Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Anarcho-capitalism does not necessarily mean that warlords will control everything.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it would be billionaires and mega-corporations employing their own private militaries, their own private courts, their own private police forces, etc. to control everything in any way they please.
Not at all, no. I figure I should make an argument instead of just contradicting so let me analyze the above claims. In regards to the private military, mercenary forces would exist, but there is no reason to believe that they would be used in a tyrannous form. Let me give a real-world example. The Pinkerton Police Force in its heyday used to be larger than the United States Military yet it was not used to subjugate the common man. This is due to the reputation. The reason restaurants buy back meals if you do not like it or Starbucks went fair trade is due to people caring about reputation. Since every corporation is accountable to the negative consumer behavior will result in negative profit consequences. Private courts exist today in the form of arbitration yet the rich people "don't own the courts." No individual would willingly go on trial to a court that has a reputation for being biased. The arbitration shows that corporations would not automatically control courts. Private Police forces cannot be unfair to the clientele they serve if they want to stay in business. A negative private police force would result in the competition which would harm their profits. There is an extreme oversimplification of an anarcho-capitalist society. I would be happy to debate this ad nauseam on google hangouts.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Not at all, no. I figure I should make an argument instead of just contradicting so let me analyze the above claims. In regards to the private military, mercenary forces would exist but there is no reason to believe that they would be used in a tyrannous form. Let me give a real-world example. The Pinkerton Police Force in its heyday used to be larger than the United States Military yet it was not used to subjugate the common man. This is due to the reputation. The reason restaurants buy back meals if you do not like it or Starbucks went fair trade is due to people caring about reputation. Since each and every corporation is accountable to the consumer negative behavior will result in negative profit consequences. Private courts exist today in the form of arbitration yet the rich people "don't own the courts". No individual would willingly go on trial to a court that has a reputation for being biased. The arbitration shows that courts would not automatically be controlled by corporations. Private Police forces cannot be unfair to the clientele they serve if they want to stay in business. A negative private police force would result in the competition which would harm their profits. There is an extreme oversimplification of an anarcho-capitalist society. I would be happy to debate this ad nauseum on google hangouts.
None of this would work in a stateless society where a mega-corp can send its private military to physically eliminate any potential competitors. And they could and would own the courts and the police force, and the people living in their petty kingdoms would have virtually no choice but to use them because the mega-corps/billionaires could and would enforce that monopoly. Think of the Mexican drug cartels, but even more powerful and no state to oppose them or keep them in check.
Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
All of these examples you gave me worked/work(to some extent) because there was/is still a state to keep them under control. The Pinkerton Police Force was actually used to oppress people in the form of intimidation of unionists. Just look at what happened during the Homestead strike. And the Pinkertons would have never stood a chance against the full might of the US military if they decided to take over.None of this would work in a stateless society where a mega-corp can send its private military to physically eliminate any potential competitors. And they could and would own the courts and the police force, and the people living in their petty kingdoms would have virtually no choice but to use them because the mega-corps/billionaires could and would enforce that monopoly. Think of the Mexican drug cartels, but even more powerful and no state to oppose them or keep them in check.
Alright, let me first clear up some misconceptions about the Homestead Strike and then I will address your claim regarding the warlords. The great historian Walter LeFeber has done some great scholarly work on the Homestead Strike. In 1889 workers had asked for a contract by which their pay would vary with the price of steel. So the cost of steel would be the determinant of their wages. As steel prices rose, their wages rose in tandem. Steal prices had dropped severely during the 1890s so Carnage and Frick created a wage floor. Wages could not fall under 22 dollars per ton. There were 3800 workers, and only 800 of them had refused the deal. Despite this minority, the majority of workers had decided to protest. Due to this strange figure, Canarage had begun to wonder whether or not the unions had hired intimidation. This suspicion, in conjunction with local law enforcement’s inability to protect company property during a labor dispute years earlier, prompted the Homestead camp to contact Pinkerton. The police force was hired to protect those who decided to work and the replacements and to assess the situation. So what was the result? According to LaFeber, “In mid-1892 warfare erupted.” The workers surrounded the plant and did not allow the non-union workers to enter. When the 300 Pinkerton Police arrived, they were shot at which killed one of them and wounded four others. They were on barges as they were crossing a river and the workers were shooting cannons at the barges trying to sink them. There is no evidence that the Pinkerton's shot first, in fact, LeFeber's study indicates the opposite. The Pinkerton's had an exceptional reputation which caused them to apprehend burglaries and maintain order in the wild west and even save President Lincoln from a possible assassination attempt. Now the more pertinent point discussed was the idea of warlord control. This reminds of a great essay made by Economist Robert P. Murphy discussing this very subject. I recommend you read it as it is far more lengthy and comprehensive then my take will be. I think we have to make one thing clear. If an anarcho-capitalist society ever transpired, I would hope the people that would inhabit it would be law-abiding citizens. I think if most of the citizens desire safety and security they will most likely not support corporations which rule by threat of force. Let's assume that company A has mercenaries and is applying force to its workers. Let us also suspend our disbelief. It makes no sense for company A to do this as there is less profit incentive to enslave your workers as I have discussed in my above posts. Would you be willing to buy a product from that industry? Would the media cover that industry favorably? Would those workers not revolt or possess arms of their own to defend against tyranny? All of those outcomes would probably transpire in one form or another minimizing any chance that Company A would behave so rashly. You also claimed a mega-corporation would eliminate its competitors using their own military. This is another outcome that makes no rational sense. For this corporation to achieve this, they would have to defeat all of their competitors using warfare. That would be extremely expensive and they would be drastically losing profits throughout the entire exchange as people would no longer use their products. The armed populous would attempt to fight against corporation and shareholders would leave the company in droves. You conveniently ignored my example of arbitration. This shows how the private law works without being under the control of private companies. No one uses services that have corruption tied to their name. You also used the example of drug cartels. This is incredibly faulty as drug cartels work in secrecy and do not have competition from legitimate enterprises. I also find it very unlikely that most companies would behave so rashly as war is incredibly expensive. I would honestly look much deeper into the material each of your concerns has been more than addressed.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Alright, let me first clear up some misconceptions about the Homestead Strike and then I will address your claim regarding the warlords. The great historian Walter LeFeber has done some great scholarly work on the Homestead Strike. In 1889 workers had asked for a contract by which their pay would vary with the price of steel. So the cost of steel would be the determinant of their wages. As steel prices rose, their wages rose in tandem. Steal prices had dropped severely during the 1890s so Carnage and Frick created a wage floor. Wages could not fall under 22 dollars per ton. There were 3800 workers, and only 800 of them had refused the deal. Despite this minority, the majority of workers had decided to protest. Due to this strange figure, Canarage had begun to wonder whether or not the unions had hired intimidation. This suspicion, in conjunction with local law enforcement’s inability to protect company property during a labor dispute years earlier, prompted the Homestead camp to contact Pinkerton. The police force was hired to protect those who decided to work and the replacements and to assess the situation. So what was the result? According to LaFeber, “In mid-1892 warfare erupted.” The workers surrounded the plant and did not allow the non-union workers to enter. When the 300 Pinkerton Police arrived, they were shot at which killed one of them and wounded four others. They were on barges as they were crossing a river and the workers were shooting cannons at the barges trying to sink them. There is no evidence that the Pinkerton's shot first, in fact, LeFeber's study indicates the opposite. The Pinkerton's had an exceptional reputation which caused them to apprehend burglaries and maintain order in the wild west and even save President Lincoln from a possible assassination attempt. Now the more pertinent point discussed was the idea of warlord control. This reminds of a great essay made by Economist Robert P. Murphy discussing this very subject. I recommend you read it as it is far more lengthy and comprehensive then my take will be. I think we have to make one thing clear. If an anarcho-capitalist society ever transpired, I would hope the people that would inhabit it would be law-abiding citizens. I think if most of the citizens desire safety and security they will most likely not support corporations which rule by threat of force. Let's assume that company A has mercenaries and is applying force to its workers. Let us also suspend our disbelief. It makes no sense for company A to do this as there is less profit incentive to enslave your workers as I have discussed in my above posts. Would you be willing to buy a product from that industry? Would the media cover that industry favorably? Would those workers not revolt or possess arms of their own to defend against tyranny? All of those outcomes would probably transpire in one form or another minimizing any chance that Company A would behave so rashly. You also claimed a mega-corporation would eliminate its competitors using their own military. This is another outcome that makes no rational sense. For this corporation to achieve this, they would have to defeat all of their competitors using warfare. That would be extremely expensive and they would be drastically losing profits throughout the entire exchange as people would no longer use their products. The armed populous would attempt to fight against corporation and shareholders would leave the company in droves. You conveniently ignored my example of arbitration. This shows how the private law works without being under the control of private companies. No one uses services that have corruption tied to their name. You also used the example of drug cartels. This is incredibly faulty as drug cartels work in secrecy and do not have competition from legitimate enterprises. I also find it very unlikely that most companies would behave so rashly as war is incredibly expensive. I would honestly look much deeper into the material each of your concerns has been more than addressed.
haermm
WTF, man?
You win! I have never seen so many walls of text posted like this by anyone on the internet, before. You post the most. You are the walltext king.
If we ever argue about something, you automatically win because there's no way I have the patience or time to respond to walls of text like that.
Originally posted by Robtard
That's irrelevant and little more than a red herring, as it's still being bigoted against sexual orientation as you yourself are defining the cake as "gay" and the reason for the refusal, as we're not talking about gay = happyWhat is a "gay themed cake" exactly though? This keeps getting claimed, but I hear no responses.
I don't know the specifics of what they wanted from him. We do know he is against designing cakes that go against his beliefs.
Also to me it is not irrelevant. You say they are being treated differently. Is there any race, gender, sexuality, or religion that a person can belong and get this man to design them a cake against his beliefs? That is what I'd want to see.
Originally posted by dadudemon
haermmWTF, man?
You win! I have never seen so many walls of text posted like this by anyone on the internet, before. You post the most. You are the walltext king.
If we ever argue about something, you automatically win because there's no way I have the patience or time to respond to walls of text like that.
You have not seen the star wars community lol. Or any of EmperorDMB's post.
That is simply not true. The strike was supported by over 5000 of the town’s population, unionists or not. There’s no proof of intimidation. It’s also not historically agreed upon who fired first. The Pinkertons wanted to maintain their good reputation, yes, but they also wanted to maintain their reputation as a company that gets things done. Either way, the Pinkertons got their asses kicked and the state militia was called in to deal with the situation, which they did quite well.
People would support companies that use force because they would have no choice, alternatives, or more likely out of sheer convenience and not giving a crap. People buy products made in sweatshops even today and the vast majority don’t care; in the past, people had no problems dealing with the East Indian Company which was known for its brutal practices. Eliminating or suppressing competition would actually be worthwhile in the mid and the long-term as having a monopoly = massive profits. Most people wouldn’t and probably couldn’t do anything about it for much the same reasons why the people of places like North Korea, Somalia or those under the mercy of the Mexican drug cartels can’t or won’t do anything about it: they’d be too oppressed and intimidated.
As for arbitration: it would only be a thing between billionaires and mega-corps, who would deal with each other as relative equals. Joe Average would have little choice but to use private courts owned by the corporations and/or the ultra-rich, which of course would rule any way their owners told them to.
The thing about drug cartels is that in an Ancap society, they would be a legitimate business and would not have to work in secrecy. And the only competitors they would face would be other drug cartels.
Originally posted by DarthSkywalker0
Alright, let me first clear up some misconceptions about the Homestead Strike and then I will address your claim regarding the warlords. The great historian Walter LeFeber has done some great scholarly work on the Homestead Strike. In 1889 workers had asked for a contract by which their pay would vary with the price of steel. So the cost of steel would be the determinant of their wages. As steel prices rose, their wages rose in tandem. Steal prices had dropped severely during the 1890s so Carnage and Frick created a wage floor. Wages could not fall under 22 dollars per ton. There were 3800 workers, and only 800 of them had refused the deal. Despite this minority, the majority of workers had decided to protest. Due to this strange figure, Canarage had begun to wonder whether or not the unions had hired intimidation. This suspicion, in conjunction with local law enforcement’s inability to protect company property during a labor dispute years earlier, prompted the Homestead camp to contact Pinkerton. The police force was hired to protect those who decided to work and the replacements and to assess the situation. So what was the result? According to LaFeber, “In mid-1892 warfare erupted.” The workers surrounded the plant and did not allow the non-union workers to enter. When the 300 Pinkerton Police arrived, they were shot at which killed one of them and wounded four others. They were on barges as they were crossing a river and the workers were shooting cannons at the barges trying to sink them. There is no evidence that the Pinkerton's shot first, in fact, LeFeber's study indicates the opposite. The Pinkerton's had an exceptional reputation which caused them to apprehend burglaries and maintain order in the wild west and even save President Lincoln from a possible assassination attempt. Now the more pertinent point discussed was the idea of warlord control. This reminds of a great essay made by Economist Robert P. Murphy discussing this very subject. I recommend you read it as it is far more lengthy and comprehensive then my take will be. I think we have to make one thing clear. If an anarcho-capitalist society ever transpired, I would hope the people that would inhabit it would be law-abiding citizens. I think if most of the citizens desire safety and security they will most likely not support corporations which rule by threat of force. Let's assume that company A has mercenaries and is applying force to its workers. Let us also suspend our disbelief. It makes no sense for company A to do this as there is less profit incentive to enslave your workers as I have discussed in my above posts. Would you be willing to buy a product from that industry? Would the media cover that industry favorably? Would those workers not revolt or possess arms of their own to defend against tyranny? All of those outcomes would probably transpire in one form or another minimizing any chance that Company A would behave so rashly. You also claimed a mega-corporation would eliminate its competitors using their own military. This is another outcome that makes no rational sense. For this corporation to achieve this, they would have to defeat all of their competitors using warfare. That would be extremely expensive and they would be drastically losing profits throughout the entire exchange as people would no longer use their products. The armed populous would attempt to fight against corporation and shareholders would leave the company in droves. You conveniently ignored my example of arbitration. This shows how the private law works without being under the control of private companies. No one uses services that have corruption tied to their name. You also used the example of drug cartels. This is incredibly faulty as drug cartels work in secrecy and do not have competition from legitimate enterprises. I also find it very unlikely that most companies would behave so rashly as war is incredibly expensive. I would honestly look much deeper into the material each of your concerns has been more than addressed.
Learn 2 paragraph.
Originally posted by Robtard
Repeat: Because we have laws against discriminating people based on their sexual orientation.There are no laws against discriminating against alcohol or Halloween or divorce.
There is alot on the scotusblog that specifically refers to compelled speech in regards to art ie "wedding cake."
It doesn't appear good for the couple in this instance, the baker didn't deny them goods in his shop or services that they shared common values in such as birthday cakes etc but specifically for the wedding.
So this will be interesting to see how the court convenes, will they allow the use of force to compel "artists" to take projects they find objectionable or simply let the free market/social media courts decide how best to handle businesses that don't provide services to certain ideas/groups. Which in this particular instance the couple has already done.
Based on the arguments I read in the scotusblog
No. 16-111 I N T HE Supreme Court of the United States
I find the intolerance of the couple and their actions far worse then what has been put on the baker through both social media and this legal process.
Originally posted by snowdragonA wedding cake is a wedding cake, regardless of who buys it or what it’s used for. His job is not to endorse the uses of the cakes he makes, his job is simply to make the cake.
There is alot on the scotusblog that specifically refers to compelled speech in regards to art ie "wedding cake."It doesn't appear good for the couple in this instance, the baker didn't deny them goods in his shop or services that they shared common values in such as birthday cakes etc but specifically for the wedding.
So this will be interesting to see how the court convenes, will they allow the use of force to compel "artists" to take projects they find objectionable or simply let the free market/social media courts decide how best to handle businesses that don't provide services to certain ideas/groups. Which in this particular instance the couple has already done.
Based on the arguments I read in the scotusblog
No. 16-111 I N T HE Supreme Court of the United States
I find the intolerance of the couple and their actions far worse then what has been put on the baker through both social media and this legal process.
A wedding cake is a wedding cake, regardless of who buys it or what it’s used for. His job is not to endorse the uses of the cakes he makes, his job is simply to make the cake.
If what you said truly reflected the essence of this case then the couple could have picked up a cake off the shelf for 20$ instead of paying 400-800$ for someone to actually craft a cake for them.
Since the baker didn't deny selling them goods that were available on the shelves, just explained why he didn't want to craft a wedding cake.
Also the REAL issue here is that the baker explained his position based on his beliefs rather then simply saying I'm sorry I don't have the time to bake your cake. If he had said that, this WHOLE ordeal would likely never have happend.
Originally posted by snowdragonThey asked for him to craft a Wedding themed cake, not a gay themed cake. The man was not being forced, in the artistic crafting of the cake, to endorse homosexuality.
If what you said truly reflected the essence of this case then the couple could have picked up a cake off the shelf for 20$ instead of paying 400-800$ for someone to actually craft a cake for them.Since the baker didn't deny selling them goods that were available on the shelves, just explained why he didn't want to craft a wedding cake.
Also the REAL issue here is that the baker explained his position based on his beliefs rather then simply saying I'm sorry I don't have the time to bake your cake. If he had said that, this WHOLE ordeal would likely never have happend.
Originally posted by Firefly218
They asked for him to craft a Wedding themed cake, not a gay themed cake. The man was not being forced, in the artistic crafting of the cake, to endorse homosexuality.
The man doesn't design cakes that go against his beliefs. A straight couple could not get the same kind of cake. Nobody could.
Originally posted by Firefly218
They asked for him to craft a Wedding themed cake, not a gay themed cake. The man was not being forced, in the artistic crafting of the cake, to endorse homosexuality.
Do you bake wedding cakes?
Q: What should I expect to pay for a wedding cake to serve 300?A: Wedding cake is usually priced by the slice, and the range is wide—anywhere from $1.50 to $12 a slice. The more complicated the wedding cake, the more you'll pay. Fondant icing is generally more expensive than buttercream, and if you want elaborate molded shapes, vibrant colors, and/or handmade sugar-flower detailing, you'll pay for the cake designer's time and labor. A good cost-cutting option is to order a wedding cake for 150 people—your guests will be served "half-servings." (People always leave slices half-eaten on the table anyway.) Or, have the wedding cake of your dreams made on a small scale for a price you can comfortably afford, and then order sheet cakes of the same flavor to be cut in the kitchen.
There doesn't have to be a specific design of the cake to make it a "gay" design, he didn't want to design a cake to be used at a gay wedding.
If the Supreme court were to judge in favor of the couple then in the future then yes ALL "artists" will be forced into doing what someone wants to pay for, regardless of what the OWNER who runs the business wants.
Apparently you don't seem to be able to wrap your head around that concept, the baker didn't deny them goods or services already prepared, he chose to not accept their business to bake a cake for their wedding, govt intervention is FORCE by its very nature.