Market Dependency As Cause For Conflict

[Phuein]

Seeing how people protest mistreatment and abuse, while pacing modern industrial cities, got me wondering...

 

Is it our dependency on external resources that maintains the vicious cycle of war and the corruption of those in power?

 

Any group of people that are utterly dependent on resources from others, will have the mandate to make certain that the resources keep on flowing. For example, for city folk, if food does not enter the city regularly, then many people will be harmed. That's why they will even go as far as to abandon moral behavior and force those transactions. Currently, this is achieved with farm subsidization, at least in many western countries that I know.

 

Would there be no war if all communities and people were self-reliant? At least, for their more urgent needs.

 

Would those who are in power, those who are more influential over the local community, be less susceptible to immoral behavior, when their community is self-reliant?

 

I'm sorry if this topic feels overly hypothetical, but I do feel it can make for a good discussion.

[gwho]

no, it's a cause for cooperation.in a free society, open trade of arms will result in a more even power distribution, making it more costly to fuck with someone. in this scenario, you can only get rich by doing things peacefully. Dependence on cooperation will mean you will focus all your efforts into providing value - the option for violence will be ruled out for you. This is not a cause of conflict. You are "forced" via higher rewards for cooperating (free marekts will be more abundant), and higher costs of trying to take things by force (more ability to resist your criminal and violent endeavors), to do good. So it's not a cause of conflict. Conflict happens when people fuck each other over, and cheat and get away with it. That is only possible through imbalance of power, and in a scenario where violence pays off more than cooperation and justice.Thus market dependence and interdependence results in peace.We can see this today as well. We specialize nad trade with people, and if you screw them over, where will you get the service they provide? If what they provide is very specialized, you can't. If it is not as specialized, youd be knokcing out competition adn making things more expensive for yourself. Today, on an international level, if we trade with certain countries a lot, it becomes more prosperous to continue trading with them. If we don't, then we're like "might as well go invade them and take their shit"."if goods don't cross borders, armies will" - BastiatWe can see why.

[PatrickC]

"Would those who are in power, those who are more influential over the local community, be less susceptible to immoral behavior, when their community is self-reliant?"

 

This question seems to infer that without statism there would still be some kind of power structure that might fall prey to violence. People will only be influential in terms of their reputation. They would have probably displayed many years of observing peaceful and voluntary ways of negotiating successfully within their sphere of knowledge. Since society by then would have decided to do away with the violent monopoly that was the state, they are likely to be very wary of those that are susceptible to it.People will only care about localisation if it can be found to be the most efficient means of production. If not they will import it, since politics will rarely be a considerationin in this matter, only price.

[LovePrevails]

good thread, we all know that povert leads to an increase i crime and whatnot this is a critical issue

 

especialy since most people think libertarians "don't care about the poor"

 

the level of violence in a country, it has been said with some evidence to support it, is proportional to the gap between the haves and have nots

 

of course voluntarist anarchism is probably the best way to narrow this gap

good thread, we all know that povert leads to an increase i crime and whatnot this is a critical issue

 

especialy since most people think libertarians "don't care about the poor"

 

the level of violence in a country, it has been said with some evidence to support it, is proportional to the gap between the haves and have nots

 

of course voluntarist anarchism is probably the best way to narrow this gap

[STer]

You might want to check out Endgame by Derrick Jensen. His argument there is based on defining cities as places with population densities too high to be self-sustaining. This means that they require importation of resources which means that, if they are unable to find those resources cooperatively, there will always be a strong incentive to take them violently. Since civilization is based on cities, this is his argument for why civilization is inherently violent.

 

I'm sure many people on FDR will disagree with him. But he does a good job making the case for that type of an argument and spurs discussion.

[MrCapitalism]

 

Would there be no war if all communities and people were self-reliant? At least, for their more urgent needs.

 

Native American tribes were self sufficient, and they had a lot of wars.

[STer]

Yeah I'm not sure you can say that if all communities are self-reliant there will be no wars. People may fight wars over things other than resources. But Jensen's argument is that as long as we are in civilization based on cities, you will inevitably have them.

[gwho]

war results from your gains being less than the costs. in other words, game theory.no, self reliance won't stop greed, and it sure as hell doesn't affect your potential incentives for attacking and getting even more gain. people don't pay enough attention to game theory, and they don't pay enough attention to economics.

[STer]

war results from your gains being less than the costs. in other words, game theory.no, self reliance won't stop greed, and it sure as hell doesn't affect your potential incentives for attacking and getting even more gain. people don't pay enough attention to game theory, and they don't pay enough attention to economics.

I agree with you that self-reliance won't stop all of this. But I disagree that it doesn't affect your incentives. Of course, the incentives to get enough to survive when you otherwise will die are very strong. The incentives to gain even more out of greed, despite having enough, can also be strong. But I think removing the first category does affect the incentive structure.

[MrCapitalism]

His argument there is based on defining cities as places with population densities too high to be self-sustaining. This means that they require importation of resources which means that, if they are unable to find those resources cooperatively, there will always be a strong incentive to take them violently.

 Why would this be a better course of action than to just leave the city? That seems like it would be a lot easier.

[STer]

 Why would this be a better course of action than to just leave the city? That seems like it would be a lot easier.

He's talking about the global system as a whole, I believe. Civilization as a whole is based on cities which basically extract resources to maintain their high population density. You, as an individual, can leave any particular city. But as long as the whole system is based on cities, they will be out there extracting. In fact, if you leave a city and move to the more rural areas, you will quite possibly just end up on the other side, being part of the community being extracted instead of the one doing the extracting.

 

Either way, the point is that a system based on areas of high population that can't possibly be self-reliant and other areas from which they have a constant incentive or even necessity to take resources, violence, in his view, is inevitable. It's built into that extreme type of structure.

[MrCapitalism]

But the city would extract less from the rural areas by the factor of one individual (me). Likewise, the rural area would increase it's productivity by the factor of one individual (me). And, since my move is with the desire for self sufficiency, why would I allow a city to extract resources from me?

 

These small decisions are the basis of the "global system." A system based on high-population density cities will cease to exist, when these cities cease having high-population densities.

[STer]

But the city would extract less from the rural areas by the factor of one individual (me). Likewise, the rural area would increase it's productivity by the factor of one individual (me). And, since my move is with the desire for self sufficiency, why would I allow a city to extract resources from me?

 

These small decisions are the basis of the "global system." A system based on high-population density cities will cease to exist, when these cities cease having high-population densities.

Your individual choice to move will only pay off for you if it is part of a large movement that shifts the numbers significantly. It's similar to how on certain fundraising sites, you pledge to pay only if enough others also pledge because you know that a threshold has to be reached for your payment to be worthwhile rather than a pointless sacrifice. (These are called Assurance Contracts)

 

I think one of the most central ideas that is commonly promoted on FDR, but which can be somewhat misguided, is this:

 

"This larger system I don't like is just made up of individuals. So all that has to happen is individuals stop playing into it. Therefore, a wise strategy is for me, as an individual, to stop playing into it."

 

This ignores the threshhold issue - your not playing into it, to be more than symbolic, in many cases must be matched by enough others. So either you need to convince enough others to stop playing into it too or you have to hope your move becomes a catalyst that inspires enough others. Only then is it wise as a strategic decision.

 

Now, FDR is a special place because it's filled with outliers who are highly idealistic and willing to go against structural incentivies on principle just as a matter of integrity. I think a lot of them are willing to do so even if they know it won't pay off, just to be true to their preferences. But most people are not that idealistic and are not going to make counter-incentivized decisions unless enough others go along to make it strategically sensible. That is why structures are so important in driving behavior.

[MrCapitalism]

 But it's not a counter-incentivized decision ... if the situation is unsustainable (which I believe is false, I think it's a bunch of propaganda that cities are 'unsustainable'), then the incentives will change to reflect that. People will respond to the incentives, which will increase sustainability.

[STer]

 But it's not a counter-incentivized decision ... if the situation is unsustainable (which I believe is false, I think it's a bunch of propaganda that cities are 'unsustainable'), then the incentives will change to reflect that. People will respond to the incentives, which will increase sustainability.

The incentives only switch at a certain threshold. As long as there is a war going on to extract resources from non-city areas into cities (if that is the case) the incentive is to be on the "winning" side of that in the short-term. There is an inherent bias for doing what works in the short-term because if you don't do that you don't even get to the long-term. When issues of survival are at stake, we should expect people in most cases to do what is incentivized in the short-term.

 

If you mean the incentives will switch once the unsustainability becomes apparent, well people have a great capacity for denial. So they can continue doing something long beyond when the incentives should be pushing them to go another direction. It's actually perceived incentives that matter more than actual incentives for a certain amount of time.

[MrCapitalism]

If you mean the incentives will switch once the unsustainability becomes apparent, well people have a great capacity for denial.

I think their capacity for denial is a lot weaker then their capacity to commit acts of violence in the name of that denial. I'd move before I tried to start a war.. it's easier and has a direct and immediate effect on my life.

[STer]

I think their capacity for denial is a lot weaker then their capacity to commit acts of violence in the name of that denial. I'd move before I tried to start a war.. it's easier and has a direct and immediate effect on my life.

Perhaps I'm still not being clear enough about what I'm saying. You, as an individual, moving doesn't change the game. The game only changes if a mass movement occurs that shifts the overall relationships involved. Otherwise, you're just switching from one side of the war to the other. The war coheres in the relationship between the two sides of it and the way the structure pits them against each other. It doesn't cohere in whether any particular person is on one side or the other.

[PatrickC]

Perhaps I'm still not being clear enough about what I'm saying. You, as an individual, moving doesn't change the game. The game only changes if a mass movement occurs that shifts the overall relationships involved. Otherwise, you're just switching from one side of the war to the other. The war coheres in the relationship between the two sides of it and the way the structure pits them against each other. It doesn't cohere in whether any particular person is on one side or the other.

 

I think you should lay out the full argument in a different thread STer and not in parts. So that people can adequately respond to it.

[STer]

I think you should lay out the full argument in a different thread STer and not in parts. So that people can adequately respond to it.

I'm not sure where I laid it out in parts. I've pretty much already laid it out in full but here it is again with perhaps a tiny bit fleshed out.

 

1) Cities are areas with population densities too high to be self-reliant

2) Therefore cities require importation for survival of their residents

3) If importation is required to survive and others on the outside do not wish to voluntarily provide what is needed, there is an incentive to use force to take it.

4) Very often people on the outside do not wish to give up the needed resources voluntarily

5) Therefore, there is often a life-or-death incentive to use force to take outside resources otherwise unavailable

6) Civilization is based on cities

7) Therefore, civilization has an extremely strong inherent drive toward violence

 

I don't see why this would go in another thread. This is precisely what OP asked about - whether the cycle of violence is based on a dependence on external resources to survive and the fact that, if they are unavailable, there is what he called a "mandate" to take them.

[PatrickC]

You might want to check out Endgame by Derrick Jensen. His argument there is based on defining cities as places with population densities too high to be self-sustaining. This means that they require importation of resources which means that, if they are unable to find those resources cooperatively, there will always be a strong incentive to take them violently. Since civilization is based on cities, this is his argument for why civilization is inherently violent.

Well, I refer you to you first post. Whilst probably an interesting read, no one is likely to read it during the course of this thread. So it might be useful to take it to a different thread, so you can flesh out this position in more detail. You'll probably disagree no doubt, but this is a bit of a trojan horse (re the thread), when you understand the position clearly, without first putting it forward in it's entirety.

[STer]

Well, I refer you to you first post. Whilst probably an interesting read, no one is likely to read it during the course of this thread. So it might be useful to take it to a different thread, so you can flesh out this position in more detail. You'll probably disagree no doubt, but this is a bit of a trojan horse (re the thread), when you understand the position clearly, without first putting it forward in it's entirety.

I referred OP to the book in case he's interested in reading the whole thing since the topic seems so of interest to him. Then I detailed the relevant portion to the thread.

 

Not a clue what you're objecting to. I'm confident I'm in the right thread and I've fleshed the argument out in as much detail as necessary at least once, if not more now. It's not necessary to read the whole book to benefit from this one aspect of the book.

 

I can't imagine you're now claiming that you can't mention an argument you read in a book and name the book it came from without then starting a separate thread on the book. But if you are, I hope you apply the same line of thinking every time someone quotes an argument from Mises or Rothbard or anyone else. In any case, I've heard your opinion and disagree.

 

Now back to discussion of the actual argument made, which I've laid out in 7 points above, or at least the topic OP raised: the relationship between dependence on external resources and violence.

[Phuein]

OP Summary & Followup Questions

 

As the OP, I can only be grateful to have a protagonist in STer and antagonists in xelent, gwho and MrCapitalism. STer quite clearly represented the topic in this thread, which I strongly agree with. I'll check out the book. Great discussion, everyone.

 

On the antagonist side, there are several strong points:

 

- There is war even with self-reliance, such as in the case of Native American tribes.

* We could dispute that there is much less war and violence in tribal society, but that's another topic to argue.

 

- The need for importation is, indeed, a cause for cooperation.

 

- The issue may be redundant in a stateless society, due to lack of hierarchical influence.

 

- Mass migration out of warring cities can solve the issue.

* We are aware of many ancient cities that warred and have fallen, due to mismanagement. It is a sort of answer to the problem, even if it may take a long time and look horrible.

 

Now, that we have laid a good amount of positive and negative statements, let's summarize and try to connect the ideas into our reality.

 

"I'd move before I tried to start a war."

 

Reasonable people would, but most people are not reasonable, and would not move. We can see that in just about any war recorded in history (for me, as a Jew, I see evidence in the holocaust). Even, in many situations when one power is much greater than the other, we still see violent resistance and denial that ends in slaughter.

 

"You, as an individual, moving doesn't change the game."

 

The only way to make unpopular changes profitable (lit. seeming like a good choice) is by marketing them to enough people, so that they become popular. This is incredibly evident in our lives and history. Anyone who is willing to "pay the price" regardless, will not bother with this forum and community. I have tried it, myself, and see why, for anyone who is post-sacrifice, discussion feels painful and irrelevant.

 

Let's move on to the practicalities, now. If it is impossible to resolve market dependency, then it doesn't matter if it is generally a wise practice or not.

 

Is it possible to make self-reliance more popular than dependent markets?

 

Is it possible to make dependent markets fail-proof? So, that in case of failure to trade, all sides have the opportunity to peacefully resolve their dispute, without needing to answer the threat to their livelihoods with war.

 

I hate to admit it, but, personally, I just don't see how it's possible. People would wage war, before they'd risk their resources. It sounds silly, like saying, "I would rather kill others than risk famine," but somehow it's very popular. Especially, in modern society.

[Phuein]

You might want to check out Endgame by Derrick Jensen.

 

Yes, Jensen does identify this specific problem the same as I do. Still, going through his books and hearing him talk, which I've forgotten that I did previously, showed me that he basically makes the case for military-fashion resistance. A sort of guerrilla war against the industries & governments. This is something I cannot support, because I don't think it is reliable nor fair.

 

We are having this discussion, because we are not willing to sacrifice our freedom, for the sake of strangers. We are not willing to police the behavior of others, even if we must suffer their mistakes. We cannot take responsibility for, or own, the mistakes others make; and if we cannot bring them to justice fairly, then we choose to, at least, not repeat their mistakes, knowing that time heals and wisdom mends.

 

If it were not so, then, indeed, war would be the only conclusion to reach.

[STer]

Phuein,

 

You stated a lot of things well. Here is all I really have to add at this point.

 

The war between Native American tribes is not really a counter-argument because nobody is saying the lack of self-reliance is the only reason for war, just that as long as it is the case, there is a huge incentive for war.

 

The need for importation is a cause for potential cooperation just as desperation is a cause for seeking a relationship. However, relationships suffer when neediness is involved. And I think cooperation suffers when desperation is involved.

 

The concept of "too big to fail" seems relevant.

 

You are right about Jensen's ideas on solutions. Of course, they are very controversial. They are good at stirring serious discussion.

 

You say "we are not willing to sacrifice our freedom for the sake of strangers" but Jensen would say strangers have already sacrificed our freedom for us.

 

You say "we are not willing to police the behavior of others," but Jensen would say the issue is others policing our behavior.

 

He would frame this as a case of self-defense.

 

I'm not speaking for myself here. I'm just explaining how he frames things.

 

But his notion that reliance on importation is a constant risk factor for violence is what is most relevant to this thread and can be considered on its own without getting into all of his other views.

[LanceD]

I think we can use examples from recent history as well as the present day to shed some light on this topic.

 

If we investigate our most recent major conflicts, the World Wars, we see examples of two distinct causes of war. The first World War was fought by states that were largely economically independent. While there certainly was trade among the European nations, no nation was crippled economically by losing this trade and thus was able to fight a war with it's neighbors. This allowed the typical nonsense fueled by the states to take hold, nationalism, dehumanizing of the "enemy", etc to fuel the conflict.

 

World War II was of a different sort, it was an example of an unbalanced distribution of power. It was a situation where nations that were utterly dependent were at the same time less powerful then those they depended on. Japan was dependent on the US for oil, Germany was held down by the treaties that ended WWI and buried in an economic hole the victors of the past conflict would never let them out of and I think we all know the rest of the story there.

 

Jumping ahead to present day, while we still have an abundance of conflict we have not had a major war since WWII. This is largely due to globalization of the world's economy. All of the nation's world powers are utterly reliant on each other. The US depends on China for manufacturing cheap goods (this reliance is much more important then that sounds but I won't go into detail how this supports the US' fiat currency we have and the Fed), while China depends on the flow of cash from the US to maintain their absurd levels of economic growth. On the other side of the world Europe is utterly dependent on Russian oil, while Russia needs the flow of Euro's coming in to prop up their failed democracy. This has created a situation similar to that with nuclear weapons and the idea of Mutually Assured Destruction, starting a war with any of the other world powers would assure economic devastation. 

 

I would also argue that the present day conflicts that are going on, mostly in the Middle East, further support this idea. While the world markets need oil out of the middle east the conflicts arise out of an unbalanced distribution of power. These nations have the oil the world needs, but they do not have the ability to defend themselves. This creates a situation where it is more beneficial for the world powers to just move in and take it, rather then trade for it on equal terms.

 

So I would conclude that if a situation were created where arms were more evenly distributed and a balance of power could be reached, it would always be more beneficial for groups of people to trade for the things they can't supply for themselves, rather then take it by force.

[STer]

So I would conclude that if a situation were created where arms were more evenly distributed and a balance of power could be reached, it would always be more beneficial for groups of people to trade for the things they can't supply for themselves, rather then take it by force.

And what if someone has something you absolutely need to survive and they refuse to trade it?

[LanceD]

How would it be possible for me to find myself in a situation where I have only one option for where to get a necessity?

 

A free society would create more opportunity for how and where to acquire what you need. Do you really think food, water or energy will be monopolized in such a society?

[STer]

How would it be possible for me to find myself in a situation where I have only one option for where to get a necessity?A free society would create more opportunity for how and where to acquire what you need. Do you really think food, water or energy will be monopolized in such a society?

I don't think it matters if it's only one option or five or fifty. Natural resources are where they are. Those on the land that has those resources can choose to trade or not trade. And if not enough of them will trade you what you need to support your population, what will you do? Either enough are willing to trade or not enough are willing to trade.

[LanceD]

Well now it sounds like you are talking about things people want, not things they need.

 

The necessities, food, water and shelter are relatively easy for communities to provide for themselves. These are the things that have the real potential to start conflicts, yet a society reasonable enough to exist without a state would not have issue assuring these things are provided.

 

The other things, the wants and things we use to bring ourselves technology and comfort are another matter. Even if shortages of one thing or another occur the free market is very good at providing a supply for a demand. Whether its a new source for said resource, a replacement for it or a new technology that eliminates its need.

 

Lastly, in your question you asked what would I do. Posing the dilemma to me as if I was the leader of a nation or other group of people. Well if we are discussing what would happen in a free society my response would be, who the hell cares what one man would do!

 

A free society would not empower one man to make such a decision and steal resources from those around him in order to back his decision with the force of arms. A free society would have a million people with a million opinions all worried about different things!

[STer]

Well now it sounds like you are talking about things people want, not things they need.

But I specifically said "And if not enough of them will trade you what you need to support your population" 

The necessities, food, water and shelter are relatively easy for communities to provide for themselves.

Really? Name some major American cities that provide all of those things for themselves. I think some people in Arizona would be really interested to hear about how they can provide all their own water, for instance. 

These are the things that have the real potential to start conflicts, yet a society reasonable enough to exist without a state would not have issue assuring these things are provided.

So being reasonable magically makes natural resources appear in new places? 

The other things, the wants and things we use to bring ourselves technology and comfort are another matter. Even if shortages of one thing or another occur the free market is very good at providing a supply for a demand. Whether its a new source for said resource, a replacement for it or a new technology that eliminates its need.

I'm talking about necessities here, even though it's just an additional problem that societies will even fight over things they only perceive as necessary. And it is pure faith to believe the free market will just eliminate basic survival needs or replace everything from water to food. 

Lastly, in your question you asked what would I do. Posing the dilemma to me as if I was the leader of a nation or other group of people. Well if we are discussing what would happen in a free society my response would be, who the hell cares what one man would do!

Forget being the leader of anything. If you need something to survive and nobody will trade it to you, what would you do? In fact, in a free society this question is even more relevant. The way things are now, it is more of a hypothetical since you have people in power depriving you of the ability to really make such decisions for yourself in many cases. In a free society, it really would be up to you to make your decisions more than it is now. So what would you do? 

A free society would not empower one man to make such a decision and steal resources from those around him in order to back his decision with the force of arms. A free society would have a million people with a million opinions all worried about different things!

And you would be one of those millions. And what is your one-in-a-million opinion on what to do when a survival need is not being offered in trade to you?

[Josh F]

good thread, we all know that povert leads to an increase i crime and whatnot this is a critical issue

I believe the opposite is true.  An increase in crime and violence and coercion leads to poverty.  Poor people aren't inherently violent, but violence inherently depreciates value. 

Is it our dependency on external resources that maintains the vicious cycle of war and the corruption of those in power?

 

Humans are all dependent on external resources, and it is fundamental to biology as a whole.  Corruption and war limit our access to those resources as a whole. 

[STer]

Humans are all dependent on external resources, and it is fundamental to biology as a whole.  Corruption and war limit our access to those resources as a whole. 

I think in this situation, the OP, by "external" means external to their community, not external to their body. In other words, they have to rely on other human beings outside their own community to get those resources because they do not have enough of them that they can produce on their own land.

[Josh F]

That is the important conclusion I was trying to draw out, actually.  That demand for resources is universal.  The only variable is the community.  Right, so it is possible for an individual or community not to use violence to obtain the resources they desire.  I don't personally use violence, and I live in a country which doesn't use violence on other communities, in fact, they don't have a standing army.  Therefor, it is the community and how it is structured which determines if violence is used to gain resources.

 

I would take it further and argue that communities which don't use violence receive more access to resources.  Costa Rica, where I live,  enjoys the highest quality of life in Central America and is the only country without a military. An argument I articulated in my first quote, that violence causes poverty.

[STer]

That is the important conclusion I was trying to draw out, actually.  That demand for resources is universal.  The only variable is the community.  Right, so it is possible for an individual or community not to use violence to obtain the resources they desire.  I don't personally use violence, and I live in a country which doesn't use violence on other communities, in fact, they don't have a standing army.  Therefor, it is the community and how it is structured which determines if violence is used to gain resources.

 

I would take it further and argue that communities which don't use violence receive more access to resources.  Costa Rica, where I live,  enjoys the highest quality of life in Central America and is the only country without a military. An argument I articulated in my first quote, that violence causes poverty.

Demand for resources is universal. But dependence on external communities for those resources not only is not universal, but the opposite was just about true for most of our history. Until pretty recently in human history, almost everyone was self-sustaining or they didn't survive. Being self-sustaining was the norm.

 

It is possible for someone not to use violence to obtain resources...as long as there are other parties willing to provide them voluntarily. But there aren't always. As settlers spread west across America, for instance, were the natives always perfectly happy to give them the resources they needed? Of course not, and can you blame them? And sometimes the natives didn't want to trade those resources away even if the settlers could offer something valuable in return. Just one reason might be that those resources had sentimental or traditional value to them that went beyond anything material. Sometimes people simply don't want to trade something away that you need.

 

Remember, the argument being made is that cities are places with populations large enough to require importation, which then offers an incentive to use violence if those resources are not given or traded willingly. The argument isn't about people in just any structure. As you say, the social structure is the issue here. If populations are too densely packed into areas that cannot sustain themselves, then you have a great risk for violence. It's kind of like a "too big to fail" scenario. Having a huge structure like that doesn't guarantee violence...but it makes it a whole lot more likely.

[PatrickC]

There is a saying that when nations trade together they never go to war. The moment they stop trading with each other is the moment a war can begin.

 

I mean you can take the most ominous suggestion and assume that nations that want to war will stop trading with their enemies, so as to force them into battle. But war is such an economic suicide for a nation, that it can only be idots or sociopaths that would persue it. Trading voluntarily is the most economically efficient way to become wealthy. How else did the free trade of the 1800's make Britain such a wealthy country that led the world with its industrial revolution. Arguably this brought untold wealth to the rest of the world, with its innovations and creativity.

 

Cities I imagine will change without statism I imagine. For instance London currently equates to a total GDP of the total UK economy at around 34%. This has a lot to do with the incentives that the state employs that means certain industries profit vastly from being in London. This has grown year on year and has seen an almost 10% increase in population since 1993., whilst everywhere else has mostly remained the same or shrunk even. In the past Britians wealth and GDP were evenly shared across the country, when things were much less regulated or nationalised.

 

I really think the idea that people would war over resources naturally is just an old leftist view that assumes greed as some kind of vicarious disease of the mind, inherent in all business owners. Everyone that is in business wants to trade with others freely and voluntarily. Anyone that has run a business knows this. It's only ever been the state that went to war over resources and more often than not, for inexplicable reasons such as Iraq.