How Libertarianism was created by big business lobbyists

[Richy_T]

I've said it before. I believe AnCap is a breeding ground for criminal organizations. It's the ultimate petri dish for unethical behavior, power plays, crime, gangs, etc.

You know how the American mafia became a force to be reckoned with, right? I mean, you know where there money came from? I mean, you know why people were giving it to them rather than lawful producers of the product they wanted to buy?

[1714841271]

1714841271

[1714841271]

1714841271

[1714841271]

1714841271

[cunicula]

Is Singapore an  AnCap society? If not, why are the evils of Singapore being blamed on AnCap principles? There is some sort of logical trick going on there. If two things share a subset of the same properties, then they will share all the same properties, or something.

Also its funny that the main criticism of AnCap (which I agree with) is that there is a threat from assholes who want to create governments... yea, exactly. Thats what we want to figure out how to stop.

It's like "Communism is bad", "Communist leaders enrich themselves at the expense of others", "That's Capitalism", "Isn't capitalism evil?"

Capitalism is simply the belief that one should be able to retain the fruits of one's efforts.

Almost all production occurs in super-additive cooperative arrangements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superadditivity

There are many sources of each single fruit. We cannot divide up a fruit and give a portion to each individual based on their marginal contribution. This is physically impossible due to lack of sufficient fruit. Thus the state comes in to make some laws that regulate fruit division.

[cunicula]

You AnCap-types might be interested in this: http://www.stanford.edu/~avner/Greif_Papers/1989%20Greif%20JEH%201989.pdf

There are several different versions of this paper. I picked one with good readability and no math.

Warning: This is not Austrian economics. Austrians may be disappointed by the lack of pompous philosophical jargon.

[bb113]

Is Singapore an  AnCap society? If not, why are the evils of Singapore being blamed on AnCap principles? There is some sort of logical trick going on there. If two things share a subset of the same properties, then they will share all the same properties, or something.

I don't see any trickery. It's just that all the other countries seem far less AnCap-ish. There's always a lot of theorising going on, but no real-world examples to back up assertions of AnCap's awesomeness.

It seems plausible that the Singaporean leaders see themselves as a very large shipping conglomerate with all sorts of HR and Marketing chores that keep eating into their profit margins. That would mean there is no conventional 'State' in Singapore, just Capitalism. Does that fit the definition of AnCap, or is the "non-aggression principle" a compulsory part of it?

Also its funny that the main criticism of AnCap (which I agree with) is that there is a threat from assholes who want to create governments... yea, exactly. Thats what we want to figure out how to stop.

But that has already been solved. It's not as if there are so many criminals in society that they can't be dealt with. Just create a State instead, which is run by some of the many normal, nice people who are also inhabitants and who therefore have a stake in their society's overall well-being. The 'assholes' tend to be opportunists -- lovers of Capitalism -- who look for profitable niches to fill, such as a power vacuum. However, if normal, nice people lend their support to a friendly State apparatus, then the criminals would have a much harder battle.

I wouldn't expect half-assed AnCap to result in the same type of society as full on AnCap, I consider them categorically different things. Further, in my opinion, a crucial part of any type of anarchism is that the populace doesn't recognize any legitimate rulers, I don't think how the rulers view themselves really plays a role.

Yes ideally we could have a world  full of nice friendly state apparatuses. Unfortunately, history indicates this is not a robust solution to the problem of assholes and criminals... control over the state apparatus just becomes the primary goal.

Think about it this way, to have a successful AnCap society, it will probably have to grow organically from within a successful state. This isn't just because there are already states everywhere, but because the path from chaos -> peaceful anarchy requires passing through a very low probability space. The state can bridge this gap.

[bb113]

Is Singapore an  AnCap society? If not, why are the evils of Singapore being blamed on AnCap principles? There is some sort of logical trick going on there. If two things share a subset of the same properties, then they will share all the same properties, or something.

Also its funny that the main criticism of AnCap (which I agree with) is that there is a threat from assholes who want to create governments... yea, exactly. Thats what we want to figure out how to stop.

It's like "Communism is bad", "Communist leaders enrich themselves at the expense of others", "That's Capitalism", "Isn't capitalism evil?"

Capitalism is simply the belief that one should be able to retain the fruits of one's efforts.

Almost all production occurs in super-additive cooperative arrangements. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superadditivity

There are many sources of each single fruit. We cannot divide up a fruit and give a portion to each individual based on their marginal contribution. This is physically impossible due to lack of sufficient fruit. Thus the state comes in to make some laws that regulate fruit division.

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

[cunicula]

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

Sort of. The problem is who gets the "extra fruit".

Say we have n workers in a team and they produce output q. Production is superadditive if q(n)=n^2, for example. Then q(a+b) > q(a) + q(b) for any a,b>0
Normally we say that the fruit of a worker's effort is his marginal product. However we cannot afford to pay out marginal products with superadditive production.

The marginal product of any 1 worker is q(n)-q(n-1)=n^2-(n-1)^2.
If we pay this to n workers, we have the following wage bill n[n^2-(n-1)^2]=2n^2-n

If we want to stick with paying marginal products we can only have 1 worker per team, so that 2n^2-n=1 and 1=q. Otherwise, we will need to have a deficit that needs to paid for with subsidies from somewhere.

The logic of the free market only works when production is subadditive. Most modern technology is superadditive. Restricting ourselves to subadditive technologies will send us back to the dark ages.

Economic theories of the state are based on superadditive production.

[myrkul]

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

Sort of. The problem is who gets the "extra fruit".

OK, I think I get what you're driving at here:

Assuming the production of jeans is superadditive:
1 worker can make 1 pair of jeans an hour.
2 workers can make 4 pairs of jeans an hour.
3 workers can make 9 pairs of jeans an hour.
(actually, 1=>1; 2=>3; 3=>6 works just as well, production need only be greater than the sum of the individuals for it to be "superadditive", at least as I understand the wiki page you linked to)

And you can never pay the additional workers what they actually add to the process, because each worker adds so much?

[cunicula]

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

Sort of. The problem is who gets the "extra fruit".

OK, I think I get what you're driving at here:

Assuming the production of jeans is superadditive:
1 worker can make 1 pair of jeans an hour.
2 workers can make 4 pairs of jeans an hour.
3 workers can make 9 pairs of jeans an hour.
(actually, 1=>1; 2=>3; 3=>6 works just as well, production need only be greater than the sum of the individuals for it to be "superadditive", at least as I understand the wiki page you linked to)

And you can never pay the additional workers what they actually add to the process, because each worker adds so much?

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

[Richy_T]

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

In a free market, the "fruit" is decided by mutual agreement. This is basic stuff.

[cunicula]

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

In a free market, the "fruit" is decided by mutual agreement. This is basic stuff.

Without central coordination, mutual agreement yields poverty.

[myrkul]

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

Sort of. The problem is who gets the "extra fruit".

OK, I think I get what you're driving at here:

Assuming the production of jeans is superadditive:
1 worker can make 1 pair of jeans an hour.
2 workers can make 4 pairs of jeans an hour.
3 workers can make 9 pairs of jeans an hour.
(actually, 1=>1; 2=>3; 3=>6 works just as well, production need only be greater than the sum of the individuals for it to be "superadditive", at least as I understand the wiki page you linked to)

And you can never pay the additional workers what they actually add to the process, because each worker adds so much?

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

So, if three workers can make 9 pairs of jeans, and 2 workers can only make four, each worker's "marginal product" would be 5 pairs of jeans. Now, clearly, you can't pay them each for 5 pairs of jeans, since, together they only produce 9, not 15. Your objection seem to be predicated on the supposition that each worker would demand to be paid for the 5 jeans that the team could not produce without them.

This would indeed cause a deficit, if allowed. Which is why the business owner would use a different formula to determine marginal product: One worker in a team produces one pair of jeans per hour, and gets paid for one pair. Two workers in a team produce a total of four pairs of jeans, and each gets paid for two pairs of jeans. Three workers in a team produce a total of nine pairs, and each gets paid for three pairs. In this way, there is no shortfall, and each worker is paid for the additional pair of jeans he can produce in a team that has another person in it.

[Richy_T]

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

In a free market, the "fruit" is decided by mutual agreement. This is basic stuff.

Without central coordination, mutual agreement yields poverty.

Clearly I disagree with your assertion.

[cunicula]

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

In a free market, the "fruit" is decided by mutual agreement. This is basic stuff.

Without central coordination, mutual agreement yields poverty.

Clearly I disagree with your assertion.

I'm not going to go through the details now, but will elaborate if you are interested.
If you have firms with superadditive production technology, then there are typically an infinite number of competitive equilibria. 
In such an equilibria, multiple players have to move simultaneously in order to move to a new equilibrium. Individual moves are punished with personal loss (that's why it's an equilibrium). The purpose of the government (central planning) is to coordinate moves to new equilibria by establishing punishments and rewards.

I guess you would claim that large numbers of people can coordinate through voluntary association. I would claim the opposite.

[myrkul]

One worker in a team produces one pair of jeans per hour, and gets paid for one pair. Two workers in a team produce a total of four pairs of jeans, and each gets paid for two pairs of jeans. Three workers in a team produce a total of nine pairs, and each gets paid for three pairs. In this way, there is no shortfall, and each worker is paid for the additional pair of jeans he can produce in a team that has another person in it.

I guess this made too much sense for cunicula to pay attention to it?

Especially since this is a method that is perfectly compatible with mutual agreement.

[MoonShadow]

One worker in a team produces one pair of jeans per hour, and gets paid for one pair. Two workers in a team produce a total of four pairs of jeans, and each gets paid for two pairs of jeans. Three workers in a team produce a total of nine pairs, and each gets paid for three pairs. In this way, there is no shortfall, and each worker is paid for the additional pair of jeans he can produce in a team that has another person in it.

I guess this made too much sense for cunicula to pay attention to it?

Especially since this is a method that is perfectly compatible with mutual agreement.

It's also pretty much the simpliest example of the economies of scale that make modern manufacturing so efficient.

[Rudd-O]

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

In a free market, the "fruit" is decided by mutual agreement. This is basic stuff.

Without central coordination, mutual agreement yields poverty.

Clearly I disagree with your assertion.

Note how he presents absolutely no argument to prove his assertion.  Thus we can dismiss what he's saying as either an unfounded opinion or a baseless claim.  Which is in line with what cunticula usually does.

[bb113]

I don't follow. If there is real superadditive production going on shouldn't there be extra fruit in the end? Maybe I don't know what you're getting at.

Sort of. The problem is who gets the "extra fruit".

OK, I think I get what you're driving at here:

Assuming the production of jeans is superadditive:
1 worker can make 1 pair of jeans an hour.
2 workers can make 4 pairs of jeans an hour.
3 workers can make 9 pairs of jeans an hour.
(actually, 1=>1; 2=>3; 3=>6 works just as well, production need only be greater than the sum of the individuals for it to be "superadditive", at least as I understand the wiki page you linked to)

And you can never pay the additional workers what they actually add to the process, because each worker adds so much?

That's correct. In a competitive market you set wage = marginal product. In this case you cannot do that without going into deficit.

So then whats with all the deficits?

[bb113]

Is Singapore an  AnCap society? If not, why are the evils of Singapore being blamed on AnCap principles? There is some sort of logical trick going on there. If two things share a subset of the same properties, then they will share all the same properties, or something.

I don't see any trickery. It's just that all the other countries seem far less AnCap-ish. There's always a lot of theorising going on, but no real-world examples to back up assertions of AnCap's awesomeness.

It seems plausible that the Singaporean leaders see themselves as a very large shipping conglomerate with all sorts of HR and Marketing chores that keep eating into their profit margins. That would mean there is no conventional 'State' in Singapore, just Capitalism. Does that fit the definition of AnCap, or is the "non-aggression principle" a compulsory part of it?

Also its funny that the main criticism of AnCap (which I agree with) is that there is a threat from assholes who want to create governments... yea, exactly. Thats what we want to figure out how to stop.

But that has already been solved. It's not as if there are so many criminals in society that they can't be dealt with. Just create a State instead, which is run by some of the many normal, nice people who are also inhabitants and who therefore have a stake in their society's overall well-being. The 'assholes' tend to be opportunists -- lovers of Capitalism -- who look for profitable niches to fill, such as a power vacuum. However, if normal, nice people lend their support to a friendly State apparatus, then the criminals would have a much harder battle.

I wouldn't expect half-assed AnCap to result in the same type of society as full on AnCap, I consider them categorically different things.

Why do you assume it was half-assed? And what are your expectations based on? Past experience? Other, more pleasing examples? You seem to be unfairly writing-off Singapore for aesthetic reasons:

Further, in my opinion, a crucial part of any type of anarchism is that the populace doesn't recognize any legitimate rulers, I don't think how the rulers view themselves really plays a role.

But looking up to our leaders seems like such a natural thing. Even as children, younger siblings look to their elder siblings for leadership. Surely it must be a law of nature, but let's not split hairs about semantics. If "Singapore Inc." markets itself as such, and anyone is welcome to set up their own private police or other organisations that are usually monopolised by States, does that negate the substance of the earlier criticisms? (Namely the moral concerns about bonded labour, and low value of human life and whatnot?)

Think about it this way, to have a successful AnCap society, it will probably have to grow organically from within a successful state. This isn't just because there are already states everywhere, but because the path from chaos -> peaceful anarchy requires passing through a very low probability space. The state can bridge this gap.

Now you're just changing the goal-posts. Since when did AnCap have to organically grow from a 'successful' State for optimal results? What makes a State 'successful'? If it's already successful, why change it? And also, how do you know?

This thread is not the first case of corporations and other profit-driven structures being criticised for being sociopathic or amoral in nature. There are books written about it. Thus, Singapore seems like the perfect prototype to test AnCap's mettle. They're a Capitalist/trade-driven oasis nestled in the middle of Asia, so there's a near-infinite supply of people who want to go there. If everything is left to market forces, who or what protects the sanctity of human life (or other illogical moral stuff) when its market value is super-cheap? To be fair, that's a weakness of Capitalism in general. But it doesn't exonerate Anarcho-Capitalism, since their proponents always seem unable to explain how the Anarchy part manages to fix anything. Sure, there's the Non-Aggression Principle", but I think they decided not to enforce that.

Half-assed as in does not meet my definition of AnCap. Namely, people still recognize legitimate rulers. I'm sure there are many more reasons Singapore wouldn't meet the definition but honestly I don't know much about that place. The moral problems are problems with states and will be there without states as well. Most of them sound like they are in need of technological solutions (robot maids and plentiful energy). As I said earlier in this thread, this is generations away. In the meantime I dunno, I just know what we should be working towards.

With regards to changing the goal posts, I just gave my personal views without regard to where others have set the "goal posts".  Also, "books are written about it" doesn't matter to me. Why would it? Most books are full of opinions and nonsense.

The anarchy part is that people stop accepting that violence is a solution to problems.

Edit: Also, stop making it into some competition. AnCap ideals are to produce useful things for people to the point where a government is unnecessary. Do your ideals discourage you from producing useful stuff, and instead survive via other methods? If not, then we are on the same team.

[Richy_T]

I guess you would claim that large numbers of people can coordinate through voluntary association. I would claim the opposite.

People don't need to coordinate. I don't know what my co-workers make, nor do I particularly care

[myrkul]

One worker in a team produces one pair of jeans per hour, and gets paid for one pair. Two workers in a team produce a total of four pairs of jeans, and each gets paid for two pairs of jeans. Three workers in a team produce a total of nine pairs, and each gets paid for three pairs. In this way, there is no shortfall, and each worker is paid for the additional pair of jeans he can produce in a team that has another person in it.

I guess this made too much sense for cunicula to pay attention to it?

Especially since this is a method that is perfectly compatible with mutual agreement.

And of course, when one worker quits and doesn't get replaced, all the others happily accept a wage reduction. Or when 2 companies merge, everyone gets a 20% pay rise. Glad to see you've thought it through

That's why you hire another worker. Crazy, huh?

And in the mean time, you shuffle the workers around so that all the teams are full. You might have an empty workstation or two, but each team is at full production.

And we haven't even discussed diseconomies of scale. Larger companies or teams do not always produce more. Consider: Perhaps 4 workers can only make 8 pairs, because they start to get in each others' way.