Governator cutting education funds!!

[guartz]

And everyone is armed. Everyone! Probably with tactical nukes in every city!

Thank you for the best demonstration yet of why this is a terrible, terrible idea.

I don't know much history man, but I do recall that wars magically ceased between countries with nukes. I wonder why that is.

[Correction]

SHITTY GUARTZ-DERAILED TOPIC WON'T DIE!!!

http://i30.tinypic.com/idg5ck.jpg

Someone call Leon.

[guartz]

lol.

I just realized that I derailed my own thread. That's awesome.

Also it's amazing how people will disagree with an idea if it sounds counter-intuitive! I mean, nevermind the dozens of really world's greatest thinkers and 100 years of philosophy that stand behind it! If it's counter-intuitive, it must be stupid!


Hey! Making drugs illegal doesn't stop people from using them, instead it gives incentive for drug use to grow and continue!

[Beckwin]

"but I guess you obviously can't deal with a situation in which a business seeks to accumulate more capital via hostile takeover"

I offered like 20 examples of why a business wouldn't want to do that. Wars are just too costly, unless you have a populace tax fodder. And everyone is armed. Everyone! Probably with tactical nukes in every city! Since there are no restrictions on trade, so why not? So it's not like a biggest company can push around others, cause hey! What if they have nukes?!

It's about risk. If the cost of armed action is worth the payoff, then it'll happen. Plain and simple. If you can invest 50 billion to forcibly take over a small oil rich area and have no nearby third parties step in, and then make 10 billion a year off the oil, it's a sound business maneuver.

And how the hell do you talk about standing armies/police forces being too costly for anyone to maintain then talk about multiple tactical nukes in every city?

[archibaldcrane]

And everyone is armed. Everyone! Probably with tactical nukes in every city!

Thank you for the best demonstration yet of why this is a terrible, terrible idea.

I don't know much history man, but I do recall that wars magically ceased between countries with nukes. I wonder why that is.

We aren't talking about countries, we're talking about groups in a nation. Hey, bright idea, let's hand the taliban some nukes, and then wars will magically cease!

[Maxxthepenguin]

Archibaldcrane, you seem to forget, if this was implemented, everyone would become rational, predictable, and utterly fair minded.

[guartz]

It's about risk. If the cost of armed action is worth the payoff, then it'll happen. Plain and simple.

wait, I though public opinion mattered?

So what is it?

"taliban some nukes, and then wars will magically cease!"

Ahem. Taliban wouldn't exist if russia/usa never invaded afghan. Oh, and it wouldn't invade if they had nukes.

[Plow]

Archibaldcrane, you seem to forget, if this was implemented, everyone would become rational, predictable, and utterly fair minded.

Can you find me newspaper articles and in depth internet reporting about people having problems with greed or balance of power in nations that are using a pure anarchal state (or non-state as the case would be)?

No? Didn't think so, omg l2argue.


p.s. I've just read so much evidence to the contrary I don't know which of the billions of potential arguments I should start with, so I'll just not give any.

[aurik]

It's about risk. If the cost of armed action is worth the payoff, then it'll happen. Plain and simple.

wait, I though public opinion mattered?

So what is it?

"taliban some nukes, and then wars will magically cease!"

Ahem. Taliban wouldn't exist if russia/usa never invaded afghan. Oh, and it wouldn't invade if they had nukes.

No, they'd have just nuked it. Glass desert anyone?

[guartz]

No, they'd have just nuked it. Glass desert anyone?

Right. Why waste a nuke? I thought wars were pretty simply about taking stuff. Why would anyone want a glass desert?

[Beckwin]

It's about risk. If the cost of armed action is worth the payoff, then it'll happen. Plain and simple.

wait, I though public opinion mattered?

So what is it?

Public opinion matters more in a democracy or really any other form of actual governance. Votes, protests, etc- politics matter. In an a-c system, the only form of "public opinion" is expressed via money (you've said this repeatedly, in different terms). So first of all, money dictates how much your opinion matters. Secondly, in the example I proposed, the opinion of everyone not being taken over by the cartel is indifference because they don't like the Israeli oil field owners, and they aren't hesitant to do business with the cartel.

On a much smaller scale, you can apply this same idea to exploitation of slums and taking over struggling businesses. There would be situations where the majority of capital in the area doesn't give two shits about Firm A's hostile takeover (via economic coercion or even force) of <poor/immigrant/minority/small> business, and said business is too poor to fight back.

[Beckwin]

No, they'd have just nuked it. Glass desert anyone?

Right. Why waste a nuke? I thought wars were pretty simply about taking stuff. Why would anyone want a glass desert?

Eliminating competition is simultaneously taking a larger share of the market.

[aurik]

No, they'd have just nuked it. Glass desert anyone?

Right. Why waste a nuke? I thought wars were pretty simply about taking stuff. Why would anyone want a glass desert?

Eliminating competition is simultaneously taking a larger share of the market.

Lot easier to take their stuff too if they're dead.

[guartz]

Public opinion matters more in a democracy or really any other form of actual governance. Votes, protests, etc- politics matter. In an a-c system, the only form of "public opinion" is expressed via money (you've said this repeatedly, in different terms). So first of all, money dictates how much your opinion matters. Secondly, in the example I proposed, the opinion of everyone not being taken over by the cartel is indifference because they don't like the Israeli oil field owners, and they aren't hesitant to do business with the cartel.

On a much smaller scale, you can apply this same idea to exploitation of slums and taking over struggling businesses. There would be situations where the majority of capital in the area doesn't give two shits about Firm A's hostile takeover (via economic coercion or even force) of <poor/immigrant/minority/small> business, and said business is too poor to fight back.

Oh right, they are too poor to fight back, but rich enough for people to want to risk their lives to take their stuff.

It's almost as interesting as trying to say that nuclear weapons are not a counter-incentive for war.

[Beckwin]

Oh right, they are too poor to fight back, but rich enough for people to want to risk their lives to take their stuff.

It's almost as interesting as trying to say that nuclear weapons are not a counter-incentive for war.

Nuclear weapons are only a deterrent if both sides have them. The concept is called mutually assured destruction, I'm sure you read about it in high school history classes. Perhaps the only bright spot of the Cold War was that either the US or Russia essentially promises extreme retaliation to any would-be nuclear belligerent.

However with no nuclear government offering that kind of protection... yeah. It's all about money at this point. If you can afford a nuke facility with a quick response time and early warning capabilities, great, you probably won't get nuked. Anything below that is still subject to more standard conventions of aggression where military numbers and sophistication would define both your safety and what you can take, and of course those are paid for by money.

Pro-tip about the "too poor to fight back": land and location are valuable commodities, so are resources. If you can't understand why smaller or poorer businesses/individuals could still have something worth taking, I don't know what to say.

[guartz]

I just don't see how a corporations that doesn't have governmental protection can become violent in the first place. You've said nothing to prove that point.

Not only have you failed to provide how it would be possible, you didn't even mention any reasonable motivation for such actions that's directly related to not having a government.

Your throwing out reasons that could happen if a government exists or if it doesn't exist.

[Vistani]

I just don't see how a corporations that doesn't have governmental protection can become violent in the first place. You've said nothing to prove that point.

Not only have you failed to provide how it would be possible, you didn't even mention any reasonable motivation for such actions that's directly related to not having a government.

Your throwing out reasons that could happen if a government exists or if it doesn't exist.

How can you not become violent if your business' purpose is to use force to accomplish people's goals? If I have a gun under anarcho-capitalism, and I see somebody walking down the street, I should shoot them as quickly as possible and then steal their stuff. Better yet, I could follow them home, kill their entire family at once, claim their property and possessions in the name of my business and have a party. Sadly at the party I would have to kill all the people who come and take all their shit, because anything else would be uncapitalistic. If I didn't do all this, I would be a filthy leech, draining the system, somebody deserving of being shot and having all their stuff taken.

Also it's "you're" not "your".

[guartz]

I just don't see how a corporations that doesn't have governmental protection can become violent in the first place. You've said nothing to prove that point.

Not only have you failed to provide how it would be possible, you didn't even mention any reasonable motivation for such actions that's directly related to not having a government.

Your throwing out reasons that could happen if a government exists or if it doesn't exist.

How can you not become violent if your business' purpose is to use force to accomplish people's goals? If I have a gun under anarcho-capitalism, and I see somebody walking down the street, I should shoot them as quickly as possible and then steal their stuff. Better yet, I could follow them home, kill their entire family at once, claim their property and possessions in the name of my business and have a party. Sadly at the party I would have to kill all the people who come and take all their shit, because anything else would be uncapitalistic. If I didn't do all this, I would be a filthy leech, draining the system, somebody deserving of being shot and having all their stuff taken.

Also it's "you're" not "your".

See how silly your arguments are. Somebody can follow you home and kill you now too. The same motivation to NOT do it, would also exist.

[Beckwin]

I just don't see how a corporations that doesn't have governmental protection can become violent in the first place. You've said nothing to prove that point.

How can they become violent? Like I've said, they start a defense agency or hire one. Really fucking simple, guartz.

Not only have you failed to provide how it would be possible, you didn't even mention any reasonable motivation for such actions that's directly related to not having a government.

The motivation is that there's not an absolutely overwhelming force that will universally crush any acts of aggression. So therefor if you command enough capital and economic influence (thus defense forces as well), you find certain leeway in what you can accomplish through violence. In the Israel oil example, there'd be no one in the region to say "no, you can't do this" and in smaller examples, it's not inconceivable for the larger companies in an area to force smaller businesses out of the way via economic coercion or violence (or both), especially if they can exploit community biases or ignorance (just keep it on the down low).

Your throwing out reasons that could happen if a government exists or if it doesn't exist.

No I haven't been. I'm specifically talking about things that only get to happen when there isn't law and the significant means to back it up.

Honestly you need to just admit that a-c is not practical. You can talk about how virtuous of a system it would be if every single person was a 'good' human being that shared the same morals and ethics, but otherwise you're only repeatedly causing self-defeat by proposing it in a real world setting.

[Vistani]

I just don't see how a corporations that doesn't have governmental protection can become violent in the first place. You've said nothing to prove that point.

Not only have you failed to provide how it would be possible, you didn't even mention any reasonable motivation for such actions that's directly related to not having a government.

Your throwing out reasons that could happen if a government exists or if it doesn't exist.

How can you not become violent if your business' purpose is to use force to accomplish people's goals? If I have a gun under anarcho-capitalism, and I see somebody walking down the street, I should shoot them as quickly as possible and then steal their stuff. Better yet, I could follow them home, kill their entire family at once, claim their property and possessions in the name of my business and have a party. Sadly at the party I would have to kill all the people who come and take all their shit, because anything else would be uncapitalistic. If I didn't do all this, I would be a filthy leech, draining the system, somebody deserving of being shot and having all their stuff taken.

Also it's "you're" not "your".

See how silly your arguments are. Somebody can follow you home and kill you now too. The same motivation to NOT do it, would also exist.

Exactly, it would be their duty to do it too. What a great system.