Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Graknorke]

But an anarchistic society still would not stay stable as anarchistic. Before long you'd have certain organisations growing in power, taking more control over the land and people around them,and securing it with contracted militia. Governments form again, except they are more heavily branded.

[GreatJustice]

Yet look what did actually happen to Ireland - inherantly too weak to fight off outside invasion and influence. Power blocs providing a unified goal will always win against a disorganised decentralized system where everyone is looking out for themselves.

Ireland lasted a good thousand years or so, and they were constantly on the defense against a substantially larger, more powerful neighbour. A united Ireland would not have lasted anywhere near as long under the same circumstances.

[Nadaka]

You don't need most people to be psychopaths for the psychopaths to gain control... That just means they have less competition.

Unregulated markets both economic and political always for monopolies of power. The ideas that you have just don't work at all in the real world. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of market forces greatjustice.

And your assertion that only a large government can be oppressive is equally misinformed. The only difference is the scale, not the degree. The mayor of a small town with a corrupt police force in his pocket can kill and oppress just as much (per capita) as world spanning government.

[GreatJustice]

You don't need most people to be psychopaths for the psychopaths to gain control... That just means they have less competition.

Unregulated markets both economic and political always for monopolies of power. The ideas that you have just don't work at all in the real world. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of market forces greatjustice.

Odd, pretty much every major monopoly ever has either been (A) the government or (B) enabled by support from the government. In actuality, in a truly unregulated market, power tends towards being more decentralized with significantly less gigantic corporations (which exist presently because of regulatory benefits) due to diseconomies of scale.

And your assertion that only a large government can be oppressive is equally misinformed. The only difference is the scale, not the degree. The mayor of a small town with a corrupt police force in his pocket can kill and oppress just as much (per capita) as world spanning government.

I didn't say "big governments are bad and small ones are good", I said "governments are bad because they are [coercive, etc]". But a smaller, weaker government is quite a bit easier to ignore, avoid, overthrow, etc.

[Nadaka]

No. in a truly unregulated market power concentrates to a single monopoly within a given domain because there is no force capable of preventing exploitation of a market advantage to absorb or eliminate competing entities. The economies of scale almost always outweigh the dis-economies of scale without a governing force to provide that dis-economy. Even the "father of free market economics" Adam Smith knew of and warned about this. Its not my fault libertarians only cherry the parts that happen to coincide with their philosophy.

[GreatJustice]

No. in a truly unregulated market power concentrates to a single monopoly within a given domain because there is no force capable of preventing exploitation of a market advantage to absorb or eliminate competing entities. The economies of scale almost always outweigh the dis-economies of scale without a governing force to provide that dis-economy. Even the "father of free market economics" Adam Smith knew of and warned about this. Its not my fault libertarians only cherry the parts that happen to coincide with their philosophy.

Adam Smith was not the father of free market economics. The concept existed quite a bit before then, but the School of Salamanca was responsible for many of the economic and philosophical underpinnings of capitalism that preceded Adam Smith.

With that out of the way, diseconomies of scale are not provided by the government, they are natural issues that arise as a business becomes larger. Specifically, communication becomes trickier, the company reacts slower compared to smaller counterparts, more managers are required, office politics begin to interfere with the workings of the company due to the increasing disconnect between productivity and profits, etc etc. There are also direct issues with larger market share that manifest themselves. They are a simple fact of economics.

[Culise]

No. in a truly unregulated market power concentrates to a single monopoly within a given domain because there is no force capable of preventing exploitation of a market advantage to absorb or eliminate competing entities. The economies of scale almost always outweigh the dis-economies of scale without a governing force to provide that dis-economy. Even the "father of free market economics" Adam Smith knew of and warned about this. Its not my fault libertarians only cherry the parts that happen to coincide with their philosophy.

Adam Smith was not the father of free market economics. The concept existed quite a bit before then, but the School of Salamanca was responsible for many of the economic and philosophical underpinnings of capitalism that preceded Adam Smith.

With that out of the way, diseconomies of scale are not provided by the government, they are natural issues that arise as a business becomes larger. Specifically, communication becomes trickier, the company reacts slower compared to smaller counterparts, more managers are required, office politics begin to interfere with the workings of the company due to the increasing disconnect between productivity and profits, etc etc. There are also direct issues with larger market share that manifest themselves. They are a simple fact of economics.

Nadaka isn't arguing that diseconomies of scale don't exist outside of artificial forces.  He simply argues that without an artificial force providing additional diseconomies of scale, economies of scale will tend to outweigh "natural" diseconomies of scale, leading to a net aggregation of corporate entities that, even as they provide less efficient services, still provide more services for cheaper than competitors can manage. 

[misko27]

Yet look what did actually happen to Ireland - inherantly too weak to fight off outside invasion and influence. Power blocs providing a unified goal will always win against a disorganised decentralized system where everyone is looking out for themselves.

Ireland lasted a good thousand years or so, and they were constantly on the defense against a substantially larger, more powerful neighbour. A united Ireland would not have lasted anywhere near as long under the same circumstances.

Yes, And no. Technology has meant that a thousand years isn't going to work, bigger is exponentially better. Militants, violence, and all that stuff thrives in a modern chaotic environment, and soon people clamor for any government, let alone one that respects their rights. The sole reason rebels nowadays can accomplish anything is because they stick together. On their own, it's easy to divide and conquer through superior fire-power. Think about this, why was Ireland they on defense from a larger foe? The enemy didn't start out that way. It combined, it saw the purpose and value of large, and it combined.

I didn't say "big governments are bad and small ones are good", I said "governments are bad because they are [coercive, etc]". But a smaller, weaker government is quite a bit easier to ignore, avoid, overthrow, etc.

No, governments are bad because they are composed of people, and people are coercive. Government is not guns, fire, birth control or any thing else. Government is not inherently anything at all. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needn't even be, but that wouldn't solve world problems. Governments don't oppress people, people oppress people, they are just tools, and unlike guns, they can do much better things too.

[GreatJustice]

Yet look what did actually happen to Ireland - inherantly too weak to fight off outside invasion and influence. Power blocs providing a unified goal will always win against a disorganised decentralized system where everyone is looking out for themselves.

Ireland lasted a good thousand years or so, and they were constantly on the defense against a substantially larger, more powerful neighbour. A united Ireland would not have lasted anywhere near as long under the same circumstances.

Yes, And no. Technology has meant that a thousand years isn't going to work, bigger is exponentially better. Militants, violence, and all that stuff thrives in a modern chaotic environment, and soon people clamor for any government, let alone one that respects their rights. The sole reason rebels nowadays can accomplish anything is because they stick together. On their own, it's easy to divide and conquer through superior fire-power. Think about this, why was Ireland they on defense from a larger foe? The enemy didn't start out that way. It combined, it saw the purpose and value of large, and it combined.

A combined Ireland would still have been substantially smaller than a combined England, and England existed in basically the same form for quite some time, with a few exceptions like Cornwall and so on. It's worth noting that England actually conquered a portion of Ireland known as the Pale, but the invaders actually ended up unable to expand the way they did on Britain proper and began to assimilate to the Irish culture, eventually abandoning the area. It is doubtful that even a united Ireland would have had much of a chance under other circumstances.

I didn't say "big governments are bad and small ones are good", I said "governments are bad because they are [coercive, etc]". But a smaller, weaker government is quite a bit easier to ignore, avoid, overthrow, etc.

No, governments are bad because they are composed of people, and people are coercive. Government is not guns, fire, birth control or any thing else. Government is not inherently anything at all. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needn't even be, but that wouldn't solve world problems. Governments don't oppress people, people oppress people, they are just tools, and unlike guns, they can do much better things too.

So people who call themselves "the government" are bad because they consider themselves to have rights to imprison, execute, etc other people through use of people who call themselves "the police" and "the military". Yet the government, again, is a monopoly by definition. If the government didn't have a land monopoly, or a monopoly on force, then it wouldn't be a government, it would effectively just be a private defense company.

[Nadaka]

And what you are not getting is that a "private defense company" that imprisons, executes or otherwise infringes on your rights is no better, worse or different than a government that does the same.

Yet it takes a government, and a sizable one to prevent those "private defense companies" from doing that, to protect your rights, to threaten, coerce, imprison or execute those who would infringe your rights.

You look at government and say that it is evil because it has a monopoly on coercion and force? Because individuals wielding coercion and force is so much better? When the government ideally is using its coercion and force to prevent others from coercing and forcing you out of your rights? What kind of backwards circular logic is that.

[misko27]

I didn't say "big governments are bad and small ones are good", I said "governments are bad because they are [coercive, etc]". But a smaller, weaker government is quite a bit easier to ignore, avoid, overthrow, etc.

No, governments are bad because they are composed of people, and people are coercive. Government is not guns, fire, birth control or any thing else. Government is not inherently anything at all. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needn't even be, but that wouldn't solve world problems. Governments don't oppress people, people oppress people, they are just tools, and unlike guns, they can do much better things too.

So people who call themselves "the government" are bad because they consider themselves to have rights to imprison, execute, etc other people through use of people who call themselves "the police" and "the military". Yet the government, again, is a monopoly by definition. If the government didn't have a land monopoly, or a monopoly on force, then it wouldn't be a government, it would effectively just be a private defense company.

WAIT, EXACTLY.


The government doesn't exist for no reason, it came about! Out of anarchy, arose a system you yourself find unfair. Chaos is a failure, because it means whatever wants to arrive, be it a monopolistic government, or company, or anything. Governments arose out of the Anarchy, multiple times, independently. Anarchy is inherently unstable, and it soon progresses to something. What, exactly, is random, be it good, or foul. Anarchy is to choose a random government, far in the future, where the people who started it have literally no control over the outcome. Ireland chose Anarchy, and they ceased to exist as a independent territory. When they organized, that changed somewhat.

[GreatJustice]

And what you are not getting is that a "private defense company" that imprisons, executes or otherwise infringes on your rights is no better, worse or different than a government that does the same.

Yet it takes a government, and a sizable one to prevent those "private defense companies" from doing that, to protect your rights, to threaten, coerce, imprison or execute those who would infringe your rights.

You look at government and say that it is evil because it has a monopoly on coercion and force? Because individuals wielding coercion and force is so much better? When the government ideally is using its coercion and force to prevent others from coercing and forcing you out of your rights? What kind of backwards circular logic is that.

A private defense company would actually be beholden to the wishes of the people because, unlike with a government, you would be free to switch from one to another. Disputes would be handled through neutral arbitration, so as to avoid conflict. They'd have a pretty hard time infringing upon the rights of others the way a government can due to limitations of scale, efficiency, and funding. A government can go conquering because it can tax its subjects for resources to fund a standing army. Standing armies are not profitable and would not last with a competitive PDA, not to mention the fact that abusing subscribers would give an opening for customers to be poached.

Regardless, the fact of the matter is that the government preemptively uses coercion and violence to prevent the possibility of coercion from smaller and less organized groups of thugs.

I didn't say "big governments are bad and small ones are good", I said "governments are bad because they are [coercive, etc]". But a smaller, weaker government is quite a bit easier to ignore, avoid, overthrow, etc.

No, governments are bad because they are composed of people, and people are coercive. Government is not guns, fire, birth control or any thing else. Government is not inherently anything at all. It doesn't exist in a vacuum. It needn't even be, but that wouldn't solve world problems. Governments don't oppress people, people oppress people, they are just tools, and unlike guns, they can do much better things too.

So people who call themselves "the government" are bad because they consider themselves to have rights to imprison, execute, etc other people through use of people who call themselves "the police" and "the military". Yet the government, again, is a monopoly by definition. If the government didn't have a land monopoly, or a monopoly on force, then it wouldn't be a government, it would effectively just be a private defense company.

WAIT, EXACTLY.


The government doesn't exist for no reason, it came about! Out of anarchy, arose a system you yourself find unfair. Chaos is a failure, because it means whatever wants to arrive, be it a monopolistic government, or company, or anything. Governments arose out of the Anarchy, multiple times, independently. Anarchy is inherently unstable, and it soon progresses to something. What, exactly, is random, be it good, or foul. Anarchy is to choose a random government, far in the future, where the people who started it have literally no control over the outcome. Ireland chose Anarchy, and they ceased to exist as a independent territory. When they organized, that changed somewhat.

No. Government subverted anarchy through violence, and arose from pre-existing institutions. The ancient world was not categorized by anarchy, it was categorized by tribes and civilizations with governments already in place. People were not sitting around in anarchistic areas when someone said "Let's make a government!" whereupon everyone agreed and got right to work at it. Historically, the areas with anarchy lasted so long as they weren't invaded by large, aggressive states or else subverted by external pressures. There are stable anarchistic law systems that can work just fine when they aren't destroyed by outside invasion, for example, the Somali Xeer.

[Graknorke]

So what's to stop a privately owned militia from getting support from a network of other corporations and going out conquering? Because whether or not you like it, people will want to group together if it secures them more power. Regardless of the organisation's name.

[GreatJustice]

So what's to stop a privately owned militia from getting support from a network of other corporations and going out conquering? Because whether or not you like it, people will want to group together if it secures them more power. Regardless of the organisation's name.

Expenses, also publicity. Armies are really expensive, and corporations generally don't run huge enough profit margins to be able to spare much for something like that. People also might consider not patronizing businesses that use their money for enslaving their customers.

[MonkeyHead]

Until people start paying a portion of thier income for services and protection from one of these entities. Oh, wait, thats taxation and nation states isnt it? Order emerges from chaos under the guidance of human leadership, for better or worse.