Closing the gap between anarchic theories

[Marmeladov]

  I thought it was a real shame how the conversation broke down between StormCloudsGathering and Stef right as the debate (if it can be called that) was getting somewhere. For those that might not have seen it, the last 10 or so minutes was fundamentally a discussion over whether or not non-coercive entities can cause harm to 3rd parties. The 1st and 2nd party would be the two (or however many) light bulb manufacturers and the 3rd would be the customer in their scenario. Stefan argued that in fact they cannot harm the customers for competitive reasons, so either the 100 year light bulb was false or there must be some coercive forces at play: i.e. patents or government raised entry costs. Completely ignoring the accusation of dishonesty, SCG's argument, that non-coercive entities can cause harm to a third party based on the lightbulb documentary, was the point of conflict for the two. For people who accept that a state is unacceptable, exploring this topic in great detail might help bridge the gap between the various anarchic theories

     I know Stef has content on planned obsolescence, and that this is not his main focus; but it seems to me that this point is the main division between anarcho-capitlist and everyone else who does not believe there should be a state. I think a broader explination dedicated to putting this issue to bed could help a lot of people understand why businesses, DRO's in particular, would not be something to be feared.

[Kristian Biltoft]

I did a quick search for the 100 year light bulb. It does exist and is generally accepted as being true.

What I posted on the video: "The 100 year light bulb creator, Adolphe Chailet, was in competition with Thomas Edison who was notorious for using patent laws. Patent laws are government creations. He got 2,332 patents. His Light bulb among them."

Without having gone into a deep research, it seems to me that there was many people developing light bulbs at the same time, but that Thomas Edison got his version patented which is why it was the one that "won" over the others.

[ribuck]

The lifespan of a lightbulb can be as long as you want to make it, but longer-lasting bulbs are less efficient (i.e. use more electricity for the same amount of light) so they are not worthwhile.

The relevant patents expired decades ago, so there has been plenty of opportunity for the market to supply these bulbs. In fact you can buy a variation called "rough service" bulbs that are interchangeable with regular bulbs but have a lifetime ten times as long. Beyond that, it's too energy-inefficient to be worth considering.

 

 

[STer]

 

The lifespan of a lightbulb can be as long as you want to make it, but longer-lasting bulbs are less efficient (i.e. use more electricity for the same amount of light) so they are not worthwhile.

The relevant patents expired decades ago, so there has been plenty of opportunity for the market to supply these bulbs. In fact you can buy a variation called "rough service" bulbs that are interchangeable with regular bulbs but have a lifetime ten times as long. Beyond that, it's too energy-inefficient to be worth considering.

 

 

 

I found the end of the discussion absurd. Stefan kept pointing out that it's not enough to simply say that nobody came along to break this supposed oligopoly and produce the 100 year light bulb, but that we have to know why. His point was that there might be an alternative reason other than simple collusion that explained it. SCG avoided the entire question, acting as if the very fact that the bulb wasn't produced was evidence of a cartel and no more investigation was needed.

If the reason is nothing more than that the bulb costs more to use in electricity than it saves in requiring less bulb purchaes, that would be a pretty hilariously simple refutation of SCG's entire point on this issue.

[Marmeladov]

I think I was a little confusing. I'm not interested in the lightbulb debate specifically. What I would like to see further explored, is if non-coersive entities can cause harm to 3rd parties in general. While this topic is touched on in a lot of stefs work and the work of others, I have not come across anything dedicated to this topic anywhere. I believe this general, not specfic, issue is the hangup for many who would otherwise be onboard with ancap.

[STer]

 

I think I was a little confusing. I'm not interested in the lightbulb debate specifically. What I would like to see further explored, is if non-coersive entities can cause harm to 3rd parties in general. While this topic is touched on in a lot of stefs work and the work of others, I have not come across anything dedicated to this topic anywhere. I believe this general, not specfic, issue is the hangup for many who would otherwise be onboard with ancap.

 

Sorry I didn't get back to this thread until now. Marmeladov, I like what you're doing here in trying to zoom in on what may be a leverage point issue underlying the broader debates that go on among these communities. This is the same approach I try to take.

For instance, I tried to do just this in this blog post and this one.

Here you identify the leverage point issue as the question of whether a noncoercive third party can still hurt others. I identify a different leverage point that maybe is even more fundamental.

Regardless, I believe these communities would be well served by focusing in on the fundamental issues in a more concentrated way. So I hope that is where this discussion leads.