4 ms·

That's a nice thought, but just about all of human history proves your entire thing wrong.

by s73ver 9y ago

ancap 9y ago
Such as? Please provide some examples.
- KirinDave 9y ago
  I don't know what the poster above you intended, but criticisms of anarcho-capitalism are a dime a dozen and largely ignored. It inevitably collapses into a feudalistic society. Can you point to an example of a sustained anarcho-capitalist society that had to maintain borders? Can't prove a negative, you know. You gotta prove positives.
  - ancap 9y ago
    Anarcho-capitalism is a theoretical political structure which has never been attempted. But I fail to see how that's relevant to the discussion. Seems like a red herring to me. It was originally alleged that corporations hold all the power in an economy unless they are kept in line by a powerful government. I countered, stating consumers actually are the holders of power in a free economy and provided some praxeological arguments to support that claim. @s73ver then made a generic claim that history refutes my argument, without providing a single example. One merely has to provide an example of a corporation which yielded more economic power than the consumer in a free-market economy. > Can't prove a negative, you know. You gotta prove positives. I really have no idea what negative you're talking about here.
cookiecaper 9y ago
The effect described by Von Mises is exactly what leads to this aggressive behavior from large retailers. Walmart knows that the customer doesn't care about Walmart. They go to Walmart because they believe Walmart will get them the best bang for their buck. When Walmart sets aggressive standards for its suppliers, it does so in the interest of maintaining that position, because they know that the customer will not hesitate to switch to a retailer that they perceive as being more advantageous (which usually means cheaper). It could even be seen as honorable that Walmart is on the ground doing the hard work of pressuring suppliers to ensure that they actually are able to offer rock-bottom prices, instead of just relying on marketing voodoo to create this as a phantom impression in the consumer's mind without actually attempting to affect it. The system can either try to restrain this core human tendency to jump at the most advantageous thing, in the belief that such disloyalty is a primal impulse that does not belong in 'civil society', or it can attempt to recognize this tendency and account for it organically rather than ruling it out of bounds. The extent of such tradeoffs, authoritative restriction meant to prevent damage v. organic re-routing such that damage is minimally disruptive, is always a matter of context and subjective judgment. We get into political snafus when we adopt one side of this scale as an ideal with near-religiosity and overemphasize the negative costs of the opposite side.

That's a nice thought, but just about all of human history proves your entire thing wrong.

by s73ver 9y ago

That's a nice thought, but just about all of human history proves your entire thing wrong.

ancap 9y ago

Such as? Please provide some examples.

KirinDave 9y ago
I don't know what the poster above you intended, but criticisms of anarcho-capitalism are a dime a dozen and largely ignored. It inevitably collapses into a feudalistic society. Can you point to an example of a sustained anarcho-capitalist society that had to maintain borders? Can't prove a negative, you know. You gotta prove positives.
- ancap 9y ago
  Anarcho-capitalism is a theoretical political structure which has never been attempted. But I fail to see how that's relevant to the discussion. Seems like a red herring to me. It was originally alleged that corporations hold all the power in an economy unless they are kept in line by a powerful government. I countered, stating consumers actually are the holders of power in a free economy and provided some praxeological arguments to support that claim. @s73ver then made a generic claim that history refutes my argument, without providing a single example. One merely has to provide an example of a corporation which yielded more economic power than the consumer in a free-market economy. > Can't prove a negative, you know. You gotta prove positives. I really have no idea what negative you're talking about here.

cookiecaper 9y ago

The effect described by Von Mises is exactly what leads to this aggressive behavior from large retailers. Walmart knows that the customer doesn't care about Walmart. They go to Walmart because they believe Walmart will get them the best bang for their buck. When Walmart sets aggressive standards for its suppliers, it does so in the interest of maintaining that position, because they know that the customer will not hesitate to switch to a retailer that they perceive as being more advantageous (which usually means cheaper). It could even be seen as honorable that Walmart is on the ground doing the hard work of pressuring suppliers to ensure that they actually are able to offer rock-bottom prices, instead of just relying on marketing voodoo to create this as a phantom impression in the consumer's mind without actually attempting to affect it. The system can either try to restrain this core human tendency to jump at the most advantageous thing, in the belief that such disloyalty is a primal impulse that does not belong in 'civil society', or it can attempt to recognize this tendency and account for it organically rather than ruling it out of bounds. The extent of such tradeoffs, authoritative restriction meant to prevent damage v. organic re-routing such that damage is minimally disruptive, is always a matter of context and subjective judgment. We get into political snafus when we adopt one side of this scale as an ideal with near-religiosity and overemphasize the negative costs of the opposite side.