Site Information
About Us
- RonPaulForums.com is an independent grassroots outfit not officially connected to Ron Paul but dedicated to his mission. For more information see our Mission Statement.
@silverhandorder
Our discussion of monarchy is off-topic, and I don't want to hijack my own thread any further.
If you'd like to continue that discussion, please post in one of the monarchy related threads I linked earlier.
Regarding the issue at hand - whether anarcho-capitalism is possible - I'm not sure what you're arguing at this point.
Would you summarize?
In all of human history, the people have never once risen up and overthrown the state.
Why would you assume this would happen in ancapistan?
See my earlier comments regarding the 'New Libertarian Man'
The premise of the argument is that DefenceWorld is the result of the merger of most/all PDAs.By a well funded competitor or competitors that are capable of fighting back?
i.e. it is much larger than any remaining competitors
i.e. any remaining competitors are not capable of fighting back
If you doubt that such a large firm could form, I refer you back to my comments about the merger movement in American history.
Monopolies are profitable; there's no reason to think businessmen wouldn't form them when given the opportunity.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 11:40 AM.
The whole point of the thought experiment is to assume that the people would value freedom and respect property rights. If they don't, then the market would just form a new state, which is what idiots have done throughout history. It is why I have maintained that sneaking around to try to elect a liberty candidate that pretends to be a typical Republican is a waste of time. If the people remain ignorant, you won't have liberty, no matter who is elected.
It's hard to believe that they would get to that point without competitors taking them down a notch. And if the market did not approve of the monopoly, they would find other options. If they did approve, then see the first part of this post.
How is DefenceWorld different from what you have now? Minarchy doesn't work because every time it starts writing horror scenarios it inevitably just explains what it already promotes.
But the answer is simple. DefenceWorld cannot make anyone buy its goods. If it does something objectionable then the people will refuse to support it and it goes broke.
In a war over control, the more people will win every time. Simple noncompliance alone will determine that. DefenceWorld, by its very nature would be smaller than the masses. Assuming, as you must or this argument isn't useful, that the majority of people are ideological anarchists, then DefenceWorld, no matter how big it gets, will every be big enough. The State cannot dominate the masses through force, only through manipulation. DefenceWorld, trying to do so to a mass of people who refuse the State itself would only see itself get destroyed.
At this time, it definitely is. So is assuming that having a king would make us any more free. Or assuming that a new constitution and bill of rights would make us any more free. Assuming that a minimal state of police and courts would not grow into a monster in short order with Boobus demanding social justice and protection from terrorists at every turn. You always get the government that the market wants. If you value liberty, you have to advertise, change the market's preferences.
Sure they can. And so could their competitors. Unless your hypothetical world is even dumber than the world in which we currently live, they probably wouldn't wait around for DefenseWorld to dwarf everyone else before trying to cut into their customer base.
If everybody's a zealous anarchist, willing to risk his life to prevent a state like DefenceWorld from emerging, then sure, anarcho-capitalism will work. Likewise, if everybody's a zealous communist, willing to work even though he can take whatever he wants from the common storehouse without working, then communism will work. But both assumptions are unrealistic, people will not in fact behave that way, and so neither system will work in reality.
Everybody doesn't need to be an anarchist for it to work. It would take enough people that the market would enforce laws protecting private property, which would probably be a large majority, but not everyone. Communism would take everyone, and even then, they would starve or freeze or whatever to death without market prices to tell them how resources should be allocated.
No, that's not an assumption, it is the conclusion of an argument.
It is supported by all the reasoning presented in this thread.
This is in contrast to the New Libertarian Man, who is just hoped for, without any reasoning as to why/how he would come about.
For most of human history prior to the last ~150 years, the great masses of people have been politically impotent and/or apolitical. They're opinions (if they had any) did not matter. The state's behavior was a reflection of the goals of the rulers, not a reflection of the ideology of society at large. Your suggestion that monarchy require a New Monarchist Man akin to your need for a New Libertarian Man, is false. Monarchy does not require the masses to be ideological monarchists.Or assuming that a new constitution and bill of rights would make us any more free. Assuming that a minimal state of police and courts would not grow into a monster in short order with Boobus demanding social justice and protection from terrorists at every turn. You always get the government that the market wants. If you value liberty, you have to advertise, change the market's preferences.
"Wait" to do what?Sure they can. And so could their competitors. Unless your hypothetical world is even dumber than the world in which we currently live, they probably wouldn't wait around for DefenseWorld to dwarf everyone else before trying to cut into their customer base.
If you own a company, and I own a company, and we meet this weekend to discuss a merger, and sign the papers to affect the merger, it's done.
How does anyone else prevent this from happening?
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 01:13 PM.
Yes they did. If the people disapproved, they would have fought one of the countless wars throughout history to get out from under their rulers. Now, were they too dumb to realize that they had a choice many times? Sure, just like people today are. But that doesn't their opinions didn't matter.
No one does. How do they prevent ABC Armed Defense and MercenariesRUs from merging to compete with them?
People react to what the state does (e.g. taxes get too high, they grumble, maybe revolt), sure.
That's not what I'm talking about though.
Rome didn't go from republic to monarchy because the masses suddenly converted from ideological republicanism to ideological monarchism.
Medieval Europe wasn't feudal because the peasants were ideological feudalists.
etc
Sure people react to what the government does, and that affects the choices of rulers.
That is not the same as saying that government is a reflection of the ideology of the masses.
In other words, states only require the passive obedience of the masses; anarcho-capitalism requires their active support.
Right, so there is nothing to prevent many firms from merging to form an entity like DefenceWorld.No one does.
And once such an entity is formed, it has the might to enforce a monopoly - at which point it is in effect a state.
Suppose there are 100 PDAs.How do they prevent ABC Armed Defense and MercenariesRUs from merging to compete with them?
I'm proposing a scenario in which 90 of them merge, and force the other 10 out of business.
You respond: well what if 50 merge to form one entity, and the other 50 merge to form another?
First, if the survival of ancapistan depends on the happenstance that firms are evenly balanced in that way, it's survival is pretty damn tenuous.
Second, if firms are equally balanced, it doesn't follow that they will continue to operate as peaceful, free market PDAs, as anarcho-capitalists would like. They could divide up the market, each recognizing the other's monopoly over its respective territory. Or they could fight it out (see earlier comments about civil war).
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 01:51 PM.
That aside, would you say that the New Communist Man (who is such a zealous communist that he works even through he can consume for free) is realistic? Is the New Libertarian Man (who is such a zealous libertarian that he risks his life to prevent states from emerging) any more realistic?
It doesn't. If you have 90 private defense companies merging, unless they are all meeting one day in secret and merging all at once, then before they get 90 of them together, the others will band together to try to compete. If you are suggesting that they did all meet at once and merge without warning, then they could have a monopoly. After that, they would either continue to serve the consumer or be rejected by the consumer.
As I said in an earlier post, many dozens of gigantic mergers (resulting 70%, 80%, 90% marketshare) have occurred in American history. Whether they did it quickly, in secret, before anyone had a chance to react or (more probably) you're vastly overestimating what anyone could to stop it even with advanced knowledge, they did it, over and over again.
No, because they would have the might to simply force consumers (now better called taxpayers) to pay.After [merging], they would either continue to serve the consumer or be rejected by the consumer.
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 02:00 PM.
Nope, companies simply got together and agreed to merge.
Government had nothing to do with it.
I appreciate that monopolies don't work in a free market - as soon as the firm raises prices, it draws new competitors into the market.Or better yet, the monopolies didn't charge a monopoly price (or try to rob people at gunpoint as your mythical corporations do) even after consolidating, so it had no effect on the market anyway.
...I said so in the OP.
The lesson of the merger movement is that very large mergers are easily accomplished.
And that matters because, when the firms in question are PDAs in ancapistan (unlike leather tanners in the US), they CAN use force.
To summarize
-huge companies can form, easily
-huge companies that can't forcibly exclude competitors can't achieve monopolies profits (e.g. leather tanners)
-huge companies that can forcibly exclude competitors can achieve monopoly profits (e.g. PDAs in ancapistan)
Last edited by r3volution 3.0; 09-20-2016 at 02:12 PM.
No. Anarchy is least corruptible on the average.
Not true. Look at occupation losses in Iraq. Now Imagine same attempted but in US. The occupation force would be wiped out by locals.To summarize
-huge companies can form, easily
-huge companies that can't forcibly exclude competitors can't achieve monopolies profits (e.g. leather tanners)
-huge companies that can forcibly exclude competitors can achieve monopoly profits (e.g. PDAs in ancapistan)
You assuming that PDA will have the means to enforce an occupation vs a resisting populace. You assuming CEOs will get lobotomised and will go ahead with these mergers.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
"If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough." - Albert Einstein
"for I have sworn upon the altar of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. - Thomas Jefferson.
Rome didn't go from a Monarchy to a Republic at all. You're full of sht. Nice try, though, ya fraud. In fact, it was the other way around. Even though it was never a true Republic anyway. People tend to use that term arbitrarily. In your case, I think you're being strategically dishonest. In fact, I know you are.
Monarchy/"Republic"/Empire/Divided Empire...
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-23-2016 at 06:41 AM.
I swear, I don't think I've ever met a more strategically dishonest person on this board than you, rev3. Almost to the point that it gives me the heebie jeebies. What a weasel.
Last edited by Natural Citizen; 09-23-2016 at 06:34 AM.
I really can't buy that. On it's face that would mean that a minarchist would advocate for taxation even if it was not necessary in order to carry out the essential functions they 'see fit' or however you'd like to say that. In order for minarchy to mean anything they must desire an end to taxation. But they just haven't found a solution that satisfies them, yet.
Connect With Us