I agree that eliminating the state will not eliminate coercion. I don't think anyone has claimed anything like this at all.

The fact is that coercion will continue no matter what we do. That doesn't mean we should just throw our hands up and say "oh well" and just dive full-bore into coercing as many people as we can.

No, just a voluntary one. Are you suggesting that laws are not useful unless they are universal? If so, the only government that is useful would be a single unified world government.

Like the Red Cross or the Kiwanis or Jaycees or something?

Corporations are not states, though (even though they are outgrowths of states). Anyway, you're using a definition of corrupt that isn't quite in line with what people mean when they talk about corruption in a government.

How is the disparity in wealth eliminated if Warren Buffet can just be the only employee of his firm and just outsource functions to other (smaller) firms?

More importantly, without the ability to attract investors, cash out investments, etc, how is anyone going to accumulate any capital in this model? Without capital accumulation it becomes incredibly difficult to grow the economy.

Why does anyone take a job now instead of starting his own firm??

What is your definition of "exploit"?

And why does publix exist in the form it does? Why didn't someone "exploit" those people? You can't argue that nobody would ever do this unless forced to when you just gave an example of a firm like this that was not coercively organized in that manner.

Yes, the state only exists because people want it to.

So, all that is needed is for people to stop wanting it.

Regardless, you're still doing what he accused you of doing. AC = exploitation, your perfect state = fairness. Why can't I just counter with statism = north korea?

I'm not making anything up. I am not "twisting" anything. I only examine what you wrote. I cannot read your mind. Perhaps you should work on crafting posts with greater soundness.

Again, please define exploitation.

And why is wealth concentration a problem?

Exactly. The state is a losing proposition for anyone who values fairness. It is inherently unfair.

pvn,

Enjoying yourself now that the election is over?

It seems to be stuck on this:

The original privatization unilaterally removes others' access to what would otherwise be a common resource.

But obtaining ownership in a previously unowned resource isn't an initiation of force against those others, because if the "others" don't already own that resource, then they cannot possibly have any legitimate complaint when they are denied that resource.

Consider the case if the resource is simply consumed rather than "owned". There's an unowned banana tree in the middle of the island. I climb up and eat a banana. Now everyone else is denied the use of that banana.

Have I initiated force against everyone else who now cannot use that banana?

my pony too happy

"Property-claims initiate force against others. The original privatization unilaterally removes others' access to what would otherwise be a common resource."

Seems logical.

What banana?

Nobody "owns" a banana.

Thus, if you buy property with the intent of securing it, living off the land, and making yourself self-sufficient...then you are in for a big surprise because of property taxes. If the economy tanks and you can't pay, you are in no way entitled to make an island for yourself.

This was the purpose of the property tax...to ensure that people would not be able to avoid the imposition of the state.

Regulation of fish and wildlife resources and the requirements for licensure of such (firearms also) were part of this plan.

So, if we are entering another Great Depression, keep in mind that you are supposed to starve to death rather than to kill a deer out of season so your family can eat. You are supposed to starve to death rather than fish if you can't afford a fishing license. You are supposed to starve to death if you have the title to agricultural property and can't afford the tax.

Cite?

I think that doing this would probably be a disaster. Primarily because much smarter people than I have tackled the subject and failed. I'm not afraid to be boldly incorrect though, so maybe I'll give it a shot.

In order to change the status quo, it is necessary to demonstrate that change is positive. Why would there be less coercion in the absence of state?


I guess I don't understand what you mean by voluntary. The legal system cannot be voluntary for the criminals, can it?

No. I'm not quite sure how to articulate it appropriately, I'll work on it.

It would not be impossible to accumulate wealth, but it would be much, much more difficult and much less likely to occur on a massive scale.

Is it a given that capital accumulation is the primary factor in economic growth? What about the increase in consumer spending? Serious question as I am not an economist.


Security.

to use selfishly for one's own ends


Publix is a privately held company that only allows employees to purchase stock. It is not a true co-operative in the sense that every employee has an equal ownership share. It is similar in some ways but not exactly the same.

Any time you pay someone a dollar and earn 2 you are exploiting them for that extra dollar. Whether that is fair or not is up for debate, but capitalism is naturally exploitive.

If you are on an island with one other person and there is one banana tree that is the only source of food can you own the banana tree? Is it fair for you to claim ownership of this scarce resource and should the other person simply starve because he respects your right of ownership? Obviously if you deny him bananas he will use force to attempt to take ownership of the banana tree and one of you will likely die. Or, you could just share the bananas.

No. The status quo does not get the moral high ground just because it is the status quo. If actions cannot be justified in a vacuum they are not justified because they are the status quo.

The burden of proof is upon the party making a claim. The status quo involves others making claims upon me, claims which have not been justified. I don't have to demonstrate anything to anyone to repudiate those claims and demand that they cease.

Obviously not! But you're missing something. If the criminal doesn't want to opt into whatever legal framework I prefer, that's fine with me. But by saying he is a criminal you've sort of implicitly assumed he's interacting with me against my will - so his crime is not voluntary for me. Since he didn't get consent when he opened this transaction, he has no expectation that his consent will be sought when the other party closes that transaction.

In otherwords, if you start something without the other party's consent, claiming he can't finish it without your consent is the epitome of hypocrisy.

Consumption does not drive growth. Consumption destroys wealth.

Consider what happens when gas prices skyrocket. People probably spend more money in the aggregate. They may even have to dip into their savings. The standard of living, however, is dropping significantly. Do you see why?

So why do you seek to take this option away from them?

I don't see where the exploitation is here.

Let's say I'm a lawyer. I bill at $500/hour. By myself, I probably need 1 hour of administrative overhead time to do things like make coffee, pay the electric bill, schedule appointments, make travel arrangements, etc. So in a typical 8-hour day I can bill 4 hours. $2000/day.

I hire a secretary to do all of this stuff for me, and pay her some mutually-agreed-upon salary. Now I can bill 8 hours a day, or $4k. By hiring her I've doubled my productivity.

Under your reasoning, I should have to pay her the extra $2k/day I'm making, right?

Why would I bother hiring her?

Probably not. In any case it won't really matter since we only have two people on the island.

No and no.

I agree.

None of this really addresses my question.

It's not about the moral high ground. I don't disagree with what you just said. The problem is that saying it doesn't change anything. You demonstrate why change is good so that you can create the change.


What if everyone has different preferred legal frameworks? Is it the responsiblity of every individual to know the personal law of every other individual? How do you get around the necessity of a uniform application of law? How do you avoid the minority feeling left out of the majority decision?

I think so. Increased consumption = increased demand which in turn inflates the price of scarce goods. Correct me if that's not what you mean. Doesn't the free market combat this? The vast majority of goods are not scarce and competition will drive the prices back down. Also, if prices become overly inflated people will seek alternative goods, such as more fuel efficient cars which then brings demand back down and brings prices down.

The free market dictates that you hire this office help for the lowest price possible. Even in a very wealthy nation like the US today many people work for less than a living wage, they don't earn enough to pay for their basic expenses and require assistance, from the government, or from other sources.

I never suggested that under reciprocal capitalism the secretary and the lawyer should earn the same amount of money. This is set by the market. The secretary gets an equal share of the profit AFTER the lawyer and the secretary are paid a salary determined by the market. If the secretary demands too large a slice of the pie then you replace him/her...but also if the lawyer demands too large a slice of the pie then you replace him/her. Why do CEO's earn hundreds of millions of dollars? Is it because it is impossible to find another CEO who will work for less and do as good a job? No, it's because they control the system.

Grifter, would you mind explaining how this is illogical?

thats my point. its impossible for the government to claim that citizens have any sort of private ownership while enforcing a property tax.

I'm unsure of this. The tax is for the roads, schools, parks, and other things, isn't it?

I probably overuse/misuse the term illogical. I'm going to work on that. I think this is a better response than some half-assed justification.