I don't see any real alternatives to the free market.
Yeah, I mean, until we eliminate or trivialize the problem of scarcity (like, with future-tech nanofabricator kind of stuff), market economics will be the best way to allocate resources efficiently. Of course, the market does nothing about equity or externality... and that's why we don't operate with an entirely free market (i.e., a "mixed economy").
There would be some pretty big changes in the structure though, and many of the huge corporations we see now could not exist without state support.
I think that's mostly a semantic argument; certainly corporations would easily exist if all governments suddenly disappeared. Also, in the absence of the state, a corporation is the state.
Right now we have an organization that imprisons large numbers of people, even for victimless crimes.
A product of the private prison industry (vested interest in high prisoner populations) and religious/social conservatives (ideological desire to promote failed policies). Oh, that's another thing; anarchy would get steamrolled by theocracy, as long as organized religion is any sort of powerful force in society.
It takes significant amounts of money from everyone by threatening them.
Hm, the tax-as-theft argument. Well, even private-property enforcement abridges freedom of movement, so to some degree taxation is acceptable. With the prerequisites of equitability and representation, of course.
It gives brutes uniforms, badges, and practical immunity. It wages wars that kill many tens of thousands over shaky causes. The rates of serious crimes like murder are not exactly under control. All attempts at significant reform are stymied and the public will is routinely ignored. Either all of this is a good thing, or you are also running a comparison to a purely hypothetical situation.
Also corruption/antidemocratic processes, I think. Also I don't approve of a default police-as-thugs stance; to what extent could a private defense contractor even avoid this characterization?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Also corruption/antidemocratic processes, I think. Also I don't approve of a default police-as-thugs stance; to what extent could a private defense contractor even avoid this characterization?
Pinkertons, Blackwater, and a few others I can think do not lend themselves exactly to "Captain_Morgan's Ginchy List of Ideas." Hell, the Italian peninsula was overrun with private armies and the only reason the Rennaissance happened was because those people were able to stay out of the urban areas and battles were often scheduled and executed limited warfare.
Today, the battlefield is now urban warfare which carries more over into total war and far more complex and devastating. If governments are capable of great hubris, what makes an individual with a sack of money any better?
Actually, you know what I'm not really learning anything and after that Cody guy left this debate leaves me with nothing other than the Quote Man and frankly, NidStyles has yet to really give much way other than espousing talking points and regressing back to the "tax is theft and government is evil." Really, there's been no substantial evidence provided that "anarchism" works. Now if you argued for city-states or something of that nature, we'd have something interesting to debate. This? This is merely a philosophy that's trying to seek application, but lacks robustness to deal with the complexities of commerce.
I am no fan of large government, nor a supporter of taxation beyond what are necessary for services. At best, there's been little challenge to the concept of "min anarchism" or some other form of limited government which allows for maximized personal freedoms relative to the amount of population and collectivized issues we face. There are several layers of private governance in the NGO sector which have been effective. Anarchism fails to answer some fundamental questions that government answers, and socialism fails to deal with the market. The market fails to deals with larger scale problems, because it is a human institution fixated on short term solutions making it wholly inadequate to long term planning.
Pinkertons, Blackwater, and a few others I can think do not lend themselves exactly to "Captain_Morgan's Ginchy List of Ideas." Hell, the Italian peninsula was overrun with private armies and the only reason the Rennaissance happened was because those people were able to stay out of the urban areas and battles were often scheduled and executed limited warfare.
Indeed. One of the very few unambiguous messages to be derived from The Prince is that mercenaries are a cancerous blight upon the Italian states. And Machiavelli knew what he was talking about.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
It is the balance of powers that enables corrections to happen, the public and the private field. Competition is what makes markets "stable enough" to be a "good idea," and without government the private sphere has no competition to make itself robust.
Huh? So we need a coercive monopoly that defines the scope of its own powers. Without it there is no competition.
Pinkertons, Blackwater, and a few others I can think do not lend themselves exactly to "Captain_Morgan's Ginchy List of Ideas." Hell, the Italian peninsula was overrun with private armies and the only reason the Rennaissance happened was because those people were able to stay out of the urban areas and battles were often scheduled and executed limited warfare.
You mean the Blackwater corporation, which does almost all its work for the government and takes its orders from the government proves that private corporations will be as bad as governments. As for the Italian mercenary armies. Odd then if they were worse than the alternatives that the Rennisance happened in Italy. Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
I am no fan of large government, nor a supporter of taxation beyond what are necessary for services. At best, there's been little challenge to the concept of "min anarchism" or some other form of limited government which allows for maximized personal freedoms relative to the amount of population and collectivized issues we face. There are several layers of private governance in the NGO sector which have been effective. Anarchism fails to answer some fundamental questions that government answers, and socialism fails to deal with the market. The market fails to deals with larger scale problems, because it is a human institution fixated on short term solutions making it wholly inadequate to long term planning.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
You mean the Blackwater corporation, which does almost all its work for the government and takes its orders from the government proves that private corporations will be as bad as governments.
Irrelevant. Have you ever experienced the building or remodeling of a house? Rare are the times when a contractor (construction contractor, in this case) does exactly what the client wants. Especially when the client isn't breathing down the contractor's neck the entire time... ever heard of the principal-agent problem?
As for the Italian mercenary armies. Odd then if they were worse than the alternatives that the Rennisance happened in Italy. Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
In spite of said armies, let me tell you. Florence, for example, was not a great place to be, unless you were rich or under the aegis of the rich. And maybe not even then, since the entire peninsula was in the middle of some gnarly sectarian conflicts over Kings and Popes. I guess it was better that they were mercenary armies in the sense that the richer cities (who could afford to hire them for protection) were also rich enough to promote the arts. That, and the Renaissance couldn't really have started anywhere further north and west... or anywhere else, really.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
That, I think, is a variable problem in government (i.e. one that can be dealt with)... how would a profit-motivated entity handle it?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Do I Contradict Myself? Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Huh? So we need a coercive monopoly that defines the scope of its own powers. Without it there is no competition.
You really want to know why we don't have an anarchist form of government with direct democracy? It's because people are:
1. Lazy
2. Anarchism presents it's own issues as seen in the old Assembly in Athens where most of the participants because of #1 were either old people or poor people that still voted with their "self interest" while every middle aged white guy that could participate that was raising a family was making a living or raising their family.
3. Market economies are not the source of "total freedom" because it reinforces self interest over collective identity.
A few points on American consumerism and short term thinking:
1. Consumers are 140% of debt to income levels
2. We have seen a drop in voter participation as the spread of consumerism has increased with a few exceptions like the Vietnam War.
3. Ethical compensation has shown time and again that short term thinking trumps long term thinking.
In an anarchist society where people are "perusing their own self-interest" by watching animal videos on youtube between bouts of yanking off to porn before getting up and going to work is really going to be interested in government if the people already are not voting once a year. What stops a handful of people "grasping power" from others being too lazy to engage in government? That's exactly how some aristocracies form in business, politics, social relationships, and on and on. Even Badnarik, a Libertarian presidential candidate, observes this that people just don't want to do the things we let government do for us. Self protection being his prime example, while he himself as a Texan has no issue shooting someone other people are a bit more squeamish. This is why we "outsource" killing violent people to police, who are trained to engage in such activities and have a low rate of abuse and when abuse occurs there are accountability mechanisms against the state and individuals. Not perfectly, but if people are lazy and not going to rally to the defense of themselves and others during a robbery (which presents it's own problems) and we already have a system that per capita abuses is low relative to our high rate of population per square mile. Then we do not need a private contractor force for our mutual defense nor a subscription Swat Team.
And what makes "people with guns" in general trustworthy at all? By the "magical power of profit compels thee to behave" with the "threat of exile" whenever these people can just overpower and conquer a given state is highly unorthodox and ultimately very laughable as mercenary groups have conquered towns and villages in the past especially whenever they are not paid or wanted more money like spoils of war. You know what happens on the streets after someone is "exiled" they skip town and join another gang or form or join up with their own gang to fight the other gang. An exile with the power to fight often times in history has fought to make a "come back" not because of profit, but because of identity and a want to belong and to be in a specific place. These are irrational aspects of humans that beat in the heart of each human animal.
Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
They scheduled battles, today people fight in urban areas block by block. That is purely fallacy of composition right there, and even then there were issues with mercenary groups destroying cities such as in France. Machiavelli, as BS, has said was very much against the use of mercenaries because of the constant swish and sway of power as one mercenary group put another person into power of a city-state. Typically these people were rich and displaced democratically elected officials as seen most famously in Florence during Machiavelli's life time. That's what happens when "market forces" meet the sword; rich man conquers people.
Now I noticed you completely ignored what I said about modern warfare being urban centered. If you want a good idea of what modern warfare looks like in an urban setting go watch a gang fight. It's bloody, innocents get hurt, and has nothing to do with government at all. Humans are petty, cruel, and vicious. That's what a society looks like when every man is for himself trying to "make a profit," people try to control bridges and territory. There's no Non Aggression Pact in the hood. Everything is market oriented ranging from weapons to power to sex. Relationships are skewed towards loyalty to the group rather than the individual. Why is that? Why do gang members want a collective identity so bad that young girls will be raped just so "desperately to belong." There's a fundamental herd instinct to man which is indicative of government, and while the modern form of governance may not be the most healthy yet achieved on the face of this Earth. It has allowed for you to sit there and not get shot by some crack head wanting your wallet and the ability to ponder "what if there was no government." That is anarchy, that is where man descends into chaos. The state is evil, but man is equally just as evil. And you want self-interest to be the prime directive of depraved human beings that even when caged show a premeditation towards violence? I question such a romantic ideology on it's face value.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
Permanent election cycles combined with 24/7 all year round media exposure with telecommunications industries that are focused on ratings over content and quarterly profits. With the election cycle for a 2 year office taking one entire year to complete in the same ecology has taken government and turned it towards a more "corporate structure."
It's the creative destructive cycle on steroids, isn't this what you wanted? The people have their say every two years with the full monty being shown on television, video, radio, and the nets all the time. Politicians are held accountable by radical transparency by just about everyone from voters to corporate citizens to NGOs. That is the nature of the market that you seem to hold so highly and people serving their "radical self interest."
Influence is fully market oriented as well where influence is now a commodity. The very market forces you want to unleash in a fully anarchist environment are on full display now. That is in part why aristocracy works to maintain the long term, it cools the emotional tensions and allows for reason to flourish.
If you want a corporate example, a number of the publicly held companies over the last few years have faired far worse than those where families maintained a stake interest in them or were privately held companies. That is in part aristocracy with some democratic elements versus absolute classical democracy. The hybrid system works for companies when it comes to profits, the same goes for government. Aristocracy has it's place and is equated to long term thinking.
Now, if you want to discuss what is the most efficient form of governance of a federalist system versus a confederacy or having smaller blocks such as city-states in order by which to offer governments the most competition and allow for maximization of immigration to those cities. Much of the world's GDP is held by cities such as New York, London, and the rising second tier cities of China and other Asian nations. Mayors have more power over environmental policy than say the G20 because mayors can work with local city councils to create and effectuate policies without the overhead you have from party politics since often cities are a one party town or more collegian relationship between the two parties.
One of the missing factors from your glorious commune *** anarchist state, is that people are petty, cruel, vindictive, and greedy. Greed often makes self-interest run amok, and greed is not good. Marx came before the anarchists and claimed that markets and government were the problem, now today anarchism, in this thread's context, is sexy and claims that government is evil and upholds markets as the pure way of man yet despises the unabashed and rampant short term thinking in today's governance?
Do you never study 19th century local politics or see what has went on with mosque building in Texas where locals are trying to hurt people form building on 15 acres of land? My bookshelves are a graveyard of good intentions run bad, and humans behaving badly.
The current system, for all it's flaws, has been refined, perhaps better as defined, over generations since before you were born. There have been several attempts ranging from the Puritans to hippies trying to "remake society" and each time failed and fell to their own vices within a few generations to become what we are today. Anarchism is Puritanism in market form, and when in line with 3rd generation drift becomes a government unto it's own culture.
I also have an issue with the term "anarchist" in this context, as "anarchism" as classically defined is without government. What you seem to be touting is "government-lite" or "corporate governance" in the guild sense, and guilds were and are, if you consider modern trade unions, are very governmental in their proceedings. I'd hate to say this, but often your "anarchist" approach is more marketist and corporatist and by your latest round of rhetorical flatulence against government is that it seems you have what you want.
How would a profit-motivated person handle the long term? Capital values.
I'll ask a simple question, "What determines value?" I don't want a brick quote, I'd appreciate a simple answer please because it's going to involve "emotions" from which I've got a long point about behavioral economics and such. I really want to see if you can go beyond 19th century philosophers and talk turkey on the human condition in explicit detail. Because you have yet to show any robust form of education outside of anarchist literature.
Indeed. One of the very few unambiguous messages to be derived from The Prince is that mercenaries are a cancerous blight upon the Italian states. And Machiavelli knew what he was talking about.
The scary point is that according to Paraq Khanna an actor actually approached Blackwater to talk about protecting Somalians or something of that nature, and Blackwater said they could. Granted that was humanitarian, but one of the inferences in his allegory that the current world is the "new Middle Ages" and advocacy for a "new Renaissance" carries some of it's own baggage considering the city-states were rather violent times even during the "more enlightened times." So with actors and entertaining already playing diplomat since before even the times of Ferrah Fawcett and perusing their own private diplomacy, I question whether giving George Clooney and friends access to his own personal army just "following their own self-interest." Do we really want to live in a world where George Clooney is considered to be a military power?
Captain Morgan, please stop. Please read this as merely a formal critique on your arguments, not on their content.
You post needlessly long rambling passages, where it is unclear how they answer what they are purporting to answer. Look at your response to coercive monopoly in your last post. None of that is an answer.
You condemn answers for not answering all unasked questions. Is "Does not answer the nature of modern urban warfare." a cogent answer to "The mercenary armies of rennisance Italy compare favorably to traditional armies of the same time?"
You try to project things into other people's belief systems. Saying what someone else believes or approves of without evidence is insulting.
You bring up examples for your position like "19th century local government" or "Mosque building in Texas" as if they are definitive proofs. It would be nice if you said what happened that was so interesting, and what conclusion you are drawing. I'm not psychic.
Please actually answer arguments. Don't just try to fire off prepared rants that don't apply to what they are supposed to answer. I say this because you warned us you were about to fire off a point on behavioral economics.
The sum of Captain Morgans points is that any sort of anarchist system demands that all the players be invested, energetic, rational actors making informed decisions. This is a pipe dream. Your fundamental arguments are philosophical whilst you demand point by point refutations of your illustrations, which, when provided, are hand waved away and another ludicrous example of the superiority of the free market and lack of governance is proffered, like 19th century Italy. At which point it is pointed out that there are flaws in the anarchist philosophy and you provide another illustration or attack the message for 'not getting it' or at best defend anarchism with a No True Scotsman or by moving the goalposts, rather than endorse anarchism as a viable alternative. Then, because it's impossible for flaws to exist in anarchism, the cycle begins again.
He's attacking your argument at a philosophical level. This is an attack that is going straight for the jugular of your entire philosophy and illustrates one of its largest flaws - the investment required to maintain an anarchist state (of existence) is in and of itself a full time job apart from any other labor that individuals may be doing. Many of the anarchist answers given have gaping holes in them or simply hand wave away problems like corruption or instability.
The sum of Captain Morgans points is that any sort of anarchist system demands that all the players be invested, energetic, rational actors making informed decisions. This is a pipe dream. Your fundamental arguments are philosophical whilst you demand point by point refutations of your illustrations, which, when provided, are hand waved away and another ludicrous example of the superiority of the free market and lack of governance is proffered, like 19th century Italy. At which point it is pointed out that there are flaws in the anarchist philosophy and you provide another illustration or attack the message for 'not getting it' or at best defend anarchism with a No True Scotsman or by moving the goalposts, rather than endorse anarchism as a viable alternative. Then, because it's impossible for flaws to exist in anarchism, the cycle begins again.
He's attacking your argument at a philosophical level. This is an attack that is going straight for the jugular of your entire philosophy and illustrates one of its largest flaws - the investment required to maintain an anarchist state (of existence) is in and of itself a full time job apart from any other labor that individuals may be doing. Many of the anarchist answers given have gaping holes in them or simply hand wave away problems like corruption or instability.
Read the argument Jimbo. I never said that 19th century Italy was an anarchist example, or any time in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed that all players must be informed, energetic and rational. I am interested in a debate. One where people can make points and get responses. Please respond what I actually say rather than throwing up strawmen.
If his point is that anarchy is too much of an investment in time or that apathy destroys anarchy, it could do with a clear statement. It also should not be presented as an answer to an unrelated question. I'm willing to discuss it.
Also, please don't just say there are gaping holes. If there are gaping holes pointing them out would be helpful. I won't take your statement that there are gaping holes as evidence that there are gaping holes. Nor will I take the statement of No True Scotsman or Moving the Goalposts as evidence that those are going on. If you have an example of me doing either, I'd like to see it.
and claimed that markets and government were the problem, now today anarchism, in this thread's context, is sexy and claims that government is evil and upholds markets as the pure way of man yet despises the unabashed and rampant short term thinking in today's governance?
Essentially correct.
I'll ask a simple question, "What determines value?"
Use-value or exchange-value?
Men have certain desires, such as to eat or to enjoy a play. The degree to which a good or service satiates these desires is the degree to which it has use-value. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that environmental factors have a large impact on the formation of these desires in the first place.
The exchange-value of a reproducible commodity in a competitive market, on the other hand, is determined by the disutility of the labor necessary, on the margin, to procure the commodity.
The value of capital is determined by the rent it can procure, which in turn is determined by the amount of disutility of labor the capital good can, on the margin, make up for.
The squandering of a capital good therefore decreases the value of the capital good by reducing its rent.
The sum of Captain Morgans points is that any sort of anarchist system demands that all the players be invested, energetic, rational actors making informed decisions.
No, it doesn't. Take any group of people and put them in an established anarchic order and they will fare better on average than in any system of government you can devise.
Yeah, I mean, until we eliminate or trivialize the problem of scarcity (like, with future-tech nanofabricator kind of stuff), market economics will be the best way to allocate resources efficiently. Of course, the market does nothing about equity or externality... and that's why we don't operate with an entirely free market (i.e., a "mixed economy").
I think that's mostly a semantic argument; certainly corporations would easily exist if all governments suddenly disappeared. Also, in the absence of the state, a corporation is the state.
A product of the private prison industry (vested interest in high prisoner populations) and religious/social conservatives (ideological desire to promote failed policies). Oh, that's another thing; anarchy would get steamrolled by theocracy, as long as organized religion is any sort of powerful force in society.
Hm, the tax-as-theft argument. Well, even private-property enforcement abridges freedom of movement, so to some degree taxation is acceptable. With the prerequisites of equitability and representation, of course.
Yeah, no argument there. Of course this is basically corruption and not a feature of democracy, I think.
Also corruption/antidemocratic processes, I think. Also I don't approve of a default police-as-thugs stance; to what extent could a private defense contractor even avoid this characterization?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
Pinkertons, Blackwater, and a few others I can think do not lend themselves exactly to "Captain_Morgan's Ginchy List of Ideas." Hell, the Italian peninsula was overrun with private armies and the only reason the Rennaissance happened was because those people were able to stay out of the urban areas and battles were often scheduled and executed limited warfare.
Today, the battlefield is now urban warfare which carries more over into total war and far more complex and devastating. If governments are capable of great hubris, what makes an individual with a sack of money any better?
Actually, you know what I'm not really learning anything and after that Cody guy left this debate leaves me with nothing other than the Quote Man and frankly, NidStyles has yet to really give much way other than espousing talking points and regressing back to the "tax is theft and government is evil." Really, there's been no substantial evidence provided that "anarchism" works. Now if you argued for city-states or something of that nature, we'd have something interesting to debate. This? This is merely a philosophy that's trying to seek application, but lacks robustness to deal with the complexities of commerce.
I am no fan of large government, nor a supporter of taxation beyond what are necessary for services. At best, there's been little challenge to the concept of "min anarchism" or some other form of limited government which allows for maximized personal freedoms relative to the amount of population and collectivized issues we face. There are several layers of private governance in the NGO sector which have been effective. Anarchism fails to answer some fundamental questions that government answers, and socialism fails to deal with the market. The market fails to deals with larger scale problems, because it is a human institution fixated on short term solutions making it wholly inadequate to long term planning.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Indeed. One of the very few unambiguous messages to be derived from The Prince is that mercenaries are a cancerous blight upon the Italian states. And Machiavelli knew what he was talking about.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Huh? So we need a coercive monopoly that defines the scope of its own powers. Without it there is no competition.
You mean the Blackwater corporation, which does almost all its work for the government and takes its orders from the government proves that private corporations will be as bad as governments. As for the Italian mercenary armies. Odd then if they were worse than the alternatives that the Rennisance happened in Italy. Compared to the military practices of France or England during that time, Italy was much better for the people.
Huh? The government has shown that it is incredibly short term. Almost any problem that falls after the next election is to be ignored. If you want to say that there are failings for the private sector versus the government, don't argue that long term planning is one of them.
Irrelevant. Have you ever experienced the building or remodeling of a house? Rare are the times when a contractor (construction contractor, in this case) does exactly what the client wants. Especially when the client isn't breathing down the contractor's neck the entire time... ever heard of the principal-agent problem?
In spite of said armies, let me tell you. Florence, for example, was not a great place to be, unless you were rich or under the aegis of the rich. And maybe not even then, since the entire peninsula was in the middle of some gnarly sectarian conflicts over Kings and Popes. I guess it was better that they were mercenary armies in the sense that the richer cities (who could afford to hire them for protection) were also rich enough to promote the arts. That, and the Renaissance couldn't really have started anywhere further north and west... or anywhere else, really.
That, I think, is a variable problem in government (i.e. one that can be dealt with)... how would a profit-motivated entity handle it?
Very Well Then I Contradict Myself.
How would a profit-motivated person handle the long term? Capital values.
You really want to know why we don't have an anarchist form of government with direct democracy? It's because people are:
1. Lazy
2. Anarchism presents it's own issues as seen in the old Assembly in Athens where most of the participants because of #1 were either old people or poor people that still voted with their "self interest" while every middle aged white guy that could participate that was raising a family was making a living or raising their family.
3. Market economies are not the source of "total freedom" because it reinforces self interest over collective identity.
A few points on American consumerism and short term thinking:
1. Consumers are 140% of debt to income levels
2. We have seen a drop in voter participation as the spread of consumerism has increased with a few exceptions like the Vietnam War.
3. Ethical compensation has shown time and again that short term thinking trumps long term thinking.
In an anarchist society where people are "perusing their own self-interest" by watching animal videos on youtube between bouts of yanking off to porn before getting up and going to work is really going to be interested in government if the people already are not voting once a year. What stops a handful of people "grasping power" from others being too lazy to engage in government? That's exactly how some aristocracies form in business, politics, social relationships, and on and on. Even Badnarik, a Libertarian presidential candidate, observes this that people just don't want to do the things we let government do for us. Self protection being his prime example, while he himself as a Texan has no issue shooting someone other people are a bit more squeamish. This is why we "outsource" killing violent people to police, who are trained to engage in such activities and have a low rate of abuse and when abuse occurs there are accountability mechanisms against the state and individuals. Not perfectly, but if people are lazy and not going to rally to the defense of themselves and others during a robbery (which presents it's own problems) and we already have a system that per capita abuses is low relative to our high rate of population per square mile. Then we do not need a private contractor force for our mutual defense nor a subscription Swat Team.
And what makes "people with guns" in general trustworthy at all? By the "magical power of profit compels thee to behave" with the "threat of exile" whenever these people can just overpower and conquer a given state is highly unorthodox and ultimately very laughable as mercenary groups have conquered towns and villages in the past especially whenever they are not paid or wanted more money like spoils of war. You know what happens on the streets after someone is "exiled" they skip town and join another gang or form or join up with their own gang to fight the other gang. An exile with the power to fight often times in history has fought to make a "come back" not because of profit, but because of identity and a want to belong and to be in a specific place. These are irrational aspects of humans that beat in the heart of each human animal.
They scheduled battles, today people fight in urban areas block by block. That is purely fallacy of composition right there, and even then there were issues with mercenary groups destroying cities such as in France. Machiavelli, as BS, has said was very much against the use of mercenaries because of the constant swish and sway of power as one mercenary group put another person into power of a city-state. Typically these people were rich and displaced democratically elected officials as seen most famously in Florence during Machiavelli's life time. That's what happens when "market forces" meet the sword; rich man conquers people.
Now I noticed you completely ignored what I said about modern warfare being urban centered. If you want a good idea of what modern warfare looks like in an urban setting go watch a gang fight. It's bloody, innocents get hurt, and has nothing to do with government at all. Humans are petty, cruel, and vicious. That's what a society looks like when every man is for himself trying to "make a profit," people try to control bridges and territory. There's no Non Aggression Pact in the hood. Everything is market oriented ranging from weapons to power to sex. Relationships are skewed towards loyalty to the group rather than the individual. Why is that? Why do gang members want a collective identity so bad that young girls will be raped just so "desperately to belong." There's a fundamental herd instinct to man which is indicative of government, and while the modern form of governance may not be the most healthy yet achieved on the face of this Earth. It has allowed for you to sit there and not get shot by some crack head wanting your wallet and the ability to ponder "what if there was no government." That is anarchy, that is where man descends into chaos. The state is evil, but man is equally just as evil. And you want self-interest to be the prime directive of depraved human beings that even when caged show a premeditation towards violence? I question such a romantic ideology on it's face value.
Permanent election cycles combined with 24/7 all year round media exposure with telecommunications industries that are focused on ratings over content and quarterly profits. With the election cycle for a 2 year office taking one entire year to complete in the same ecology has taken government and turned it towards a more "corporate structure."
It's the creative destructive cycle on steroids, isn't this what you wanted? The people have their say every two years with the full monty being shown on television, video, radio, and the nets all the time. Politicians are held accountable by radical transparency by just about everyone from voters to corporate citizens to NGOs. That is the nature of the market that you seem to hold so highly and people serving their "radical self interest."
Influence is fully market oriented as well where influence is now a commodity. The very market forces you want to unleash in a fully anarchist environment are on full display now. That is in part why aristocracy works to maintain the long term, it cools the emotional tensions and allows for reason to flourish.
If you want a corporate example, a number of the publicly held companies over the last few years have faired far worse than those where families maintained a stake interest in them or were privately held companies. That is in part aristocracy with some democratic elements versus absolute classical democracy. The hybrid system works for companies when it comes to profits, the same goes for government. Aristocracy has it's place and is equated to long term thinking.
Now, if you want to discuss what is the most efficient form of governance of a federalist system versus a confederacy or having smaller blocks such as city-states in order by which to offer governments the most competition and allow for maximization of immigration to those cities. Much of the world's GDP is held by cities such as New York, London, and the rising second tier cities of China and other Asian nations. Mayors have more power over environmental policy than say the G20 because mayors can work with local city councils to create and effectuate policies without the overhead you have from party politics since often cities are a one party town or more collegian relationship between the two parties.
One of the missing factors from your glorious commune *** anarchist state, is that people are petty, cruel, vindictive, and greedy. Greed often makes self-interest run amok, and greed is not good. Marx came before the anarchists and claimed that markets and government were the problem, now today anarchism, in this thread's context, is sexy and claims that government is evil and upholds markets as the pure way of man yet despises the unabashed and rampant short term thinking in today's governance?
Do you never study 19th century local politics or see what has went on with mosque building in Texas where locals are trying to hurt people form building on 15 acres of land? My bookshelves are a graveyard of good intentions run bad, and humans behaving badly.
The current system, for all it's flaws, has been refined, perhaps better as defined, over generations since before you were born. There have been several attempts ranging from the Puritans to hippies trying to "remake society" and each time failed and fell to their own vices within a few generations to become what we are today. Anarchism is Puritanism in market form, and when in line with 3rd generation drift becomes a government unto it's own culture.
I also have an issue with the term "anarchist" in this context, as "anarchism" as classically defined is without government. What you seem to be touting is "government-lite" or "corporate governance" in the guild sense, and guilds were and are, if you consider modern trade unions, are very governmental in their proceedings. I'd hate to say this, but often your "anarchist" approach is more marketist and corporatist and by your latest round of rhetorical flatulence against government is that it seems you have what you want.
I'll ask a simple question, "What determines value?" I don't want a brick quote, I'd appreciate a simple answer please because it's going to involve "emotions" from which I've got a long point about behavioral economics and such. I really want to see if you can go beyond 19th century philosophers and talk turkey on the human condition in explicit detail. Because you have yet to show any robust form of education outside of anarchist literature.
The scary point is that according to Paraq Khanna an actor actually approached Blackwater to talk about protecting Somalians or something of that nature, and Blackwater said they could. Granted that was humanitarian, but one of the inferences in his allegory that the current world is the "new Middle Ages" and advocacy for a "new Renaissance" carries some of it's own baggage considering the city-states were rather violent times even during the "more enlightened times." So with actors and entertaining already playing diplomat since before even the times of Ferrah Fawcett and perusing their own private diplomacy, I question whether giving George Clooney and friends access to his own personal army just "following their own self-interest." Do we really want to live in a world where George Clooney is considered to be a military power?
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
You post needlessly long rambling passages, where it is unclear how they answer what they are purporting to answer. Look at your response to coercive monopoly in your last post. None of that is an answer.
You condemn answers for not answering all unasked questions. Is "Does not answer the nature of modern urban warfare." a cogent answer to "The mercenary armies of rennisance Italy compare favorably to traditional armies of the same time?"
You try to project things into other people's belief systems. Saying what someone else believes or approves of without evidence is insulting.
You bring up examples for your position like "19th century local government" or "Mosque building in Texas" as if they are definitive proofs. It would be nice if you said what happened that was so interesting, and what conclusion you are drawing. I'm not psychic.
Please actually answer arguments. Don't just try to fire off prepared rants that don't apply to what they are supposed to answer. I say this because you warned us you were about to fire off a point on behavioral economics.
He's attacking your argument at a philosophical level. This is an attack that is going straight for the jugular of your entire philosophy and illustrates one of its largest flaws - the investment required to maintain an anarchist state (of existence) is in and of itself a full time job apart from any other labor that individuals may be doing. Many of the anarchist answers given have gaping holes in them or simply hand wave away problems like corruption or instability.
Read the argument Jimbo. I never said that 19th century Italy was an anarchist example, or any time in Italy. Nor have I ever claimed that all players must be informed, energetic and rational. I am interested in a debate. One where people can make points and get responses. Please respond what I actually say rather than throwing up strawmen.
If his point is that anarchy is too much of an investment in time or that apathy destroys anarchy, it could do with a clear statement. It also should not be presented as an answer to an unrelated question. I'm willing to discuss it.
Also, please don't just say there are gaping holes. If there are gaping holes pointing them out would be helpful. I won't take your statement that there are gaping holes as evidence that there are gaping holes. Nor will I take the statement of No True Scotsman or Moving the Goalposts as evidence that those are going on. If you have an example of me doing either, I'd like to see it.
Proudhon's work predates Marx's work.
Essentially correct.
Use-value or exchange-value?
Men have certain desires, such as to eat or to enjoy a play. The degree to which a good or service satiates these desires is the degree to which it has use-value. This is somewhat complicated by the fact that environmental factors have a large impact on the formation of these desires in the first place.
The exchange-value of a reproducible commodity in a competitive market, on the other hand, is determined by the disutility of the labor necessary, on the margin, to procure the commodity.
The value of capital is determined by the rent it can procure, which in turn is determined by the amount of disutility of labor the capital good can, on the margin, make up for.
The squandering of a capital good therefore decreases the value of the capital good by reducing its rent.
No, it doesn't. Take any group of people and put them in an established anarchic order and they will fare better on average than in any system of government you can devise.