, is it a matter of historical record that factory owners beat their workers and kept them in fear? http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/ So you're just going to write off any progress just because it didn't automatically bring them up to our level? =/ So in your mind, expecting generosity and good-naturedness in people isn't laudable, instead you see any demands for fair wages as extreme and unfair to the factory owners. Why are you advocating for the wealthy? The wealthy can take care of themselves. They don't need you as a cheerleader. I don't know why you're still trying to argue this, the statistics are against you. Your words are empty. There's a word for people who take information out of context. In your case it is datamining. You take figures that only show some level of goodness and avoid looking at everything else that contradicts you, you further ignore context that applies to the 19th century. Unclaimed land being used up is not analogous to private land being used up. Private land is not a common and you won't find many examples of farmers over-using their own land. Tell that to the people who lived during the dust bowl. Also tell that to the people in South America who are clearing out rainforests for cows. Again, if you can't tell the difference between paying a respected member of society to say good things about your product and a firm lobbying a state to cripple competition, you don't know a damn thing about economics. If you pay a chieftain to require his servants to buy from you, then you are crippling your competitors. Quit whitewashing what I said by claiming "requiring" means "speaking in favour of." You're wrong, and need to downplay verbs in order to maintain your preconceptions. Side: Much, much worse...
If Somalis are fighting for Sharia, law that is widely against their interests, then you have your answer for how emergent law and markets need not evolve to be entities conducive to the population. If they're fighting for Sharia law, then Sharia law is in their interests. Yes, they were "good guys." They're using military force to establish power, just like the Islamists and just like the Islamists, they think they are in the right. Perhaps Somalia would be better off with U.N. rulers than Islamist rulers (I'd go so far as to say that is very probable) but it can't be known and since I already think that Somalia would fair better on it's own than with either, this point is going nowhere. If you live within a state, you use its services. You use its military services, police services, its courts and government. You can't get something for nothing. The point is that you can't choose to opt out even if you want to. You have no choice but to pay for these things whether you need them or not. It's a coercive monopoly. If you stiff your landlords on the bill, there are consequences. Accept your personal responsibility. ... You want to go back to this? Residency 1. Chose home voluntarily 2. Pay bills voluntarily 3. Can opt out voluntarily Citizenship 1. Chosen by accident (birth) 2. Payment is coercive 3. Cannot opt out Hell, with a state, if you don't pay your "rent" they don't kick you out, they actually force you to stay! Actually not. If you follow politics, states are accountable to each other. It's a simple Google stones throw away to find information on government impunity. Here, this is the first link that came up for me: http://www.brianwillson.com/ If the US military commits war crimes, it will be held accountable by an international tribunal. It may even be retaliated against by other states. Oh, kinda like how if an emergent defense firm commits war crimes (or whatever they'll be called) it will be held accountable by an emergent tribunal and may even be retaliated against by other defense firms. I know you're going to say something along the lines of "An emergent tribunal isn't enough to count on, you need something with power over the public to enact rulings over a public system", or something like that. Not true. In order for the rulings of an emergent tribunal to be accepted by the public (which is already assumed since it is emergent) all it would need is for its rulings to have universally operational support. Really, that's all any state actually runs on. If it doesn't have UOS, it collapses. The difference is emergent tribunals would be law takers, not law makers, which removes most possibility for corruption and impunity. That is, assuming corruption and impunity aren't the market demand. There were more private military corporations than blackwater, and the market didn't cause them to be ethical. They all acted thuggish. "Ethical" and "thuggish" are non-cognitive labels. I need examples. A corporation may answer to the state, but as you observe it may form complex relationships with the state and this impedes law enforcement. This is exacerbated when monopolies form. They rival government in political power. Now, let me ask you point-blank: do you want Oil Companies like BP with their own privately-funded armies? Would you want Microsoft to have its own military wing? Honestly, do you not see the insanity in such a thing? First, without a state it is very unlikely for a single firm to pull ahead of its competition to such a significant degree as is seen with a state, both because each firm is playing on a (roughly) even playing field and because the public has incentive to opt out of a firm simply because it's getting uncomfortably large. However, it's not impossible for this to happen and if it does, there will need to be some kind of fall-back measure and there is. The public has a strong incentive to stop doing business with a firm that begins to militarize. That alone is enough to stop most campaign attempts, but it's also not impossible as the firm can simply claim it's military will be used to protect it's costumers, a claim that may even increase its customer base. Still no problem, as now it enters into the industry of protection. As I've said before, persons have a natural (and rational) fear of a firm militarizing, so you would see the emergence of firms who's whole purpose is to check into firms (especially defense firms) and report on them. Since there would be many of these firms, bribery would be nearly impossible. Alright, not what if they decide "fuck this pretend protection stuff, I'm just going to raise an army and start a state!" you still get a ton of problems. 1. It takes time to set up an army, and advertising your intentions is an easy way to get you ass kicked, so it's very plausible that such plans could never even get off the ground. 2. Firms don't have a tax base, only customers, which means if they do something against market demand (something like trying to enslave the public), they lose their customers. 3. They would be warring against already established defense firms. 4. Watchdog firms constantly checking up on large businesses. I read up on Gaelic Ireland and Somalia. Do you know what happened there? Constant fighting. Inter-faction disputes. You keep ignoring and downplaying this. There is no law and order in a region which has no common laws and heads of state. There is competition between men with guns. Alright, I'm going to breakdown what went on in Ireland during the entire thousand year span to show you exactly why the recorded wars happened. 400-800 C.E. ~ Regular warfare between the Uí Néill and the Laigin (400-600). 800–1169 C.E. ~ Viking raids 1169–1536 C.E. ~ Henry VIII of England claims himself as the king of Ireland, conquest of Ireland begins. 1536–1691 C.E. ~ Full conquest of Ireland. There you have it. The only real wars involving Irish on Irish was before the age of anarchic Ireland, mostly back in B.C.E. Even their high king system started to falter. Now, you're going to say something like "ah-ha! A high king! There you have it, statism." Not so fast. High kings only had power over their own petty kingdom and were seldom recognized as having any influence outside of it. Every where else was organized by voluntary Tuatha. There were even notable gaps forming between high kings during this time and not much difference occurred as a result. Especially near the end, when hundred year gaps became the norm. From 600 to 1600 C.E, Ireland at best had a state in name only. There you have it. Stateless (at least, for all intents and purposes) and peaceful (expect for the foreign invaders). Do you ever get tired of ad hoc definitions? Do you realise that you just argued that a head of state is not an authority? Heads of states are questioned in their actions, in a process of checks and balances, and transparency. I don't find the head of state to be an authority. Authority means the ability to command those below you. If people listen to you, and are kept in line by force or consequences (do I even need to go on here? you know where this is going), then you may corrupt the market by forcing those below you to act in ways that are not competitive. An Irish chieftain couldn't force anyone to do anything. He had no such power. Paying a respected member of society to promote a product so that word of your product gets out is just a fact of life. There's nothing you can really do about it short of criminalizing capitalism. Since such a law wouldn't have universally operational support, you can cross that off the list of "things that have a snowballs chance in hell". In a perfect world, persons wouldn't promote their product as the best unless it objectively was, but since word of a shitty product gets out fast (especially now a-days with the internet) all that really needs to be done is to stop states from crippling new firms. 99% of corruption, gone. And the other 1% is firm owners promoting a shabby product. You acknowledged what I had been arguing all along. It's a hallelujah moment. I've been acknowledging what you've been arguing in every post I've made to you. Hence, the posts I've made to you. Acceptance on the other hand, is something I've not done and you are mistaken in thinking otherwise. Can you spot the problems here? If someone is making such profits, then they are amassing wealth, and wealth always translates into power. You just acknowledged that capitalism redistributes wealth and thus power in a way that is completely uneven. Second: such uneven distribution of wealth causes social turmoil, due to feelings of outrage and desperation brought on by poverty. I'm trying really hard to remain cordial. Your crass lack of responsibility makes it difficult. You state that money = power, but give no justification or even attempt to define power. I'm assuming that by "power" you mean "the ability to do things", then yes, having more money increases your potential to do things requiring money. And up is the opposite of down. This in no way shows that a firm making a profit is equivalent to a state crippling new firms. But, even if it did, what do you propose? That the state should make it illegal for firms to make more than a certain amount of money? Second: are you kidding me? Capitalism fails because the poor can be jealous of the wealthy? The acknowledgment of this argument alone should be enough to debunk it. Except it doesn't. Look at how poor the people in the IR were. Unions increase wages, not competition. Factually and logically incorrect. Wages during the industrial revolution increased before unions came around, which makes sense considering firms can't grow if no-one can afford their products. Unions helped, absolutely, but I'm not against unions so your argument has no point. Correct. You are the one arguing in favour of slave wages because your morality cannot allow the factories and businessmen be held accountable for mistreating their workers. That doesn't even make sense within its own context. I'm a moral nihilist. I argue "for slave wages" not out of morality, but because logically you have to start somewhere and if you cripple a market just because you feel it's not good enough for you (for moral reasons) then they'll never get off the ground. I'll be more explicit. The Industrial Revolution was by no means a step forward by the standards of welfare for the working class. This is incontrovertible. It is impossible to argue that moving from standard production working guilds and shops, to more cramped facilities with longer hours, and more massive exploitation of dangerous labour, could be better for the workers' welfare. Life expectancy of adults didn't change much during the IR, but it still went up. The infant mortality rate dropped from about 75% to about 30%. So, either your view of the IR is wrong, or reality is wrong. These persons voluntarily chose the factory life over the farm or prostitution life, so at the very least they found it worth while. Are you going to argue against them too? It's inarguable that many diseases came about because of the IR, but this isn't the fault of capitalism, it's the fault of ignorance. Since the average persons could afford better health care and new research was able to be funded, this problem was absorbed pretty well, all things considered. Wages only allowed for the bare minimum. There was rampant malnutrition. Healthcare? Laughable. You have no idea what 18th and 19th century life was like. "Water" is particularly laughable since they could only afford to drink polluted river water. Non-cognitive gobbledygook. You can blame bacterial ignorance on capitalism during the industrial revolution in the same way you can blame communism during the time of Marx for being ignorant of atoms. The wage gain during the industrial revolution did much more than provide the "bare minimum". And unlike you, I'm actually going to provide evidence for this claim. A mill machinery attendant made about 15 shillings a week (though the average wage was closer to 20). This is about double what they earned before the industrial revolution. What could you do with 15 shillings a week? Well, you could get a one night stay in a decent inn would cost 2 pence (1/6 of a shilling) and a little over a shilling would get you a week in an unfurnished room. A house would cost you 10 pounds (660 shillings) per year. Since the average wage was 720-960 shillings per year, homes became easily affordable on a single salary with money left over for food, clothes, health care etc. Especially with the new abundance of doctors and since food and clothes became so much cheaper during this time. What was once a full-family burden became affordable on a single salary, which meant progressively less need for the kids to work. http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/ http://www.oldbaileyonline.org/static/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shilling I'll just quote this: Free enterprise means no barriers to entry. and I want an economy without state controls. You don't want a lack of regulations, you just want a lack of regulations. What am I supposed to say to this, avesk? I've already made the argument that state controls (which include barriers to entry) are not "regulations" and that even if that's what you mean by regulation it's not how I use the word. There's nothing else to say about this. Listen. I am not disputing that a happy worker is productive. Why then, is it a matter of historical record that factory owners beat their workers and kept them in fear? Beating child workers was common place because beating children in general was common place. The history of child abuse as a means of child rearing has best been outlined by Lloyd DeMause's Psycho-class theory. Have you read up about it yet? I think you'd find his work especially interesting. (And no, it's not a libertarian site) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ So in your mind, expecting generosity and good-naturedness in people isn't laudable, instead you see any demands for fair wages as extreme and unfair to the factory owners. Why are you advocating for the wealthy? The wealthy can take care of themselves. They don't need you as a cheerleader. I'm not "for" the wealthy, I'm just not against them as everyone else seems to be. I value good products at fair prices. Since the state cripples competition (the means of which the most productive firms are hammered out), I oppose the state. To me, it's a matter of efficiency. Personally, I believe (know) the income gap will shrink without a state, so it wouldn't make much sense for me to oppose the state if I'm "for" the wealthy. There's a word for people who take information out of context. In your case it is datamining. You take figures that only show some level of goodness and avoid looking at everything else that contradicts you, you further ignore context that applies to the 19th century. The information I base my views on are averages proven by testimonial evidence. You posts are typically non-cognitive. If you have some statistics you'd like to share, feel free to bring them up anytime. Tell that to the people who lived during the dust bowl. Also tell that to the people in South America who are clearing out rainforests for cows. Again, un-owned land does not equal private property. If you pay a chieftain to require his servants to buy from you, then you are crippling your competitors. Quit whitewashing what I said by claiming "requiring" means "speaking in favour of." You're wrong, and need to downplay verbs in order to maintain your preconceptions. There's no "requirement" when your very membership to the tuath is voluntary. This is not analogous to the state, to which you membership is compulsory so long as you live on any land they feel entitled to. Side: Much, much better...
0
points
2
points
So... it's good to let the government monopolize force because the government monopolizes force??? Emendatum. When you have amassed force that exists aside the state, it will eventually rival the state and take control. This is known as a coup, or coup d'etat. If you have many such factions, it will eventually lead to an outbreak of fighting, like gang wars, for power. It may lead to an alliance to overthrow the state. Side: Much, much worse...
I'm talking about privatized police in place of state police, not alongside. You can only "take control" so long as you have a tax base. Customers are not enough since they don't have some nonsense idea of dependency on any one company and can simply not pay for a service they don't like. If one company tries to war with another company, persons will just stop paying them and poof, problem solved. Side: Much, much better...
1
point
If you have the guns, why do you need the money? "The minimum length for an argument is 50 characters. The purpose of this restriction is to cut down on the amount of dumb jokes, so we can keep the quality of debate and discourse as high as possible." Side: Much, much worse...
You said that a government couldn't exist through only coercion. These states contradict you. No, no they don't. Obviously these countries aren't full of anarco-capitalists. Even if the persons of those countries feel they know better than the government, they still believe in the necessity of their governments. There's far more civilians than police and military, so in order to control a population you need their support. Side: Much, much better...
No, no they don't. Obviously these countries aren't full of anarco-capitalists. Even if the persons of those countries feel they know better than the government, they still believe in the necessity of their governments. A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them. That is what you said. In Afghanistan the Taliban ruled over villages with an iron fist. In North Korea the entire populace is coerced by secret police and the threat of concentration camps exists, with a personality cult to subdue their minds. In Saudi Arabia it is the religious police and powerful religious figures. Side: Much, much worse...
A state cannot be funded on coercion alone. You need a constant income, like taxation. Customers just aren't good enough. They tend to stop paying a company that's looking to enslave them. That is what you said. In Afghanistan the Tali ban ruled over villages with an iron fist. In North Korea the entire populace is coerced by secret police and the threat of concentration camps exists, with a personality cult to subdue their minds. In Saudi Arabia it is the religious police and powerful religious figures. None of these countries are funded on coercion alone. Just like in North America, most (99%) of their population believes the state is necessary. Perhaps the state has more control over their market then ours does on ours, then again those countries are significantly worse off than ours. Hmm... More state control AND worse off? =/ I hope you understand that even if a state could run on coercion alone (it can't, but lest just say it could), that would in no way prove we need a state or that states are good for the economy. Side: Much, much better...
1
point
3
points
Sorry, I am libertarian, but I will not support anarchy. Adam Smith, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and James Madison all firmly believed police is reserved in government along with the court system. However, privatization of fire departments is feasible. http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ Side: Much, much better...
Jeez, all these people I thought to be wise anarcho-capitalists turned out to be ordinary statists in the end... Prayerfails is an anarcho-capitalist in all but name. The rest of us are not because anarchy only leads to government, one of brute force and most often after wars between factions that naturally form as people join together by interest and political affiliation. Capitalism itself is not an optimal economic model. It requires state management, and the optimal models reflect a form closer to socialism or a capitalism/communism hybrid. That is because private industry and government must grow to rival each other, if one eclipses the other we start to see a failure. Side: Much, much worse...
2
points
2
points
Why does supply and demand need to be "managed"? I have bananas, but I want apples. You have apples, but want bananas... so we trade each other. What need is there for a third party to take a piece of the action? Language emerged and works just fine, humans emerged and work just fine, Why is it that the market is the only thing that cannot function on its own merits? Side: Much, much better...
1
point
Because how it really works is more like this: You have nothing I want but your labor, but you need food, shelter, to pay taxes, etc. Give me your time and do exactly as I say and you can live(although not very well, unless so and so also wants your labor and there isn't someone to easily replace you). Side: Much, much worse...
You're trying very hard to turn something that sounds perfectly reasonable into something cruel... =/ If you want money for food, clothes, housing, etc. then you'll need a job. This is true regardless of how free the market is. If you do poorly, you will be fired an replaced with someone competent. So, considering this begs the question - what's your point? Side: Much, much better...
Only if you're stupid enough to purposefully work for whomever offer the worst working conditions... Right. Because it's a choice. Otherwise everything runs perfectly. =3 Only for the wealthy. You can bet they'll have tanks and helicopters at their command. Side: Much, much worse...
Right. Because it's a choice. You seem to be under the impression that you've made some brilliant point... Would you work for whomever offers the worst working conditions when you obviously don't need to? Of course not. So having choice clearly doesn't cause society to collapse. =/ Only for the wealthy. You can bet they'll have tanks and helicopters at their command. ... You're just not trying as hard as you were before. =/ Show me how being wealthy gives you more power on a free-market than on a state-run market. The only way to become wealthy on a free-market is to supply a demand better than your competition and the only way to remain wealthy is to continue to do so. It's not a difficult concept, avesk. Persons don't like being screwed over, so if you screw them over they'll stop paying for your products. In a free-market you're only successful so long as you're improving on the economy. Side: Much, much better...
You seem to be under the impression that you've made some brilliant point... Obvious point. Would you work for whomever offers the worst working conditions when you obviously don't need to? Of course not. So having choice clearly doesn't cause society to collapse. =/ People don't elect to work under poor conditions, they are forced into such a position by poverty, monopoly, or no better standards. Show me how being wealthy gives you more power on a free-market than on a state-run market. The only way to become wealthy on a free-market is to supply a demand better than your competition and the only way to remain wealthy is to continue to do so. The wealthy would have access to better police protection than the poor. Just like insurance. When you are wealthy you can acquire other businesses that compete with you, you can spread fear through media that your rivals offer bad products, you can export your labour to places of extreme poverty so that you don't need to pay much, you can make deals with your rivals to sell at a fixed price, etc. It's not a difficult concept, avesk. Persons don't like being screwed over, so if you screw them over they'll stop paying for your products. In a free-market you're only successful so long as you're improving on the economy. You ought to have looked into the industrial revolution by now. So, did you like what you saw? Side: Much, much worse...
People don't elect to work under poor conditions, they are forced into such a position by poverty, monopoly, or no better standards. Well, seeing as there would be no taxes without a state poverty is dissolved... and without a state, monopolies are virtually impossible (and even if they do form it could only be because they offer the best service possible) that only leaves no better standards. Since North Americans have what I'm assuming you mean by "better standards" I'm going to guess your getting at developing nations and sweatshops again. Sweatshops are a phase. Most nations have and will go through them at some point in time. Sweatshops may not be great by your standards, but the alternative is poverty (more so) and prostitution. I'd like to think you'd agree that working in a sweatshop is better than being a child prostitute. Once wealth is built up, there would be no (or at least less) need for child labor, so children have more time education and the like. Which means when they grow up they'll have a more competitive advantage. The wealthy would have access to better police protection than the poor. Just like insurance. When you are wealthy you can acquire other businesses that compete with you, you can spread fear through media that your rivals offer bad products, you can export your labour to places of extreme poverty so that you don't need to pay much, you can make deals with your rivals to sell at a fixed price, etc. Persons who emerge wealth will have more disposable income thus be able to afford nicer things... so? Are opposed to success? Companies trash talk each others products. This is true with or without a state. It's no big deal. =/ When ever I make an important purchasing decision, I consult a third party review or something along those lines. Most intelligent persons do that same. I've already linked a video on how oligarchies can't occur on a free market. Here it is again: http://www.youtube.com/ You ought to have looked into the industrial revolution by now. So, did you like what you saw? ...I've sent you links on this already! There's no "ought" here. I should be asking you if you liked what you saw. =/ Side: Much, much better...
Well, seeing as there would be no taxes without a state poverty is dissolved... and without a state, monopolies are virtually impossible (and even if they do form it could only be because they offer the best service possible) that only leaves no better standards. Things wrong with your statement: -Taxes are not the reason for poverty -Monopolies form naturally in a free market -Great service isn't a requirement for a monopoly Since North Americans have what I'm assuming you mean by "better standards" I'm going to guess your getting at developing nations and sweatshops again. No. Better standards as in, the only jobs available to them will have bad standards. There are none available that are fair. Sweatshops are a phase. Most nations have and will go through them at some point in time. Sweatshops may not be great by your standards, but the alternative is poverty (more so) and prostitution. I'd like to think you'd agree that working in a sweatshop is better than being a child prostitute. You have it half right. Sweatshops are a phase in that industrialists will take advantage of lack of regulations and install them. Sweatshops like slavery only end when the populace is fed up enough that they demand labour reforms from government. Once wealth is built up, there would be no (or at least less) need for child labor, so children have more time education and the like. Which means when they grow up they'll have a more competitive advantage. Schools under private ownership are more expensive to the users and thus did not help with illiteracy rates as much as public education did. They are also filled with sectarianism. Persons who emerge wealth will have more disposable income thus be able to afford nicer things... so? Are opposed to success? Which becomes hoarded and wasted, and doesn't help the poor. Companies trash talk each others products. This is true with or without a state. It's no big deal. =/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ It is an example of how wealthy businesses form in a way that isn't dependent upon the quality of goods. When ever I make an important purchasing decision, I consult a third party review or something along those lines. Most intelligent persons do that same. Not available in the 19th century. Also, third parties can be bought. I've already linked a video on how oligarchies can't occur on a free market. Here it is again: History trumps theory. The industrial revolution saw many oligarchies. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ ...I've sent you links on this already! There's no "ought" here. I should be asking you if you liked what you saw. =/ You seem ignorant of it, which is why I asked if you educated yourself on it. Side: Much, much worse...
- Without taxes you would be looking at an increase of marginal wages from roughly 30-50%, maybe more depending on your job. This alone would be enough to dissolve most poverty. - No they don't, I've proved this over and over again. At least skim over the information I send you so you don't appear so ignorant. http://www.youtube.com/ Not once has a monopoly ever occurred on a free market. You are 100% wrong on this point. - Not so long as there is a government. ;) You have it half right. Sweatshops are a phase in that industrialists will take advantage of lack of regulations and install them. Sweatshops like slavery only end when the populace is fed up enough that they demand labour reforms from government. But you don't need a government to have better working conditions. Companies see that persons are more willing to come and work for you AND work harder if they have better working conditions. It's in the best interest of a company to keep it's workers happy on a free market. Workers now have much more freedom than the slaves of ancient Egypt, and the economy is much better off because of it. Schools under private ownership are more expensive to the users and thus did not help with illiteracy rates as much as public education did. They are also filled with sectarianism. Private schools are much cheaper than public schools. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Again, you have it all wrong. Which becomes hoarded and wasted, and doesn't help the poor. Where government does help the poor? Tell me how welfare does a better job than charity. Besides, If I've earned more money than you, what do you care If I waste or horde my money. It's MY money after all. It's none of your concern what I do with it. It is an example of how wealthy businesses form in a way that isn't dependent upon the quality of goods. You haven't actually said anything new here... Companies trash talk each other, this is true regardless of the existence of a state, so this isn't even an argument FOR the state. Microsoft has survived through all the bashing it's received from Apple and vice-versa. FUD just isn't enough to collapse society... You seem ignorant of it, which is why I asked if you educated yourself on it. Even if I had never heard of the industrial revolution before you brought it up, the fact that I provided counter evidence via links proved that I had at least looked it up to the extent that I could formulate a counter argument. So, either you are a liar or you've been ignoring my arguments. Probably a bit of both. Side: Much, much better...
Why does supply and demand need to be "managed"? I have bananas, but I want apples. You have apples, but want bananas... so we trade each other. What need is there for a third party to take a piece of the action? The only difference between a regulated and an unregulated market is that the unregulated market allows unethical behaviour like slander, propaganda, slavery, child labour, hostile acquisitions, monopoly, collusion, anti-union violence, sweatshops, etc. A regulated market attempts to prevent this. Why is it that the market is the only thing that cannot function on its own merits? It functions at the expense of creating a class of extremely rich, and extremely poor, and engendering human rights abuses. Side: Much, much worse...
The only difference between a regulated and an unregulated market is that the unregulated market allows unethical behaviour like slander, propaganda, slavery, child labour, hostile acquisitions, monopoly, collusion, anti-union violence, sweatshops, etc. A regulated market attempts to prevent this. No, not even close. The difference between regulated and unregulated is one is controlled by the state and the other is controlled by supply and demand. If the demand is for good service, low prices and good working conditions for the employees, then that's what will happen in an unregulated economy. In a regulated (controlled) economy, instead of their service being reflective of the demand, it is reflective of the states interests. It functions at the expense of creating a class of extremely rich, and extremely poor, and engendering human rights abuses. And just how the hell does it do that? =p Side: Much, much better...
No, not even close. The difference between regulated and unregulated is one is controlled by the state and the other is controlled by supply and demand. No, that is communism. A regulated market is controlled by supply and demand, it merely is prohibited from unethical behaviours. Free market is euphemistic for unethical market. And just how the hell does it do that? =p Try studying the industrial revolution to find out. Doesn't your school cover this? Side: Much, much worse...
No, that is communism. A regulated market is controlled by supply and demand, it merely is prohibited from unethical behaviours. Free market is euphemistic for unethical market. What the hell are you talking about? If controls from the government are in place, then it's NOT a free market. It's a regulated market, therefore controlled by (but perhaps not exclusively) things other than supply and demand. =/ Are you going to tell me that up is down next? Try studying the industrial revolution to find out. Doesn't your school cover this? You know, if you keep answering my questions with these diversions I'm going to assume you just can't answer them. =/ If you're so sure about your stance, you should be able to explain it. Side: Much, much better...
What the hell are you talking about? If controls from the government are in place, then it's NOT a free market. It's a regulated market, therefore controlled by (but perhaps not exclusively) things other than supply and demand. =/ A regulated market is like a free market without slavery, sweatshops, child labour, union busting violence, corruption, collusion, etc. You know, if you keep answering my questions with these diversions I'm going to assume you just can't answer them. =/ If you're so sure about your stance, you should be able to explain it. I shouldn't have to explain a commonly known piece of history. Google it. Side: Much, much worse...
A regulated market is like a free market without slavery, sweatshops, child labour, union busting violence, corruption, collusion, etc. Because, you know, none of those things exist under a governments watch now. =3 A regulated market is like a free market, only a regulated market has one group of people with a vast fiat land claim and coercive monopolies on all the most vital services. I shouldn't have to explain a commonly known piece of history. Google it. Yeah, the thing is, avesk, an event in history =/= an argument. You have to actually explain the events relevance relative to your argument. Googling it isn't exactly going to tell me why you think the industrial revolution means a free enterprise economy would polarize the populations income. Understand? Or are you unable to postulate economic theory based on historic events? Side: Much, much better...
Because, you know, none of those things exist under a governments watch now. =3 Free market: those breaches go unpunished. Our regulated market: there are severe punishments for them. A regulated market is like a free market, only a regulated market has one group of people with a vast fiat land claim and coercive monopolies on all the most vital services. Not intrinsic to a regulated market, however the case is that these monopolies operate better than the private industry could (for example medicine, power, roads, water, police). Yeah, the thing is, avesk, an event in history =/= an argument. You have to actually explain the events relevance relative to your argument. Googling it isn't exactly going to tell me why you think the industrial revolution means a free enterprise economy would polarize the populations income. Fine. Short answer: the industrial revolution was a period of great business growth, without regulation (or at least, very minimal regulation). What followed? Businesses exploited cheap labour, and never voluntarily improved factory conditions as they grew to a position to afford it. They hired police to beat union organisers. In this way the factories provided many jobs but for low wages, keeping the workers poor as the business owners reaped the profit. They grew into monopolies that charged monopoly rates for oil and railroad/steamboat use. Understand? Or are you unable to postulate economic theory based on historic events? It's just so obvious that I didn't think it needed explanation. Like if a person says "Anti-semetism isn't necessarily a bad thing" you need only mention the middle ages in Europe and Nazi Germany. Side: Much, much worse...
Free market: those breaches go unpunished. Our regulated market: there are severe punishments for them. Then it's clear your governments punishments aren't working. Not intrinsic to a regulated market, however the case is that these monopolies operate better than the private industry could (for example medicine, power, roads, water, police). No, no they don't. Competition makes services and products both a higher quality and more affordable. Could you imagine how shitty televisions would be if their production was monopolized by the state? Fine. Short answer: the industrial revolution was a period of great business growth, without regulation (or at least, very minimal regulation). What followed? Businesses exploited cheap labour, and never voluntarily improved factory conditions as they grew to a position to afford it. They hired police to beat union organisers. In this way the factories provided many jobs but for low wages, keeping the workers poor as the business owners reaped the profit. They grew into monopolies that charged monopoly rates for oil and railroad/steamboat use. I'm a little disappointed in both how much effort it took on my part to finally get you to give a reason for your claims and what the final reasoning turned out to be. =/ Rather than re-write a long explanation on why what your saying doesn't make sense, I'll post these two short summaries of these topics. http://www.youtube.com/ http://www.youtube.com/ It's just so obvious that I didn't think it needed explanation. Like if a person says "Anti-semetism isn't necessarily a bad thing" you need only mention the middle ages in Europe and Nazi Germany. You assume I haven't debated on the industrial revolution with statists before. It's clear that the industrial revolution proves just the opposite conclusions you've come to, but I'm not as foolish as you to assume you've realized the same, so I've posted counter-arguments along with sources. There's just no excuse for trying to use an event as an argument. =/ Side: Much, much better...
Then it's clear your governments punishments aren't working. So we have child labour, sweatshops, unpaid overtime... oh wait that's right, these are illegal and we don't have them any longer. No, no they don't. Competition makes services and products both a higher quality and more affordable. Could you imagine how shitty televisions would be if their production was monopolized by the state? Ironically they are made by the state - China, a communist government, where all our labour is exported there to sweatshops where the state has its hands in. Rather than re-write a long explanation on why what your saying doesn't make sense, I'll post these two short summaries of these topics. I stated the facts concisely. If it doesn't make sense then that means your theory isn't able to accommodate the facts. You assume I haven't debated on the industrial revolution with statists before. It's clear that the industrial revolution proves just the opposite conclusions you've come to, but I'm not as foolish as you to assume you've realized the same, so I've posted counter-arguments along with sources. It's clear that America's history indicates that it was founded as a Christian Nation - to Christian Reconstructions. It's clear that Germany's history indicates a lack of death camps - to Holocaust deniers. You can paint history however you want. I read how history is painted by libertarians and it's always the same "The industrial revolution increased wages for workers compared to the feudal era (forgetting that this was small compared to the wealth being generated by their labour) and child labour was used by state orphans (forgetting that it took government law to abolish it completely) and unions committed violence against businesses (any question why they did and what businesses did back to them?)" There's just no excuse for trying to use an event as an argument. =/ I'm sure that Holocaust deniers feel the same way about Nazi Germany, and Christian Reconstructionists about our secular history. Side: Much, much worse...
So we have child labour, sweatshops, unpaid overtime... oh wait that's right, these are illegal and we don't have them any longer. Tell me, are they illegal because there was demand for them to stop happening, or was there demand for them to stop happening because they became illegal? Obviously demand is the initiating force that stopped these things in North America. And demand is not monopolized by the state. Ironically they are made by the state - China, a communist government, where all our labour is exported there to sweatshops where the state has its hands in. China's bad and all, I know. My point was (and still is) that televisions are not a monopolized market and they would suck if they were. I stated the facts concisely. If it doesn't make sense then that means your theory isn't able to accommodate the facts. Or, this point has been dealt with several times already and I just don't see the value in repeating myself again. Would it kill you to just check them out? You can paint history however you want. I read how history is painted by libertarians and it's always the same "The industrial revolution increased wages for workers compared to the feudal era (forgetting that this was small compared to the wealth being generated by their labour) and child labour was used by state orphans (forgetting that it took government law to abolish it completely) and unions committed violence against businesses (any question why they did and what businesses did back to them?)" As have I and I've come to just the opposite conclusion. the difference is I understand that if persons have worked there way out of poor conditions, it was because there was demand for better conditions. I'm sure that Holocaust deniers feel the same way about Nazi Germany, and Christian Reconstructionists about our secular history. Are you comparing me to Nazi's and Christians because I said an event =/= an argument? Everything about you seems brilliant, but your analogies... Are you really saying an event does equal an argument?... Really? Side: Much, much better...
If there was multiple police forces what happens when a police officer witnesses a crime committed against someone who is not under his organization; Is he supposed to stand aside as that individual is assaulted, killed, or has his property destroyed? The entire point of the police force is to uphold a functional society, I fail to see how a for-profit police force manages that. Side: It is flawed
I won't pretend that I know exactly how things will turn out on a free market because the market is a dynamic thing with a constantly changing supply and demand. But, I would imagine that if such an event occurred, the officer could protect the civilian (or his property, whatever the crime happened to be) then bill him for it later. Persons solve problems all the time, its what they do. When a demand arises, so does a supply to take advantage of it. When you allow one entity a coercive monopoly on police protection, you inevitably get police shortages at monopoly rates, since they can get away with it. Competitive police agencies remove the possibility of monopoly rates and forces each agency to compete for customers, therefore constantly improve on their service to out-do the competition. Side: Much, much better...
1
point
Subsidies are a good way of dealing with that problem. We can handle police protection the same way we handle health insurance. Side: Much, much better...
Not much of an argument there... But maybe I should revise my statement and say "We can handle police protection the same way we should be handling health insurance" -- that is, a regulated market with mandated coverage, premiums for the poor, and a public option. Side: Much, much better...
Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now. Take roads and schools for example... Side: Much, much better...
Actually, with several agencies competing for the most customers, prices will be driven down much more affordable rates than we pay now. At the cost of employees not having medical, or retirement. Take roads and schools for example... Two things which require a consistant quality that private enterprise cannot provide. Side: Much, much worse...
At the cost of employees not having medical, or retirement. Come on avesk, you're more intelligent than that. =/ Why do these these exist in the first place? Because there is demand for them. A manager who offers such benefits will have a much easier time finding employees than a business with piss-poor working conditions. Are you under the impression that demand for good working conditions and benefits would go away without a state or something??? Two things which require a consistant quality that private enterprise cannot provide. Where is this mindset coming from that only the state is capable of doing things... =/ The state is made up of people. They can do it. Society is made up of people... but they can't? Personally, I think the train would become a much more popular means of transportation under a free market, but if demand leans towards functional roads, then that's what will happen. Side: Much, much better...
Why do these these exist in the first place? Because there is demand for them. A manager who offers such benefits will have a much easier time finding employees than a business with piss-poor working conditions. Again, the real world disagrees. Try talking to employees in most manual labour and service jobs. Are you under the impression that demand for good working conditions and benefits would go away without a state or something??? Thriftiness. The market favours profit with thriftiness being rewarded and required. It's like in evolution, how nature favours those that can survive best with resources not being wasted on unnecessary metabolism, but the market functions on money, instead of resources like food. Survival means that having adequate working conditions is neglected. Where is this mindset coming from that only the state is capable of doing things... =/ Business cuts corners and is trying to survive, the state has a steady income and rules that determine how everything must be done, it is accountable. Side: Much, much worse...
Again, the real world disagrees. Try talking to employees in most manual labour and service jobs. Try looking at studies and trends rather than relying on a few personal experiences. The fact remains that benefits exist because there is demand for them. Thriftiness. The market favours profit with thriftiness being rewarded and required. It's like in evolution, how nature favours those that can survive best with resources not being wasted on unnecessary metabolism, but the market functions on money, instead of resources like food. Survival means that having adequate working conditions is neglected. It's as though whenever this conversation moves two steps ahead, you revert back to step one. Alright, I'll say it again (and hopefully for the last time); if a company cuts corners to the extent that it results in a lesser service or product then it will pay for it with less profit. Unless it negatively affects its customers and workers, no one will care. When a company can cut corners without suffering a loss in revenue, it's called efficiency. Business cuts corners and is trying to survive, the state has a steady income and rules that determine how everything must be done, it is accountable. But there's no need for the state. Persons can conduct trade on their own just fine. Look at E-bay. The only thing regulating it is a rating for each person based on how trust-worthy they are and they have a less-than 1% fallout rate. persons can trade on their own, there's no reason to allow a third party to have a piece of the action. Side: Much, much better...
Try looking at studies and trends rather than relying on a few personal experiences. It's not a matter of personal experiences, it is a well-known fact that companies will overwork their labour and service employees to be competitive. The fact remains that benefits exist because there is demand for them. That demand comes from law and labour unions. It's as though whenever this conversation moves two steps ahead, you revert back to step one. Alright, I'll say it again (and hopefully for the last time); if a company cuts corners to the extent that it results in a lesser service or product then it will pay for it with less profit. Strawman of what I said. Unless it negatively affects its customers and workers, no one will care. When a company can cut corners without suffering a loss in revenue, it's called efficiency. Correct sentence: Unless it negatively affects consumers, no one will care. But there's no need for the state. Persons can conduct trade on their own just fine. Look at E-bay. The only thing regulating it is a rating for each person based on how trust-worthy they are and they have a less-than 1% fallout rate. E-bay had administrators, and law enforcement... oops. persons can trade on their own, there's no reason to allow a third party to have a piece of the action. You're so adorably naive and simple-minded. It isn't about two people trading on their own, it's about shady corporate deals and protection mechanisms to prevent counterfeit goods and bribery. Side: Much, much worse...
It's not a matter of personal experiences, it is a well-known fact that companies will overwork their labour and service employees to be competitive. If a company overworks their employees to the extent that the employees don't feel compensated, then they'll quit and instead work for whomever offers better working conditions. CEO's know this. That's why it's in their best interest to keep their employees at least happy enough that they voluntarily continue working. Strawman of what I said. Absolutely not. You're trying to say that under a free market, companies will overwork their employees and I've responded by showing you how cutting corners (or, more specifically, cutting salary) will result in less employees, thus less revenue. Keep in mind, an employee's desire to work is also a form of demand and a hiring employer is also a form of supply. Also, I've explained this multiple times to you already, which is why I've said this conversation feels as though it's going in circles. Correct sentence: Unless it negatively affects consumers, no one will care. You have already expressed your desire to see workers have "good" working conditions. You are proof that persons care enough about where a product comes from to want to see workers get benefits. Unless you are the only person who wants good working conditions, there's nothing to worry about. =/ E-bay had administrators, and law enforcement... oops. Well, of course it had administrators. The website needs upkeep after all, but law enforcement? That's quite the stretch on your part seeing as less than 1% of all trade done on e-bay results in fraud... which means they don't actually use law enforcement... oops. ;) But lets say they did (they don't, but lets just see where this takes us). This would in no way prove that you need one group to have a monopoly on police protection in order for online trade to work as free enterprise could do the job at LEAST as well at a fraction of the price. You're so adorably naive and simple-minded. It isn't about two people trading on their own, it's about shady corporate deals and protection mechanisms to prevent counterfeit goods and bribery. No, the market IS two persons trading on their own. It looks much more complicated than that because there's billions of individuals trading at once, but understand it's simply billions of "two people" trading with each other. Also, without a government, whom is there to bribe? Other businesses? Are you of the mind set that a company can pay a like company to purposely botch their services to give the first company the competitive advantage? If it's enough of a concern to keep an eye on the large companies that emerge under a free market, then naturally companies designed specifically to keep an eye on these companies will emerge. You can't bribe these watch-dog companies because their reputation is at stake and if one says company-A is clean, but another watch-dog proves company-A is not clean, then the first watch-dog loses business and goes bankrupt. Problem solved. =) Side: Much, much better...
If a company overworks their employees to the extent that the employees don't feel compensated, then they'll quit and instead work for whomever offers better working conditions. Doesn't usually work that way, because jobs require specialisation which means that unless they gain a new field they're stuck in a low-paying or poor career (because it's not often the case that there are all sorts of employers with better working conditions than the job they're in). CEO's know this. That's why it's in their best interest to keep their employees at least happy enough that they voluntarily continue working. at least is what defeats your argument, at least means minimally fair pay and benefits. Absolutely not. You're trying to say that under a free market, companies will overwork their employees and I've responded by showing you how cutting corners (or, more specifically, cutting salary) will result in less employees, thus less revenue. Keep in mind, an employee's desire to work is also a form of demand and a hiring employer is also a form of supply. I never said lesser product or service, I said lesser employee pay and benefits. You have already expressed your desire to see workers have "good" working conditions. You are proof that persons care enough about where a product comes from to want to see workers get benefits. Unless you are the only person who wants good working conditions, there's nothing to worry about. =/ Most people are apathetic, that is why kids in china are sewing shoes together. Well, of course it had administrators. The website needs upkeep after all, but law enforcement? That's quite the stretch on your part seeing as less than 1% of all trade done on e-bay results in fraud... which means they don't actually use law enforcement... oops. ;) Try selling U234 on E-bay or child pornography. You'll see what I mean. But lets say they did (they don't, but lets just see where this takes us). This would in no way prove that you need one group to have a monopoly on police protection in order for online trade to work as free enterprise could do the job at LEAST as well at a fraction of the price. Going back to the above, you'd have lots of unpenalised fraud, arms dealing, nuclear isotopes, and child pornography being traded. Also, without a government, whom is there to bribe? Other businesses? Are you of the mind set that a company can pay a like company to purposely botch their services to give the first company the competitive advantage? You never heard of espionage, or stock manipulation (insider trading and rigging). Bribery works on every kind of system. If it's enough of a concern to keep an eye on the large companies that emerge under a free market, then naturally companies designed specifically to keep an eye on these companies will emerge. Who will be bribed with no fear of repercussions. Because there is no law, remember? No state means no common law, just small circles or jurisdiction to evade. You can't bribe these watch-dog companies because their reputation is at stake and if one says company-A is clean, but another watch-dog proves company-A is not clean, then the first watch-dog loses business and goes bankrupt. Poor, naive fellow. Never heard of implausible deniability and coverups. Side: Much, much worse...
Doesn't usually work that way, because jobs require specialisation which means that unless they gain a new field they're stuck in a low-paying or poor career (because it's not often the case that there are all sorts of employers with better working conditions than the job they're in). If a manager suddenly makes the working conditions for his employees much worse, then the working conditions will be worse than which is offered by other like-companies, therefore making it less likely that workers will come and work for him instead of his competition. at least is what defeats your argument, at least means minimally fair pay and benefits. And what defines what is minimally acceptable? Oh, right, it's defined by what the demand finds acceptable. =/ I never said lesser product or service, I said lesser employee pay and benefits. Supply and demand affects both a companies services to its customers and it's employees. Most people are apathetic, that is why kids in china are sewing shoes together. Wait, China, with it's massive government has poor working conditions? How is this possible? I was under the impression that governments are put in place to stop thing like this. o.O perhaps person in North America are apathetic to the working conditions of China, so? Do you think they'd be so apathetic when it's their own working conditions being challenged? Obviously not. Try selling U234 on E-bay or child pornography. You'll see what I mean. Alright, you don't need a government to stop such sales from happening. Actually, those things still get sold regardless of the governments existence, so what you've said once again is in no way an argument for the state. If E-bay doesn't want these things being sold on their website, they're free to ban such trade themselves. Problem solved. Going back to the above, you'd have lots of unpenalised fraud, arms dealing, nuclear isotopes, and child pornography being traded. These things still happen under the governments watch so... you know where I'm going with this at this point, I'm sure. fraud would be penalized either from a free market court agreed upon ahead of time via a contract. even if no agreement was made ahead of time, the fraudster would pay for it with his reputation. You never heard of espionage, or stock manipulation (insider trading and rigging). Bribery works on every kind of system. Again, if these things are so feared by the population, then watch-dog companies will come into place to meet that demand. Who will be bribed with no fear of repercussions. Because there is no law, remember? No state means no common law, just small circles or jurisdiction to evade. You can have law without a government. Don't assume you cannot. Poor, naive fellow. Never heard of implausible deniability and coverups. I mean, I literally just debunked this claim in the post you are responding to. Multiple watch-dogs make this sort of thing almost impossible. A company would go bankrupt trying to make deals with every watch-dog and trying to cover it up. It's easy to make deals and cover up when there's only one watch-dog... like the government... =/ Side: Much, much better...
If a manager suddenly makes the working conditions for his employees much worse, then the working conditions will be worse than which is offered by other like-companies, therefore making it less likely that workers will come and work for him instead of his competition. You assume that businesses are desperate to attract workers which are usually too many and replaceable. And what defines what is minimally acceptable? Oh, right, it's defined by what the demand finds acceptable. =/ Which for this labour market is extremely low. See the present day sweatshops. Wait, China, with it's massive government has poor working conditions? How is this possible? I was under the impression that governments are put in place to stop thing like this. o.O To simple minds apparently. perhaps person in North America are apathetic to the working conditions of China, so? Do you think they'd be so apathetic when it's their own working conditions being challenged? We have no say. All big businesses are moving work overseas to China. Market screwed us on that one. Alright, you don't need a government to stop such sales from happening. Actually, those things still get sold regardless of the governments existence, so what you've said once again is in no way an argument for the state. Government keeps them heavily monitored and prevents most trade. However this supports my point: E-bay has police. If E-bay doesn't want these things being sold on their website, they're free to ban such trade themselves. They do that too, but government steps in because it's also illegal. These things still happen under the governments watch so... you know where I'm going with this at this point, I'm sure. They are reduced. fraud would be penalized either from a free market court agreed upon ahead of time via a contract. even if no agreement was made ahead of time, the fraudster would pay for it with his reputation. So... you want government but don't want to call it government. Again, if these things are so feared by the population, then watch-dog companies will come into place to meet that demand. Except it won't work because neither company has authority over the other, while a government acts as an impartial authority. You can have law without a government. Don't assume you cannot. Note I said common law. You can have all sorts of rival laws like in present-day Somalia, but common law requires government. Multiple watch-dogs make this sort of thing almost impossible. A company would go bankrupt trying to make deals with every watch-dog and trying to cover it up. It's easy to make deals and cover up when there's only one watch-dog... like the government... =/ Lack of creativity? You just bribe those who know about the deed. If someone leaks information you start a character assassination campaign to confuse the issue and draw attention off of yourself. If someone extorts you for money you just hire a free-market hitman (since this isn't a prohibited market in an anarchy) to neutralise your foe. Side: Much, much worse...
You assume that businesses are desperate to attract workers which are usually too many and replaceable. Businesses are always looking for ways to expand. If they're okay with minimal to absolutely no growth, then so-so working conditions are fine, but in the mean time their competition has raised their working conditions and opened up another store. Which for this labour market is extremely low. See the present day sweatshops. Irrelevant. The point still stands, what defines acceptable working conditions is market demand. To simple minds apparently. Then you admit that large governments are bad for the market? We have no say. All big businesses are moving work overseas to China. Market screwed us on that one. Outsourcing jobs has become so prevalent because it's much cheaper than hiring persons here. When you outsource you don't have to worry about all the mandatory taxes and insurances that come with hiring locally. You'll do well to take notice that jobs are outsourced regardless of the governments existence, so even if the market couldn't solve this problem (it can) this is in no way an argument for the state. Government keeps them heavily monitored and prevents most trade. However this supports my point: E-bay has police. 1. E-bay has police, but it doesn't need them since fraud happens less than 1% of the time anyway. 2. You don't need a state to have police. 3. You don't need the government to monitor trade on E-bay. Whatever E-bay doesn't want being sold on their site can be blocked by themselves. They do that too, but government steps in because it's also illegal. Then government is a mere redundancy. So... you want government but don't want to call it government. There's a difference between a massive-fiat-land-claiming-tax-sucking government and voluntary agreements. Except it won't work because neither company has authority over the other, while a government acts as an impartial authority. Why is authority needed? If a company wants to be trusted by the public, it will let however many watch-dog companies the market demands to investigate it. Government "officials" are only impartial until there's something in it for them. Note I said common law. You can have all sorts of rival laws like in present-day Somalia, but common law requires government. What's so great about common law? Why not let the results of ones actions define their behavior? Lack of creativity? You just bribe those who know about the deed. If someone leaks information you start a character assassination campaign to confuse the issue and draw attention off of yourself. If someone extorts you for money you just hire a free-market hitman (since this isn't a prohibited market in an anarchy) to neutralise your foe. Lol @ "you just bribe those who know about the deed". I mean, in the very post you're responding to with this I already said a company simply can't bribe everyone. Companies have a bottom line to meet. If they started redirecting revenue in order to bribe everyone, their stockholders would notice. Also, the public tends to notice when persons preaching about a companies corruption get knocked off. Side: Much, much better...
Businesses are always looking for ways to expand. If they're okay with minimal to absolutely no growth, then so-so working conditions are fine, but in the mean time their competition has raised their working conditions and opened up another store. I'm saying that in a market flooded with unskilled labour there is little incentive to improve. Irrelevant. The point still stands, what defines acceptable working conditions is market demand. Which isn't helping those people. Therefore a state intervention or union would accelerate this. Outsourcing jobs has become so prevalent because it's much cheaper than hiring persons here. When you outsource you don't have to worry about all the mandatory taxes and insurances that come with hiring locally. Exactly. You'll do well to take notice that jobs are outsourced regardless of the governments existence, so even if the market couldn't solve this problem (it can) this is in no way an argument for the state. It apparently cannot solve this problem since it continues to exist. However government could solve it by putting up a heavy tariff. 1. E-bay has police, but it doesn't need them since fraud happens less than 1% of the time anyway. Your argument was that E-bay demonstrates the ability of an anarchy to work in a market due to lack of police oversight. I contradicted this. Argument over. 2. You don't need a state to have police. Police without a state are gangs, organised militias. This leads to fighting over jurisdiction and lack of standard laws. 3. You don't need the government to monitor trade on E-bay. Whatever E-bay doesn't want being sold on their site can be blocked by themselves. Not your original argument. Then government is a mere redundancy. Depends on what type of enforcement must happen. If it means crossing country lines to kill a deal in radioactive isotopes, then government can do what E-bay cannot. There's a difference between a massive-fiat-land-claiming-tax-sucking government and voluntary agreements. What makes you think any kind of governance if intrinsically voluntary? When you are born into a community, whether it is a state or an informal government, you are tacitly a part of it. You can choose to leave either, too. Why is authority needed? If a company wants to be trusted by the public, it will let however many watch-dog companies the market demands to investigate it. Authority is decisive and can enforce a judgment between two rival powers. If there is none, the ruling must be settled by violence or acquiescence from one of the parties. Government "officials" are only impartial until there's something in it for them. This is called corruption, which is why separations of powers exists and in our government we have a vote. What's so great about common law? Why not let the results of ones actions define their behavior? A common law creates standards as opposed to disagreements and wasteful rivalries. Lol @ "you just bribe those who know about the deed". I mean, in the very post you're responding to with this I already said a company simply can't bribe everyone. Not everyone, only those who know. If they started redirecting revenue in order to bribe everyone, their stockholders would notice. Companies cannot misrepresent their revenues and figures? Also, the public tends to notice when persons preaching about a companies corruption get knocked off. Not when it is an ambiguous death. Side: Much, much worse...
I'm saying that in a market flooded with unskilled labour there is little incentive to improve. Of what relevance is a workers skill level to their desire for good working conditions? Just because a worker is "unskilled" (whatever you define unskilled by) doesn't mean they have an unlimited threshold for poor working conditions or that they wouldn't sooner work for a company offering better working conditions over one that offers poor working conditions. Which isn't helping those people. Therefore a state intervention or union would accelerate this. Unions are enough. It apparently cannot solve this problem since it continues to exist. However government could solve it by putting up a heavy tariff. Imposing a tariff doesn't solve the problem, it merely concentrates the sucky-ness. Without governments, outsourcing jobs wont be a problem since each individual isn't tied to the financial situation of the entire country. Your argument was that E-bay demonstrates the ability of an anarchy to work in a market due to lack of police oversight. I contradicted this. Argument over. It doesn't matter that there are police because there is a less than 1% fallout rate on E-bay anyway. I know you understand the correlation =/= causation. Police without a state are gangs, organised militias. This leads to fighting over jurisdiction and lack of standard laws. Companies tend not to war with each other over customers because persons tend to frown upon such acts. If a police agency begins a hostile expansion, you can be sure it's customer base will plummet to roughly zero. Not your original argument. But still relevant to the topic and true none the less. Depends on what type of enforcement must happen. If it means crossing country lines to kill a deal in radioactive isotopes, then government can do what E-bay cannot. Loose nukes will exist in a free market. We know this because loose nukes exist now. Russia made massive cut backs on the amount of nukes they had and as a result many of them went missing. They just don't know where they are. None have been set off yet though. I say nukes are far more dangerous in the hands of the state than the loose nukes in the hands of civilians. Governments have incentives to carry nukes. It gives them power to expand. As long as there are other governments to make surrender to you, you can expand your power with relative ease. Without a state to surrender, you'd have to take over everyone individually. What makes you think any kind of governance if intrinsically voluntary? When you are born into a community, whether it is a state or an informal government, you are tacitly a part of it. You can choose to leave either, too. So I can choose my slave-master, therefore I'm free? http://www.youtube.com/ The state only gives you freedom to the extent that it further benefits them Authority is decisive and can enforce a judgment between two rival powers. If there is none, the ruling must be settled by violence or acquiescence from one of the parties. Authority is a meaningless word to me. If you're right, there's no need for authority, your conclusions can be explained and proven. If you're not, you need authority to progress your agenda. Companies control the supply, but we control the demand. Only buy supplying the demand in the most favorable fashion can a company remain competitive on the market. This is called corruption, which is why separations of powers exists and in our government we have a vote. Voting is merely the illusion of choice. http://www.youtube.com/ A common law creates standards as opposed to disagreements and wasteful rivalries. There is no one correct way to be. Life is dynamic and ready-made answers will always lead to problems. This is why there are so many contradictions in our laws. You're last three points are rather underwhelming. Corruption is not impossible under a free market, but it's much easier to get away with when you only have one watch-dog (of whom has a personal interest in expanding its power over the market) vs. hundreds of watch-dogs each with a reputation to keep up. Side: Much, much better...
|