4 ms·

>And what do you think a government is? It is a monopoly, of course. It clearly demonstrates that monopolies cannot exist without the threat of force, which is

by snitko 12y ago

>And what do you think a government is? It is a monopoly, of course. It clearly demonstrates that monopolies cannot exist without the threat of force, which isn't profitable to do in a free market, where you cannot force people to pay to sustain that force indefinitely. >In an increasingly post-labour society, this is not necessarily the case. You might buy a machine that eliminates many jobs, and creates far fewer. Did somebody build that machine? Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills? And if a machine makes some product cheaper, wouldn't the poor benefit the most from it, since they would now be able to afford stuff they couldn't before? Would you like to be rich 200 years ago or lower middle class today? >Of course. I wasn't suggesting otherwise. My point is that there are ways for the majority to hurt the minority in both cases, so it's not an argument against democracy. It is an argument against democracy, because I clearly demonstrated to you how in a democracy the minority would be in a much worse situation if the majority of the society hated them. Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that. >Because the government's actions are approved of by a majority of society. So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too? >Because in your society, if I have no money, I die. In my society, if I have no money, I survive. That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society.

aninhumer 12y ago
> It clearly demonstrates that monopolies cannot exist without the threat of force, which isn't profitable to do in a free market, where you cannot force people to pay to sustain that force indefinitely. Private protection agencies do have the threat of force though, so they can force people to pay to sustain them. And clearly it must be sustainable, because governments exist. Or do you think there some magical property of things called "governments" which protects them from the market forces you claim something called a "private protection agency" would be subject to? In what way are they different? > Did somebody build that machine? For now. My point is that as capital overtakes labour as the primary factor in production, using jobs as a means of wealth distribution will no longer be effective. > Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills? And how will they learn those skills if they have no money? >Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that. You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state? The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society. >So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too? Why would they come to such a decision? Why would society at large care about you and me in particular? If you mean as part of some wider social program, and I happen to have more wealth than you, then I would be happy to share it. >That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society. Right, and what if they don't have any money to spare either? Or simply don't want to help me? I still die.
- snitko 12y ago
  >You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state? That's not what I did. I gave you examples that with any distribution of opinions in a society, minorities would be worse off with a state. My examples, if you read them carefully, compared two situations with equal variables given. I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies. > The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society. That is a misunderstanding of how state works. When there is a government, rich people still control it, not the voters. This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route! You can say, "but other people would oppose genocide and another politician would try to beat the one who's evil". Well, same would happen in a free market, except with more certainty and less risk: everyone would be able to vote with their own dollars. If one businessman decides to kill 10% of the population who are redheads do you think other businesses, that redheads are customers of, are going to do nothing and allow their profits to be destroyed too? Do you honestly believe that other people, who clearly see this guy is nuts, are going to keep doing business with him knowing he goes and mass murders people using profits he gets? I'd like to quote Leo Tolstoy once again who more than 100 years ago already understood a very simple and powerful thing: "without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions".
  - aninhumer 12y ago
    I don't object to focusing on fewer points, since the discussion was getting a bit sprawling, but I would consider my question about private protection agencies to be one of the most important, so I'd like to continue that. To condense my question: Doesn't the existence of stable governments demonstrate that monopolies on violence are a sustainable business model? (Indeed, by your own argument, one could conclude that there must be market demand for the existence of current governments, otherwise they would be out-competed?) >I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies. With no real basis for either conclusion. You just assert that a free market where 70% of people hate redheads would be totally fine, because they can still trade with the remaining 30%. Which says nothing about the far far more important factor of wealth distribution. >This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route! (I'm assuming you meant latter?) If people are apparently so gullible in their political decisions, what makes you think they won't be equally gullible in their financial ones? If it's possible to convince people to vote for genocide, then surely it's equally possible to create market demand for genocide? >"without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions". To be honest, this kind of statement just highlights the naivety I see in anarcho-capitalist arguments: "If only there were no tyrants, everything would be better." But in a world with power imbalances, there will always be more tyrants. Democracy is the only system we have seen which attempts to solve this fundamental problem of power imbalance.

by snitko 12y ago

aninhumer 12y ago

> It clearly demonstrates that monopolies cannot exist without the threat of force, which isn't profitable to do in a free market, where you cannot force people to pay to sustain that force indefinitely. Private protection agencies do have the threat of force though, so they can force people to pay to sustain them. And clearly it must be sustainable, because governments exist. Or do you think there some magical property of things called "governments" which protects them from the market forces you claim something called a "private protection agency" would be subject to? In what way are they different? > Did somebody build that machine? For now. My point is that as capital overtakes labour as the primary factor in production, using jobs as a means of wealth distribution will no longer be effective. > Doesn't that situation incentivize people to learn more sophisticated skills? And how will they learn those skills if they have no money? >Please re-read it and I'd really like to hear your response to that. You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state? The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society. >So, if the government approved me robbing you directly, you'd be okay with it too? Why would they come to such a decision? Why would society at large care about you and me in particular? If you mean as part of some wider social program, and I happen to have more wealth than you, then I would be happy to share it. >That's actually not true. In my society there are friends and relatives. Individuals have responsibility to help others, not some abstract government or society. Right, and what if they don't have any money to spare either? Or simply don't want to help me? I still die.

snitko 12y ago
>You threw out some arbitrary numbers with no real basis. Why does it take 90% of society to harm the minority in a free market but only 70% in state? That's not what I did. I gave you examples that with any distribution of opinions in a society, minorities would be worse off with a state. My examples, if you read them carefully, compared two situations with equal variables given. I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies. > The actual difference is that in a democratic state, you need a majority of people to harm a minority. Whereas in a free market, you need a majority of capital. If capital is evenly distributed, then they will be roughly even, but if there is massive inequality, then genocide could easily be committed in a free market with support of only 1% of society. That is a misunderstanding of how state works. When there is a government, rich people still control it, not the voters. This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route! You can say, "but other people would oppose genocide and another politician would try to beat the one who's evil". Well, same would happen in a free market, except with more certainty and less risk: everyone would be able to vote with their own dollars. If one businessman decides to kill 10% of the population who are redheads do you think other businesses, that redheads are customers of, are going to do nothing and allow their profits to be destroyed too? Do you honestly believe that other people, who clearly see this guy is nuts, are going to keep doing business with him knowing he goes and mass murders people using profits he gets? I'd like to quote Leo Tolstoy once again who more than 100 years ago already understood a very simple and powerful thing: "without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions".
- aninhumer 12y ago
  I don't object to focusing on fewer points, since the discussion was getting a bit sprawling, but I would consider my question about private protection agencies to be one of the most important, so I'd like to continue that. To condense my question: Doesn't the existence of stable governments demonstrate that monopolies on violence are a sustainable business model? (Indeed, by your own argument, one could conclude that there must be market demand for the existence of current governments, otherwise they would be out-competed?) >I first looked at what would happen in both societies if 90% hated a minority, then looked at what would happen if only 70% hated a minority, again, in both stateless and statists societies. With no real basis for either conclusion. You just assert that a free market where 70% of people hate redheads would be totally fine, because they can still trade with the remaining 30%. Which says nothing about the far far more important factor of wealth distribution. >This is because they can buy election campaigns and control public opinion through the media they own. Then, when politicians are voted in with their help, they get the laws they wish to be passed. Suppose a billionaire wishes to commit a genocide. What do you think is going to be cheaper: directly finance the genocide or influence a public opinion and sponsor a politician who would do it for him using taxpayers money? Of course the former is the cheaper route! (I'm assuming you meant latter?) If people are apparently so gullible in their political decisions, what makes you think they won't be equally gullible in their financial ones? If it's possible to convince people to vote for genocide, then surely it's equally possible to create market demand for genocide? >"without Authority there could not be worse violence than that of Authority under existing conditions". To be honest, this kind of statement just highlights the naivety I see in anarcho-capitalist arguments: "If only there were no tyrants, everything would be better." But in a world with power imbalances, there will always be more tyrants. Democracy is the only system we have seen which attempts to solve this fundamental problem of power imbalance.