Anarcho-capitalism would be violent and short-lived

[Centinel]

Anarcho-capitalist society will be violent and quickly degenerate into absolutism for the following a priori arguments:

1) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is not possible or,

2) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion to acquire the resource and,

3) armed force will be used when the net gain from acquiring a resource is greater than the transaction costs.

Rational economically motivated actors will observe the tenets above at all times -- to do otherwise would be irrational.  Moreover, economically motivated actors most effectively following the tenets outlined above will acquire the most capital to further increase their power relative to other actors in society since the application of armed force is heavily dependent on economic prowess.  

Furthermore, a critical mass of coercive power within a territory will coalesce within a single private military cartel due to economies of scale and the desire for reduced competition to reduce the frequency and costs of armed conflict. Of course,  armed force and security is an industry best served by proximity to its 'customers'.  

 At this point, absolutism emerges within a specific territory -- unless you discount the adage power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

This is a short outline -- I welcome the opportunity to debunk any challenges with greater detail and empirically supported examples.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Lots of bold claims, not a lot of proof.

I could write arguments against all of them, but that would be irrational. Based on the conclusion of your post, you clearly have canned arguments that you are just DYING to copy and paste. So I'll skip the part where my points are ignored, and we'll fast forward to where you hit CTRL+C, CTRL+V, because you aren't going to pay any attention before then. Go ahead.

[ff42]

Have YOU used armed force to acquire resources?

Other than government agents is armed force frequency used against you?

Is it possible that humanity has consciously (or unconsciously) figured out that cooperation is better than armed force?  If you disagree then you must be blind to 90%+ of your daily interactions with others (unless, of course, you are on the state payroll)

[edited for spelling]

[Centinel]

@JustSayNoToStatism,

Of course it would be irrational for you to challenge the tenets I outlined because they are a priori.  Moreover, they are supported by overwhelming empirical evidence since no anarcho-capitalist society has existed  when confronted or challenged by government systems.

Indeed, it would be irrational for an economically  motivated actor to defer from gaining valued resources under these conditions:

1) peaceful exchange not possible

2) peaceful exchange more costly than the use of armed force

3) acquiring valued resources by force realizes a net gain for the aggressor.

Empirically this is confirmed since myriad successful actors have used force to acquire resources for primarily economic gain.  In turn, these aggressors have frequently landed at the top of the geopolitical food chain for extended periods -- Greece, Rome, British Empire, America, et al.

[Centinel]

Have YOU used armed force to acquire resources?

Other than government agents is armed force frequency used against you?

Is it possible that humanity has consciously (or unconsciously) figured out that cooperation is better than armed force?  If you disagree then you must be blind to 90%+ of your daily interactions with others (unless, of course, you are on the state payroll)

[edited for spelling]

1) yes  I have  used force to acquire resources since I am a veteran of the US military.  In addition, I have worked for the government which by definition uses force to acquire its resources.

2) force, and the threat of force,  has been used against me by private entities a few times (without success).  However, the threat always exists, otherwise why would some many individuals be armed? INdeed, armed force is simply another means to obtain a desired end -- government is not the exclusive purveyor of armed force.

3)it is naive to discount the utility of armed force to obtain desired ends, particularly when pacifists or non-interventionists have been the victims of armed coercion many times in history.  Indeed, you are forced to surrender vast sums of freedom and wealth via coercive means - so it is evidently effective even in a liberal democracy, more so in an autocratic regime.

Of course, a majority of  transactions within any society, including the most despotic, will be non-coercive.  However, the tenets I outlined are a priori and imply that irrespective of the political system -- violence will  be present and utilized by economically motivated actors.

What you have to consider is that many actors in society will not be able to achieve desired ends by peaceful means, hence they will resort to violence to gain their ends -- government being the most glaring example.

I will provide an effective (not perfect) mechanism to limit the use of coercive force in society in another thread, however anarcho-capitalism is not that mechanism based on overwhelming empirical and logical evidence.

[kunkmiester]

2) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion to acquire the resource and,

3) armed force will be used when the net gain from acquiring a resource is greater than the transaction costs.

These two are not a priori.  First off, to say, buy a computer, the same actions of going to the store or wherever, picking it up, shipping it, etc. will be needed.  Second, any threat or use of force will be adding cost on top of this.  Very few transactions can justify the use of force, and using force to get some of these for less raises the cost of that force--nearly all transactions will hit diminishing returns rather quickly.  I'll grant a few resources might be able to justify this, but they also need to be otherwise unavailable, see below.

Since the use of force is always added on top of other transaction costs, it will always give a disadvantage.  Thus you'll need some a posteriori on this point.

1) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is not possible or,

This one is just kind of nuts.  How often do you think it'll actually happen?  Non-coercive transactions will always be at an advantage economically, someone will be willing to provide the resource for less than that cost.  In a free market, prices trend downward.  Anyone who arbitrarily keeps prices high when they're not justified by the market goes out of business real quick.  Thus, you'll find it hard to find a resource that justified the added cost of coercion.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

You like the words "a priori" no? If you know what they mean, then you should be able to write a formal proof for each of the statements that you have made so far. No, not empirical evidence. A QED terminating proof. It turns out I can disprove one of your claims right now, just to embarrass you. I won't waste my time disproving the rest, since I doubt your intention of having a constructive discussion.

"Anarcho-capitalist society will be violent and quickly degenerate into absolutism for the following a priori arguments:

1) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is not possible or,

2) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion to acquire the resource and,

3) armed force will be used when the net gain from acquiring a resource is greater than the transaction costs.

Rational economically motivated actors will observe the tenets above at all times"

I assume the bolded "and" was supposed to be an "or" (at least that's the stronger claim). Honestly, your claim isn't even clear enough to justify the logic I'm granting you, but I'm generous.

You claim:
Suppose "p" is the proposition that peaceful exchange can occur.
Let F(x,E) denote the propositional function that actor "x" uses force to acquire end "E".
TC denotes the transaction costs of a potential exchange.

∀x∀E(((¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC))→F(x,E))

I will disprove it by counterexample:
I would derive pleasure from watching a statist like yourself get harassed by the very overlords he worships. The "resource" in question is just the enjoyment I would get from this service, that is the end "E".
As a human I fall within the set of possible actors, so let me be "x".

I cannot negotiate with you and convince you to undergo the treatment you advocate the state uses against others. For example, I cannot pay you to go to gitmo.
That is, ¬p.
By the addition rule of inference, we have that
∃x∃E(¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC))

But I have not, and I have no intent to use force and MAKE you a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

That is,
¬(F(x,E))

∴
∃x∃E(¬((¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC)→F(x,E)))

! but that runs counter to the claim that it holds for all people and all ends.

Disproved by counterexample

QED

[Seth King]

You like the words "a priori" no? If you know what they mean, then you should be able to write a formal proof for each of the statements that you have made so far. No, not empirical evidence. A QED terminating proof. It turns out I can disprove one of your claims right now, just to embarrass you. I won't waste my time disproving the rest, since I doubt your intention of having a constructive discussion.

"Anarcho-capitalist society will be violent and quickly degenerate into absolutism for the following a priori arguments:

1) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is not possible or,

2) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion to acquire the resource and,

3) armed force will be used when the net gain from acquiring a resource is greater than the transaction costs.

Rational economically motivated actors will observe the tenets above at all times"

I assume the bolded "and" was supposed to be an "or" (at least that's the stronger claim). Honestly, your claim isn't even clear enough to justify the logic I'm granting you, but I'm generous.

You claim:
Suppose "p" is the proposition that peaceful exchange can occur.
Let F(x,E) denote the propositional function that actor "x" uses force to acquire end "E".
TC denotes the transaction costs of a potential exchange.

∀x∀E(((¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC))→F(x,E))

I will disprove it by counterexample:
I would derive pleasure from watching a statist like yourself get harassed by the very overlords he worships. The "resource" in question is just the enjoyment I would get from this service, that is the end "E".
As a human I fall within the set of possible actors, so let me be "x".

I cannot negotiate with you and convince you to undergo the treatment you advocate the state uses against others. For example, I cannot pay you to go to gitmo.
That is, ¬p.
By the addition rule of inference, we have that
∃x∃E(¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC))

But I have not, and I have no intent to use force and MAKE you a prisoner at Guantanamo Bay.

That is,
¬(F(x,E))

∴
∃x∃E(¬((¬p ∨ (max(Cost(p),Cost(F(x,E))) = Cost(p)) ∨ (Gain(F(x,E)) > TC)→F(x,E)))

! but that runs counter to the claim that it holds for all people and all ends.

Disproved by counterexample

QED

Dude. You might as well have made your point in Chinese.

[AgoristTeen1994]

JSNTS I have to agree with Seth....unless Centinel has taken advanced mathmatics like say Calculus or beyond then he's not going to understand what you put.

[Seth King]

JSNTS I have to agree with Seth....unless Centinel has taken advanced mathmatics like say Calculus or beyond then he's not going to understand what you put.

Discreet Math(A.K.A. Logic) teaches the language needed to understand that proof. Not difficult, but definitely a language foreign to the vast majority of people.

[AgoristTeen1994]

Ah mea culpa. I haven't gotten that far yet I"m only taking PreCalculus Trig at the moment. Still the point remains that like you said, he might as well be speaking in a foreign language. Especially if he's going to use logic, since logic is to most people, as kryptonite is to Superman.

[Disengage]

Centinel:     Let's assume you're right.    So?

No, really... So what?

None of your arguments offer any justification for why my rights are being violated on a daily basis by the very existence of government.   Where in all of your equations does it mandate that I live under the thumb of some authority (be it a monarch, a tyrant, or "the majority")?    You are presenting reasons that I might CHOSE to live under a government.   But what if I don't?

Essentially you are saying this:    "There must be rulers or things will be SCARY AND TERRIBLE!!!!1111"
Okay.  Fine.    I choose scary and terrible.    Seriously.    Tell your government to leave me alone and stay off my property; I am opting out of their services.   Can I do that?    If not... then THAT's what you need to explain.  

Oh yeah, go ahead and post the "if you don't like it you can leave" argument.    Go ahead.    I dare you.

[JustSayNoToStatism]

Dude. You might as well have made your point in Chinese.

I don't really care if he can follow the proof or not. I wanted to crush him as punishment for dealing with his arrogance, and the assertion that he is necessarily correct (a priori). He'll learn that when you make easily falsifiable claims and pretend that it's untouchable, you might get ripped apart and forced to acknowledge how little you actually know about deductive reasoning. That's the point.

JSNTS I have to agree with Seth....unless Centinel has taken advanced mathmatics like say Calculus or beyond then he's not going to understand what you put.

Actually you don't need any calculus! You could learn the most useful parts of propositional logic in a few hours of study. No prior math needed (except understanding what an equals sign is, and what a variable is).

[Seth King]

Dude. You might as well have made your point in Chinese.

I don't really care if he can follow the proof or not. I wanted to crush him as punishment for dealing with his arrogance, and the assertion that he is necessarily correct (a priori).

I didn't think he was being arrogant. He was challenging us, yes, but the category he posted in is called Challenges to Anarcho-Capitalism.

[Centinel]

2) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is more costly than the use of coercion to acquire the resource and,

3) armed force will be used when the net gain from acquiring a resource is greater than the transaction costs.

These two are not a priori.  First off, to say, buy a computer, the same actions of going to the store or wherever, picking it up, shipping it, etc. will be needed.  Second, any threat or use of force will be adding cost on top of this.  Very few transactions can justify the use of force, and using force to get some of these for less raises the cost of that force--nearly all transactions will hit diminishing returns rather quickly.  I'll grant a few resources might be able to justify this, but they also need to be otherwise unavailable, see below.

Since the use of force is always added on top of other transaction costs, it will always give a disadvantage.  Thus you'll need some a posteriori on this point.

1) armed force will be used to acquire resources when peaceful exchange is not possible or,

This one is just kind of nuts.  How often do you think it'll actually happen?  Non-coercive transactions will always be at an advantage economically, someone will be willing to provide the resource for less than that cost.  In a free market, prices trend downward.  Anyone who arbitrarily keeps prices high when they're not justified by the market goes out of business real quick.  Thus, you'll find it hard to find a resource that justified the added cost of coercion.

Since the use of force is always added on top of other transaction costs, it will always give a disadvantage.  Thus you'll need some a posteriori on this point.--kunkmiester

Here you go -- Spartans plundering Athenians, Romans plundering Carthage, Britain plundering India, US plundering native Americans, et al.  

Of course, peaceful exchange is generally less costly (if the seller wants to sell and if the seller doesn't ask for exorbidant price for his resource), but there are numerous examples in human history when resources and societies were plundered for economic gain when peaceful exchange was not possible.

How often do you think it'll actually happen?  Non-coercive transactions will always be at an advantage economically, someone will be willing to provide the resource for less than that cost.  --kunkmiester

Coercion has and will happen in greater frequency within anarchist society since there will be no institutionalized mechanisms to control said violence.  Moreover, it will be welcomed since heretofore underutilized resources will be made available to the market.

For example, a group of environmentalists holds ANWR -- a private military agency (PMA) is contracted to take this energy bounty at relatively low cost  since the environmentalists have not utilized the resource to its economic effectiveness -- hence they dont have a level of security equal to the value of the resource.

The PMA takes the land, annex's it, and releases the untapped oil resources to the market lowering prices -- nobody complains, nobody cares.

Sound familiar ?

Yes, that is exactly what happens on a regular basis in the largest anarchist laboratory yet devised -- the current geopolitical system.

Anyone who arbitrarily keeps prices high when they're not justified by the market goes out of business real quick.  Thus, you'll find it hard to find a resource that justified the added cost of coercion.--kunkmiester

Wrong, if this fallacy was true then strudy and prosperous empires would never have held power as long as they have.  It is not the use of coercion that destroys wealth, it is the reckless and inefficient use of coercion.  You have the two mixed up.

If colonial America had waited around to obtain native American land by peaceful means, they would have never acquired it.  It would have been taken by Spain, France, Britain, Russia, et al and the Republic would have been at risk of being balkanized or destroyed before the end of the 19th century.

Indeed, if coercion was ineffective when compared to market forces -- then why have market forces been largely ineffective at removing territorial monopolies of force?

No sir, coercion, like any other means, when expertly applied is an effective means to gain and hold economic wealth, granted in many cases it is more costly than peaceful exchange -- but in many cases, the holder of valued resources is loath to sell at a reasonable price or sell at all.

Perhaps the anarchist's failure to recognize this truth is one of the salient reasons why anarcho-capitalism resides on the ash heap of history.