StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Lusankya wrote:Now, this is just me thinking, but would PvP servers on online games such as WoW be an example of a voluntaryist society?

No, there's plenty of regulation. Scamming, for instance, results in a swift ban.

No, a PvP server isn't like that at all, because if someone is a dick to you, you go complain to the GM, or Game Moderator.

In real life, the GM is the G-Man.

Is Voluntaryist still planning on replying in the debate thread? I'm hoping he didnt just give up...

nickolay1 wrote:

Lusankya wrote:Now, this is just me thinking, but would PvP servers on online games such as WoW be an example of a voluntaryist society?

No, there's plenty of regulation. Scamming, for instance, results in a swift ban.

In most MMOs this would be true. However what about Eve Online ?

The rules against scamming only apply to GTC or character trades, for the rest of it scams are within the rules.

Surlethe wrote:If anybody has any criticism of my points or how I addressed Voluntaryist's arguments, I would appreciate that.

I think here, your line of argument takes a turn for the weaker:

Surlethe wrote:

V. wrote:

Surlethe wrote: But a state will be more capable of defending itself.

Support your assertion.

Because companies which do invest in weaponry will be busy attacking each other.

Tactically, you have created an opportunity for V. to go on the offensive, where you otherwise had him on the ropes and doing all the work. You also missed an opportunity to force him into a corner, thus:

The 'bigger guns' argument does favor one social system over another, to wit: that system which can field the biggest guns.

Historically, of all the entities on the field, the modern industrial state rose to become the preeminent military force. The tremendous scale of the economic, industrial, manpower, logistical, and organizational resources mobilized by a state in wartime - see the development of industrial war from the mid-19th C. to the mid-20th, US and USSR, etc. - is thus far unequaled and unsurpassed. The only entity with the ability to militarily defeat a state is another state, or collection thereof.*

This ability comes from the state's ability to nationalize, draft, compel, or otherwise employ all the men and materiel within its jurisdiction to serve in the war effort. It follows naturally from the nature of government.

If a private company is to even stand a chance at equaling the military capacity of a modern state, it must be able to employ that same monopolistic and coercive force to direct resources to the fight. Otherwise, its own efforts will be dwarfed by the states'. A company's coffers are only so deep, after all. But in a Voluntary framework, a company can't possibly employ coercion or any kind of "monopolistic force," so how could a company possibly have the 'biggest guns' when compared to a state?

Either a company takes on the monopolistic role of a state in order to field the largest war machine, or its military 'Volunteers' (or is paid), with limited results (see the historical unreliability of mercenaries, the size of defense budgets, etc.) In either case, the state system wins the 'biggest guns' argument.


*Caveat: we all know that states can be mismanaged, etc. But happily, functional government and military-organizational efficacy are linked, so the argument is not hindered.

Actually no PvP anything would resemble because in some ways I can always get more powerful on my own. It may be extremely slow, but eventually with the passing of a couple years I can destroy and swallow smaller newbies with weapons that are purchased from a non biased source or made from unlimited natural resources. I can begin accruing power and then enter alliances, because weapons and money are infinite due to the unbiased, unlimited extraneous source.

In real life a select controlled economy base and permanent limited resources would destroy anyone weaker and limit who could possibly enter power.

I find it astounding that anyone could seriously question the superior ability of a state to prosecute a war. What is the one thing about government that libertarians complain about most vociferously? Its ability to tax its citizens. Should it not seem obvious that a nation-state will have superior ability to fund a large and expensive military machine if it can raise money by taxing millions of people?

Obviously because it's "Evil" it won't work, but wait it will in reality but just not in libertopia...

Darth Wong wrote:I find it astounding that anyone could seriously question the superior ability of a state to prosecute a war. What is the one thing about government that libertarians complain about most vociferously? Its ability to tax its citizens. Should it not seem obvious that a nation-state will have superior ability to fund a large and expensive military machine if it can raise money by taxing millions of people?

An argument i've seen before is that private security companies will be able to field better, more advanced and "more innovative" equipment beause the free market rocks and all, and thus be able to fight off any agressor.

More handwaving,really. They expect a society which splits available warmaking resources between ten, twenty or however many private companies will be able to stand up to a unified government military by "acts of innovation".

Unless the magic free market allows Libertopians to make Space Marines, it's not gonna happen, obviously.

Just read Surlethe's second reply and it's great for pointing out that essentialy the society Volly wants to create is an evil plutocracy where the richest have access to the heaviest and most expensive means of enforcement Volly is an idiot, but now it goes without saying.

I wonder how long this lasts until Volly is actually banned because I believe the Volly Approved (TM) 2nd reply will be the same as the first, and fail to adress the issues which were raised, instead claiming some absurd shit on the base of a few examples (many of them utterly wrong, as the spacefaring one was)

Volly loses his amusement value pretty fast.

PeZook wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:I find it astounding that anyone could seriously question the superior ability of a state to prosecute a war. What is the one thing about government that libertarians complain about most vociferously? Its ability to tax its citizens. Should it not seem obvious that a nation-state will have superior ability to fund a large and expensive military machine if it can raise money by taxing millions of people?

An argument i've seen before is that private security companies will be able to field better, more advanced and "more innovative" equipment beause the free market rocks and all, and thus be able to fight off any agressor.

No they won't. Military research projects are extraordinarily expensive and can last for a VERY long time; more than a decade. Well beyond the funding horizon of your average company, which might think a few years out at most, and whose CEO behaviour is dominated by the shareholders' desire for quarterly earnings.

Just look at how GE took a 13% overnight nosedive because of a weak quarterly earnings report last week, even though its business model and long-term prospects are still solid.

The current system works because government takes the long-term plunge, while the private contractors get paid in the short term which makes their shareholders happy.

Darth Wong wrote: No they won't. Military research projects are extraordinarily expensive and can last for a VERY long time; more than a decade. Well beyond the funding horizon of your average company, which might think a few years out at most, and whose CEO behaviour is dominated by the shareholders' desire for quarterly earnings.

Hey, I'm just quoting libertarian idiocy. You can pretty much destroy that argument (since it presumes that more government = less innovation) by showing how government-sponsored spaceflight programs required a fuckload of various innovations, large and small,and were somehow not stifled at all. Even in the USSR.

Not to mention that spending, say, 100 billion to develop a new fighter airframe is beyond the means of any corporation in the world, even without any taxes.

So it really will be a fight of technical pick-ups against helicopter gunships

Something that I posted (and then deleted, after reading the rules) for the SD.net's World Reference Thread:

Vanas wrote:((Would it be imprudent to suggest that Voluntaryist Libertopia, our local home of all the insanity in the world gets one of these? If no-one else does, I'll see if I can't knock one up at some point.))

The only purpose this voluntaryist utopia will serve is to provide land for some other nation to expand into, i.e., to be conquered.

If Voluntaryist objects, point out that even a bare bones fighter, e.g., a MiG-21, costs MILLIONS, so very few people in his utopia will be willing and able to buy one, not to mention the dozens or even hundreds that even third world countries can provide for their air forces. Defending against these fighters are also expensive. A Stinger missile costs 38,000 USD. A Patriot costs between one to three MILLION, depending on variant. Who in the voluntaryist utopia is willing and able to pay for these things, not to mention the costs of maintenance and upgrades to keep them operational, which will likely be in the millions?

Defending against these fighters are also expensive. A Stinger missile costs 38,000 USD. A Patriot costs between one to three MILLION, depending on variant. Who in the voluntaryist utopia is willing and able to pay for these things, not to mention the costs of maintenance and upgrades to keep them operational, which will likely be in the millions?

On that note: how economically and effectively are these things manufactured anyway?

I mean, military budget isn't always worried about economic production as it wants its damn gun and it wants its damn gun to bang the way it should, but I have to wonder, with some R&D effort, could these weapons be cheaper? It sounds ridiculously expensive. I know we are talking rockets, and rockets are way more complicated then some chemicals stuffed into a tube, but is there space for improvements?

Zixinus wrote: I mean, military budget isn't always worried about economic production as it wants its damn gun and it wants its damn gun to bang the way it should, but I have to wonder, with some R&D effort, could these weapons be cheaper? It sounds ridiculously expensive. I know we are talking rockets, and rockets are way more complicated then some chemicals stuffed into a tube, but is there space for improvements?

You're not going to get MANPADS cheap enough for every household to have one, certainly. Hell, you're not going to get anything beyond an AK-47 that doesn't require an organized body to purchase.

After all, does it matter if a Stinger costs 38 thousand or just 10 thousand? Private owners aren't going to buy them, even if they pay no taxes (they still have to hire a security company, fire insurance, medical insurace, pay road tolls...)

PeZook wrote:

Zixinus wrote: I mean, military budget isn't always worried about economic production as it wants its damn gun and it wants its damn gun to bang the way it should, but I have to wonder, with some R&D effort, could these weapons be cheaper? It sounds ridiculously expensive. I know we are talking rockets, and rockets are way more complicated then some chemicals stuffed into a tube, but is there space for improvements?

You're not going to get MANPADS cheap enough for every household to have one, certainly. Hell, you're not going to get anything beyond an AK-47 that doesn't require an organized body to purchase.

After all, does it matter if a Stinger costs 38 thousand or just 10 thousand? Private owners aren't going to buy them, even if they pay no taxes (they still have to hire a security company, fire insurance, medical insurace, pay road tolls...)

That's even taking into account the massive economy of scale benefit that the US Government gets for its Stinger missiles. There's no way that a company making a stinger missile can make money selling them at $38k in individual orders.

The cost of building the factory and doing all the R&D to design the missile would push the cost of a single Stringer well into the millions; the only thing that makes that price down to the tens of thousands is that the company knows it's going to sell a fuckton of them because it has an order for thousands of them before it even begins production.

OK, I've had enough of this bullshit. 3-day response time limit from now on. And don't give me this "I have a busy life" bullshit, Volleyball. I've seen your posts and they didn't require any research or other time-consuming efforts. This is simply ridiculous.

I am willing to bet that he will somehow find an excuse anyway: next Monday he will be here about some lame excuse like he wasn't notified or that his net broke down.

Did you send him an e-mail? That way he has less space for excuses.

Well he hasn't exactly been around since the 9th. I'm basing that on the last time he posted because we all know he's not exactly the lurker type.

Well, his last post was requesting a 10-day time limit. Saturday will be the 10th day since he asked.

Barring unexpected emergencies, I should be fine with the 3-day time limit for now. At least it removes the ability to rationalize and put it off.

Since the forum was down for much of the day, I'll give Voluntaryist a 1-day extension, to Sunday. Frankly, this is more than he deserves; the guy has made a mockery of this whole proceeding by dragging out each reply until the audience loses interest.

Mike, you are a more generous man than I would've been.

I hope Vollyball's response will be worth the wait. Not expecting it to be, but here's hoping. It's always more interesting to watch a lion eat a live, running christian than watch that lion eat tofu.

Volleyball needs to the end of the day to finish off the response he's been working on a whole week or so?

I say that if it's just the same evangalising, repetitious bullshit he's been putting forth to every argument, it's time to shitcan the "debate" into the HoS and let the mob have at him.

Patrick Degan wrote:Volleyball needs to the end of the day to finish off the response he's been working on a whole week or so?

I say that if it's just the same evangalising, repetitious bullshit he's been putting forth to every argument, it's time to shitcan the "debate" into the HoS and let the mob have at him.

I agree. There is no reason it should take him this long to just repeat everything he's already said a thousand times.