Originally posted by jaden_2.0
United Fruit Company
United East India Company
British East India Company
Abir Congo Company
Royal Niger CompanyPretty much take your pick of any chartered Company during colonialism.
Even look at Iraq after the 2003 war. Effectively run by oil companies. They were able to force the iraqi government to spend their meagre military resources to create an army specifically to protect the oil pipelines that the western oil companies used to pump billions of barrels of oil out of the countries without being taxed because the government was deliberately kept too weak to do anything about it. As a nice byproduct of this they were also too weak to do anything about the rise of ISIS.
Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.
So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?
I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.
Originally posted by cdtm
You're close.Tax in itself is a necessity. You have to pay for those roads and emergency response units somehow. And the politicians need to be paid, they aren't working for free.
When it becomes theft is with pork barrel projects. Tax payer money spent strictly for political favor, at everyone elses expense.
Didn't take you for a statist 🙁
Originally posted by ilikecomics
Wow, those oil companies must be wildly powerful to not only go against the wishes of the united states' government and it's armies, but to also overthrow the Iraq government.So you're saying, without any state interference whatsoever, a private company invaded a foreign country and set up shop against the local government's wishes ?
I'll look into the other examples after we deal with this.
I was thinking the same thing.
Didn't the East India Company have the blessing and backing of governments?
Or lets look at another example: Hawaii. Private businesses enacted a coup, yet the United States Federal Government played a role. So is it an example of the evils of capitolism or the evils of government?
Originally posted by Newjak
You keep inherently tying Government to undesirable entities. Now they are the mob.It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.
Imagine a playground.
Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.
Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.
The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.
The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.
The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.
Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.
The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear.
Originally posted by cdtm
I'm not. Not a pure libertarian either.The fact is, taxes do have their place. Every time you use an interstate highway is one of them.
If you support taxes you are de facto a statist Imo. It's more of a categorization thing than a value judgement.
Edit: imo hayek was a socialist lol
Have you read libertarian cases for why the highway/roads are a bad argument for taxation ?
Originally posted by cdtm
I was thinking the same thing.Didn't the East India Company have the blessing and backing of governments?
Or lets look at another example: Hawaii. Private businesses enacted a coup, yet the United States Federal Government played a role. So is it an example of the evils of capitolism or the evils of government?
Of the state ! It's literally impossible for companies to have a LEGAL monopoly on violence, only the state can.
it's kind of like how if a child and an adult commit a crime together the child isn't seen as equally guilty, it in fact adds to the crime that the adult would conscript a child.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsImagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.
Imagine a playground.Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.
Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.
The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.
The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.
The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.
Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear.
It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.
I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.
And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.
Originally posted by jaden_2.0on the flip side, Norman Borlaug helped save Mexico, India, Pakistan, China and Turkey amongst others from starvation by growing mass production of wheat and other crops, mostly wheat to feed billions of people by working with the farmers and talking to their governments begging for help and funding to create what is now known as "the green revolution"
The Bengal famine, deliberately engineered by the British East India Company is the single biggest genocide in history.
That isn't crony capitalism or theft, that's science and taxation.
Ever been to a Chinese, Indian or Mexican place and order some form of flat bread with your meal or even have it before you order?
Now you know why.
Originally posted by Newjak
Imagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.
I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.
And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.
And yet here we are picking a side, and assuming we have the right of it.
Honestly, a great majority of my gripes with modern politics comes down to what you're saying. The bully creates an even bigger bully, and the two sides escalate into a blood feud. Each side with legitimate greviences, yet neither side really caring because they have legitimate greviences.
Originally posted by Newjak
Imagine reading my previous comment about creating ultra simple scenarios and tying what you don't like to undesirable entities.It's this kind silly thinking that I can't get behind. It's all so simplistic and completely ignores the complexity of human history.
I mean in your scenario you forgot to add the part where the inventor child eventually overtakes the market and becomes the new micro-bully pushing out other competition because they've gained power after all.
And that's only one of a million different scenarios that happen in the rich history that is humanity.
Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.
Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsyou are not DS0 or one of the other star wars kids are you? They were always coming up with simplistic shit like this, I'd hoped they'd have grown up by now.
Imagine a playground.Imagine there's a violent bully who takes candy from others, who buy it at full price, then the bully sells it for cheaper.
Imagine after a while the threat of violence has largely replaced actual violence. This would allow the prime bully to employ smaller bullies, who never engaged in actual violence, to go around and collect the candy.
The prime bully makes money because his acquisition of candy is free. The prime bully represents the state.
The lesser sub bullies are companies like WalMart and amazon. They don't use violence, but still capitalize from it.
The children who buy the discounted bully candy are the wall-e couch people buying their lifestyles from Amazon.
Now imagine that a child and his father who develop a healthy tasting candy that people will gladly pay double what they pay for the stolen candy of their friends.
The inventor child has made the violence of the bully obsolete, and because he knows the principles of recipe creation can continue to increase his stock.The inventor child is the entrepreneur, who sacrifices labor to fill a market opportunity, makes the playground safer and provides the children with choice instead of fear.
Originally posted by ilikecomicserm,
Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child.
Originally posted by Blakemore
on the flip side, Norman Borlaug helped save Mexico, India, Pakistan, China and Turkey amongst others from starvation by growing mass production of wheat and other crops, mostly wheat to feed billions of people by working with the farmers and talking to their governments begging for help and funding to create what is now known as "the green revolution"That isn't crony capitalism or theft, that's science and taxation.
Ever been to a Chinese, Indian or Mexican place and order some form of flat bread with your meal or even have it before you order?
Now you know why.
Originally posted by truejedi
This whole thing is asinine. Any sharing of resources is taxation, and without sharing resources, there is no civilization.
I'm not the one arguing against all taxes. 🙂
In a vacuum, his principle makes enough sense, I think. Assuming I'm right about what he really means:
Use of force is the problem.
From his side, he is hyper-focused on the idea that taxation is compulsory on threat of imprisonment. He thinks forcing yourself on a person is wrong. He thinks other people deciding how much tax is fair, and dictating to you how much you need to pay, all without your input or consent on the basis of where you happened to be born, is a terrible injustice.
Its clearly more complex then that, and society would indeed stop functioning if everyone had the choice to opt out while using public goods and services, but you don't get to that point in logic untill you can get past the idea that you are entirely powerless as an individual before an unjust state.
Originally posted by ilikecomicsAssuming that second inventor can improve on the snack or that the the first inventor doesn't just use their resources to crush the smaller second inventor by putting multiple obstacles in front of them. Heck the first inventor might just buy out the second inventor to take the competition off the market.
Calling my arguments simple and calling history complex isn't an argument I know how to address and it seems to be one of your favorites.Why couldn't a second inventor child invent a new healthier snack, that didn't damage teeth as much ? Less dentist trips is a good selling point to a child.
Like I said so many scenarios.
Originally posted by Old Man Whirly!
you are not DS0 or one of the other star wars kids are you? They were always coming up with simplistic shit like this, I'd hoped they'd have grown up by now.
No, I am just ilikecomics. I think star wars is kind of boring because it's just the heroes journey with a space paint job.
Creating simple constructs can have explanatory power, but they don't prove anything. Kind of like an analogy.
I'm not trying to win any arguments, this is just what I like talking about most outside of religion, but religion has a sub forum that is pretty dead.
I don't think I'll change anyone from a statist to an anarchist, but I get alot from the exchanges.