Total Posts:30|Showing Posts:1-30
Jump to topic:

Agorism

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 8:55:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
"Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.

In a market anarchist society, law and security would be provided by market actors instead of political institutions. Agorists recognize that situation can not develop through political reform. Instead, it will arise as a result of market processes.

As the state is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of the criminal state by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets." - agorism.info[1]

The five markets. http://www.nostate.com...

[1] http://www.agorism.info...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:04:43 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
Market security still runs into the issue of jurisprudence. What basis is the security defending whom from what? Apart from individual protection, it is more likely pooled resources will create mini collectives of armed members.

Gated communities already attempt similar, though not to the full extent required under no central government or law.
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:09:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 8:55:25 PM, Reasoning wrote:
"Agorism is revolutionary market anarchism.

In a market anarchist society, law and security would be provided by market actors instead of political institutions. Agorists recognize that situation can not develop through political reform. Instead, it will arise as a result of market processes.

As the state is banditry, revolution culminates in the suppression of the criminal state by market providers of security and law. Market demand for such service providers is what will lead to their emergence. Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law). That sector of the economy is the counter-economy – black and grey markets." - agorism.info[1]

The five markets. http://www.nostate.com...

[1] http://www.agorism.info...

I think that this would probably just encourage sectionalism within community boundaries. If you have these private security providers all vying for the top spot, that's going to create more violence and chaos than having a monopoly ever would; even if a victor arose, the top company would still end up wielding a monopoly over the use of force, since no one would be powerful enough to challenge their "right" to do so.

Furthermore, it seems to me like these "laws" that you discuss aren't legitimate codes of conduct. You would likely have conflicting sets of laws that would represent different interests - these competing interests would be unable to exercise any kind of actual authority without the other "market actors" interfering in the process. Having numerous "protection rackets" is hardly a more viable option than a centralized state - in theory, this might sound rhetorically pleasing, but such a concept could never be practically, let alone effectively applied.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:16:01 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:09:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

I think that this would probably just encourage sectionalism within community boundaries. If you have these private security providers all vying for the top spot, that's going to create more violence and chaos than having a monopoly ever would; even if a victor arose, the top company would still end up wielding a monopoly over the use of force, since no one would be powerful enough to challenge their "right" to do so.

Furthermore, it seems to me like these "laws" that you discuss aren't legitimate codes of conduct. You would likely have conflicting sets of laws that would represent different interests - these competing interests would be unable to exercise any kind of actual authority without the other "market actors" interfering in the process. Having numerous "protection rackets" is hardly a more viable option than a centralized state - in theory, this might sound rhetorically pleasing, but such a concept could never be practically, let alone effectively applied.

"Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law)."-Agorism.info
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Cody_Franklin
Posts: 9,483
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 9:17:53 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/6/2009 9:16:01 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/6/2009 9:09:29 PM, Cody_Franklin wrote:

I think that this would probably just encourage sectionalism within community boundaries. If you have these private security providers all vying for the top spot, that's going to create more violence and chaos than having a monopoly ever would; even if a victor arose, the top company would still end up wielding a monopoly over the use of force, since no one would be powerful enough to challenge their "right" to do so.

Furthermore, it seems to me like these "laws" that you discuss aren't legitimate codes of conduct. You would likely have conflicting sets of laws that would represent different interests - these competing interests would be unable to exercise any kind of actual authority without the other "market actors" interfering in the process. Having numerous "protection rackets" is hardly a more viable option than a centralized state - in theory, this might sound rhetorically pleasing, but such a concept could never be practically, let alone effectively applied.

"Development of that demand will come from economic growth in the sector of the economy that explicitly shuns state involvement (and thus can not turn to the state in its role as monopoly provider of security and law)."-Agorism.info

That doesn't really answer anything. You're just repeating a quote stated in your original post without any kind of explanation as to where it applies.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/6/2009 11:50:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
But surely if law and security falls to some select group of 'market actors' then so does power, and therefore authority, hence Government.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 12:02:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The idea that the Free Market will fill in any service needed is true to an extent. The problem with transferring that power to private corporations has the following problems:

1) With multiple Private armies, they're out for profit. They're obviously going to clash and fight, and since we live in the nuclear age, we're screwed.

2) This stinks of a protection racket.

3) If Community A decides to ire Company Y, but Community B besides A hires Company X, we get a Berlin wall style situation.

4) These companies would fail if worked on an individual basis. It's obvious most communities won't decide collectively on one company, so if I hire Company X b my neighbour hires Company Y, it becomes awkward. This ties into:

5) If a burglar in my neighbours runs in to my house to avoid Company Y's police, they can't\ won't do anything, and leave. Unless Company X comes along and gets them out of my property, they get away with two peoples possessions due to inefficiency.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. A police force controlled by the State is ultimatley preferable.
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 12:05:26 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
I think rights must be gauranteed, and that a govt. whose sole purpose is to protect those rights is best to do so.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 2:31:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 12:02:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
1) With multiple Private armies, they're out for profit. They're obviously going to clash and fight, and since we live in the nuclear age, we're screwed.

When did I say that there would be private armies?

2) This stinks of a protection racket.

And the government doesn't?

3) If Community A decides to ire Company Y, but Community B besides A hires Company X, we get a Berlin wall style situation.

How so?

4) These companies would fail if worked on an individual basis. It's obvious most communities won't decide collectively on one company, so if I hire Company X b my neighbour hires Company Y, it becomes awkward. This ties into:

Why is it awkward? I buy groceries from Stop and hop my neighbor buys groceries from Shaw's. It's pretty awkward?

5) If a burglar in my neighbours runs in to my house to avoid Company Y's police, they can't\ won't do anything, and leave. Unless Company X comes along and gets them out of my property, they get away with two peoples possessions due to inefficiency.

Surely agreements would be made so that they become more efficient. See banks and ATMs.

I could go on, but I think you get the idea. A police force controlled by the State is ultimatley preferable.

"For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place."

--Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
I-am-a-panda
Posts: 15,380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 4:05:03 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 2:31:04 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/7/2009 12:02:57 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
1) With multiple Private armies, they're out for profit. They're obviously going to clash and fight, and since we live in the nuclear age, we're screwed.

When did I say that there would be private armies?

A private army would be required to keep the peace, especially the escalated violence in the period of power transfer.


2) This stinks of a protection racket.

And the government doesn't?

People can elect people to put Agorism in place, but so far they have opted not to


3) If Community A decides to ire Company Y, but Community B besides A hires Company X, we get a Berlin wall style situation.

How so?

Company Y doesn't want anything to do with Company X's people.


4) These companies would fail if worked on an individual basis. It's obvious most communities won't decide collectively on one company, so if I hire Company X b my neighbour hires Company Y, it becomes awkward. This ties into:

Why is it awkward? I buy groceries from Stop and hop my neighbor buys groceries from Shaw's. It's pretty awkward?

If Company Y patrols the neighbourhood , but see Company X's house being burgled, they won't care.


5) If a burglar in my neighbours runs in to my house to avoid Company Y's police, they can't\ won't do anything, and leave. Unless Company X comes along and gets them out of my property, they get away with two peoples possessions due to inefficiency.

Surely agreements would be made so that they become more efficient. See banks and ATMs.

See, ATM's exist because there are laws guaranteeing that Bank A must pay Bank B for a transaction from Bank B's ATM by a Bank A customer. However, this set up fails when the people who are the law are in control.


I could go on, but I think you get the idea. A police force controlled by the State is ultimatley preferable.

"For centuries, the State (or more strictly, individuals acting in their roles as "members of the government") has cloaked its criminal activity in high-sounding rhetoric. For centuries the State has committed mass murder and called it "war"; then ennobled the mass slaughter that "war" involves. For centuries the State has enslaved people into its armed battalions and called it "conscription" in the "national service." For centuries the State has robbed people at bayonet point and called it "taxation." In fact, if you wish to know how libertarians regard the State and any of its acts, simply think of the State as a criminal band, and all of the libertarian attitudes will logically fall into place."

A criminal band elected by the populace. Don't want in on the criminal band? Leave the country.


--Murray Rothbard, For a New Liberty

I-am-a-Panda - Free thinking individual ; Non-sheep
Pizza. I have enormous respect for Pizza.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 5:47:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 4:05:03 PM, I-am-a-panda wrote:
A private army would be required to keep the peace, especially the escalated violence in the period of power transfer.

False. The period of power transfer is now. If you read the OP you would see that agorism is to be achieved by counter economics. That is the growth of the black and gray markets and over time the state will become less and less powerful until it vanishes all together.

People can elect people to put Agorism in place, but so far they have opted not to

Agorism is to be brought about by counter economics. That is what agorism is.


Company Y doesn't want anything to do with Company X's people.

Why?


If Company Y patrols the neighbourhood , but see Company X's house being burgled, they won't care.

Why not? Even if this were the case how does it disprove the viability of agorism?

See, ATM's exist because there are laws guaranteeing that Bank A must pay Bank B for a transaction from Bank B's ATM by a Bank A customer. However, this set up fails when the people who are the law are in control.

You don't believe that ATMs would exist without government?

A criminal band elected by the populace. Don't want in on the criminal band? Leave the country.

Congratulations, I-am-a-panda,

You are now a citizen of our glorious new state. Your taxes are due next week. If you do not pay them I will lock you up in a cage. This is perfectly legitimate because if you don't like this arrangement you can move.

Best Regards,
Reasoning
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:02:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 5:47:50 PM, Reasoning wrote:
False. The period of power transfer is now. If you read the OP you would see that agorism is to be achieved by counter economics. That is the growth of the black and gray markets and over time the state will become less and less powerful until it vanishes all together.

Except, all the state must do is either legalize or sanction the black and grey markets, and the entire idea goes *poof*, because you can't have much of a 'counter-economy' when it doesn't counter anything.

Of course, I doubt you put any stock into this idea because you know black and grey markets only work when the state is existent, and that any collapse of the state is seen as detrimental to those that participate in these markets.. right? Lol.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:04:55 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
The freeing of the economy from regulations against prostitution and drugs will end the profitability of the black market. It is onlyu government crackdown (see Mexico) that results in criminal overthrow.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:07:51 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:04:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The freeing of the economy from regulations against prostitution and drugs will end the profitability of the black market. It is onlyu government crackdown (see Mexico) that results in criminal overthrow.

And it is government ineptness to deal with situations beforehand that allow 'criminal overthrows' to even get to such a point that it becomes a problem (see Mexico).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:10:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:04:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The freeing of the economy from regulations against prostitution and drugs will end the profitability of the black market. It is onlyu government crackdown (see Mexico) that results in criminal overthrow.

You don't believe that there would be drugs even if it were legal? It would cost less as there would be more competitors but there would still be a demand for them.

The idea is that you don't need to overthrow the government, you just ignore it. As more and more people join the black and gray markets the government loses more and more power, as it cannot regulate those markets by definition.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:13:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:10:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
The idea is that you don't need to overthrow the government, you just ignore it. As more and more people join the black and gray markets the government loses more and more power, as it cannot regulate those markets by definition.

Sure it can - it simply opens its arms to it, and it no longer becomes a 'black market.' Or, it simply cracks down on it. Either way, *poof*.

I mean, "ignore the problem and it will go away" isn't a solution - its f*cking stupid.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:13:30 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:07:51 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/7/2009 6:04:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The freeing of the economy from regulations against prostitution and drugs will end the profitability of the black market. It is onlyu government crackdown (see Mexico) that results in criminal overthrow.

And it is government ineptness to deal with situations beforehand that allow 'criminal overthrows' to even get to such a point that it becomes a problem (see Mexico).

Damned if you do, damned if you don't, eh?

You can blaim the blossoming of the Mexican drug industry on ineptitude, but ultimately the drug industry would have just sprung up elsewhere. There will always be a supply to meet the demand.
Even in a "perfect" world, in which they were to be strict on every source of drugs, the price would just go up significantly, and with it, the profits and the market encouragement. Unless there is a way to kill demand, there is nothing that the government can do.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:15:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:13:30 PM, wjmelements wrote:
You can blaim the blossoming of the Mexican drug industry on ineptitude, but ultimately the drug industry would have just sprung up elsewhere. There will always be a supply to meet the demand.
Even in a "perfect" world, in which they were to be strict on every source of drugs, the price would just go up significantly, and with it, the profits and the market encouragement. Unless there is a way to kill demand, there is nothing that the government can do.

Very, very true, and coming from a panarchist at that!
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:17:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:10:58 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 12/7/2009 6:04:55 PM, wjmelements wrote:
The freeing of the economy from regulations against prostitution and drugs will end the profitability of the black market. It is onlyu government crackdown (see Mexico) that results in criminal overthrow.

You don't believe that there would be drugs even if it were legal? It would cost less as there would be more competitors but there would still be a demand for them.

No, I don't believe that. I just believe that there wouldn't be a reason for this sector to overthrow the government. But your second paragraph handles this fair enough.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:22:48 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:02:50 PM, Volkov wrote:
Except, all the state must do is either legalize or sanction the black and grey markets, and the entire idea goes *poof*, because you can't have much of a 'counter-economy' when it doesn't counter anything.

So using counter economics to achieve greater freedom won't work because the state may decide to stop using coercion against those that provide the services? That sounds like a victory to me.

Of course, I doubt you put any stock into this idea because you know black and grey markets only work when the state is existent, and that any collapse of the state is seen as detrimental to those that participate in these markets.. right? Lol.

It is seen as detrimental because they make great profits because they have few competitors as few people wish to bear the risk of state coercion.

It is important to distinguish here between Gray, Black and Red markets. Most of the time when people think of black markets they are thinking of Red markets, that is violence and coercion. The black and gray markets are peaceful and voluntary by agorist definition.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:27:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:22:48 PM, Reasoning wrote:
So using counter economics to achieve greater freedom won't work because the state may decide to stop using coercion against those that provide the services? That sounds like a victory to me.

No. The state simply brings that market into the greater, mainstream fold. And I question this belief that black markets are not run without coercion; you are aware that at least a good plurality of these markets are run by the criminal underground and/or warlords, where violence and coercion is apart of everyday life, right?\

The black and gray markets are peaceful and voluntary by agorist definition.

LMFAO. You're nuttier than I thought!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:32:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:27:09 PM, Volkov wrote:
No. The state simply brings that market into the greater, mainstream fold. And I question this belief that black markets are not run without coercion; you are aware that at least a good plurality of these markets are run by the criminal underground and/or warlords, where violence and coercion is apart of everyday life, right?\

That's great! They no longer will use coercion against those that participate in consenting capitalist acts! A miracle!

The black market is defined as a non-coercive market:
"Agorists and some other proponents of the free market argue that the black market is the most free market. Other regulated markets, they claim, suffer one way or another from undue interference in the general working of a free market.

Others argue that black markets are often controlled by other parties — such as a gang that aggressively regulates the drug trade in its territory — in a similar fashion to the government control of white markets, and are therefore not truly free markets. Agorists, however, use the term "red market" to distinguish between black markets in general and those based on violence and theft." - Wikipedia[1]

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org...
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:39:19 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:32:13 PM, Reasoning wrote:
That's great! They no longer will use coercion against those that participate in consenting capitalist acts! A miracle!

I didn't note that alternative definition before, so that is my fault.

But I'm also not going to bother with such an absurd notion either. 'Voluntary markets' don't exist, never have, and never will, because it is such a flimsy concept based on the idea that everyone is trustworthy and peace-loving. It isn't worth my time to discuss when I can be doing better things, like staring at the wall for an hour or two.
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:49:47 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:39:19 PM, Volkov wrote:
I didn't note that alternative definition before, so that is my fault.

But I'm also not going to bother with such an absurd notion either. 'Voluntary markets' don't exist, never have, and never will, because it is such a flimsy concept based on the idea that everyone is trustworthy and peace-loving. It isn't worth my time to discuss when I can be doing better things, like staring at the wall for an hour or two.

Most of the transactions you make are voluntary. Those transactions fall within the White, Gray and Black markets. The transactions that occur through coercion are part of the Pink and Red markets.

Do I think that we will ever be able to get rid of the Red Market? No. But we could get rid of the Pink Market. Through more and more non-violent people ignoring the state's decrees. That is Agorism.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 6:55:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:49:47 PM, Reasoning wrote:
Most of the transactions you make are voluntary. Those transactions fall within the White, Gray and Black markets. The transactions that occur through coercion are part of the Pink and Red markets.

The transactions are voluntary, yes, but a transaction is only one part of a market. Most of the goods that I'm able to buy voluntarily are secured through - you guessed it - the use of coercion/violence, or the threat of coercion/violence. That goes against your beliefs, does it not?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 7:00:28 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 6:55:38 PM, Volkov wrote:
The transactions are voluntary, yes, but a transaction is only one part of a market. Most of the goods that I'm able to buy voluntarily are secured through - you guessed it - the use of coercion/violence, or the threat of coercion/violence. That goes against your beliefs, does it not?

How so?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 7:02:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 7:00:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
How so?

How does it go against your beliefs, or how are those products guaranteed by the state's, or the commercial, use of coercion and violence?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 7:09:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 7:02:15 PM, Volkov wrote:
At 12/7/2009 7:00:28 PM, Reasoning wrote:
How so?

How does it go against your beliefs, or how are those products guaranteed by the state's, or the commercial, use of coercion and violence?

How are the transactions secured by coercion?
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Volkov
Posts: 9,765
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 7:16:00 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 7:09:16 PM, Reasoning wrote:
How are the transactions secured by coercion?

If a transaction between two parties goes wrong, they can be arbitrated and solved through the use of the courts, apart of the state which you say is based on the use of coercion.

Even if it such transactions were not secured by courts, these transactions would always have the threat of violence behind them if one party decided to wrong the other. This can be secured either by the threat of mutual violence, or by the threat of a third party using coercion to ensure justice.

Markets will not work otherwise. If you have nothing substantive to hold transactions to account, then your market will be entirely useless, because no one will voluntarily make a transaction if there is nothing there to guarantee their deal.

Isn't this kind of thing Reality 101?
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/7/2009 7:20:58 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 12/7/2009 7:16:00 PM, Volkov wrote:
If a transaction between two parties goes wrong, they can be arbitrated and solved through the use of the courts, apart of the state which you say is based on the use of coercion.

True.

Even if it such transactions were not secured by courts, these transactions would always have the threat of violence behind them if one party decided to wrong the other. This can be secured either by the threat of mutual violence, or by the threat of a third party using coercion to ensure justice.

I have no problem with that. I do have a problem with initiatory coercion. But not defense of property. I am not an Anarcho-Pacifist.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran