Why libertarianism is so dangerous.

[wufwugy]

There is a paradigm shift that makes what was once true no longer true. Back when people were poor, unproductive, and technology was shit, the incentive to initiate violence to secure resources was higher than the incentive to defend resources (unless you were yourself a different force initiator). But today it's not like that. No violent gang on the planet is going to take over Silicon Valley or NYC. In the stateless hypothetical, the incentive for the vastly productive people to protect themselves would be far, far, far greater than the incentive to initiate violence against them to such a degree that they work for you. This is because the status of the productive people no longer has anything to do with initiation of violence and everything to do with protection of their property and environment.

This would be true even if today only the US went fully private. If taxes were zero and the military was traded on the stock exchange, we would still not see initiation of force from Russia or China because the primary incentive of the Chamber of Commerce and other non-affiliated major companies would be to contract their security from possible threats from Russia or China. I honestly think the contracted private military would get far more aggressive with bad actors than it is today. The goals of contracted defense companies would be far more clear and sophisticated than the current government and military.

It cannot be understated that capitalism flips the world on its head. For all history, things worked one way, but where capitalism has been adequately embraced, they do not. It used to be that the primary source of wealth was violence and control of others' production. It is no longer that way. Today the primary source of wealth is protection of property and commerce.

[a500lbgorilla]

There is a paradigm shift that makes what was once true no longer true. Back when people were poor, unproductive, and technology was shit, the incentive to initiate violence to secure resources was higher than the incentive to defend resources (unless you were yourself a different force initiator). But today it's not like that. No violent gang on the planet is going to take over Silicon Valley or NYC. In the stateless hypothetical, the incentive for the vastly productive people to protect themselves would be far, far, far greater than the incentive to initiate violence against them to such a degree that they work for you. This is because the status of the productive people no longer has anything to do with initiation of violence and everything to do with protection of their property and environment.

This would be true even if today only the US went fully private. If taxes were zero and the military was traded on the stock exchange, we would still not see initiation of force from Russia or China because the primary incentive of the Chamber of Commerce and other non-affiliated major companies would be to contract their security from possible threats from Russia or China. I honestly think the contracted private military would get far more aggressive with bad actors than it is today. The goals of contracted defense companies would be far more clear and sophisticated than the current government and military.

It cannot be understated that capitalism flips the world on its head. For all history, things worked one way, but where capitalism has been adequately embraced, they do not. It used to be that the primary source of wealth was violence and control of others' production. It is no longer that way. Today the primary source of wealth is protection of property and commerce.

This is why I say naive. You're just fully untethered from reality. It doesn't matter what happened in the past - it's the past. Things are different now. It doesn't matter how people are - they'll change to this new reality.

It's worshiping at the altar of Libertine.

[wufwugy]

This is why I say naive. You're just fully untethered from reality. It doesn't matter what happened in the past - it's the past. Things are different now. It doesn't matter how people are - they'll change to this new reality.

It's worshiping at the altar of Libertine.

On the contrary, I'm interpreting reality as it is. You're clinging to an ideology. You're the one saying "these two entirely different realities are the same". You're extrapolating from a world irrelevant today. Just because it was virtually impossible to protect yourself from violent gangs back when everybody were farmers with no technology doesn't mean that the entirely different world today is just as susceptible to violent gangs.

Apply the current reality to your old reality, and those farms turn into commercial fortresses. The technology and sophistication is so high that the evaluation of the threat of invaders is easy and the resources required to thwart them is dirt cheap. The people with the greatest living standards are the productive, who have all the reason in the world to protect their living standards.

Your scenario is opposite to this in every respect. Farmers had shit living standards. They had shit technology and shit communication. The highest living standards were among those who chose to raid and pillage instead. This could not be more opposing to the way it is today in the modern world.


Besides, even if you're right, it means you're wrong based on your own logic. The position that super epicly powerful violent gangs are good while other weak violent gangs are not is logical hogwash.

[a500lbgorilla]

Wow. I gotta step away. You're... off.