Market Dependency As Cause For Conflict

[Josh F]

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.

 

I already articulated a counter to this argument, above.  What didn't you understand regarding my argument about violence reducing your access to resources?  Your example of the violent process of Manifest Destiny is an excellent example, because in all cases where the settlers weren't violent towards the native, they enjoyed free trade, we even celebrate the holiday of Thanksgiving because of this fact. 

 

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.

 

What would I have to prove in order to dissuade you from your argument?  If there is no evidence I can provide which can convince you, this isn't worth the attempt for me.  Thus far I provided evidence, which I feel you ignored, only to repeat your point as if nothing new was articulated.  I would love it if you gave what I said more consideration.   

Let me provide a contemporary American example.  The United States went to war in Iraq, arguably to protect their access to oil.  Have oil prices increased or decreased since the war in Iraq?  Now, the United States enjoys a completely non-violent relationship with China.  And China is the largest trade partner to the United States. 

[STer]

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.

The issue isn't whether they trade or not in general. The issue is that a certain group may happen to live on land with a particular valuable resource that they would prefer to keep to themselves, whether so they and their descendants can use it or even just because it has religious meaning to them or whatever. NAP says they have every right not to trade that resource. But if someone else lacks that resource because they do not live on land that has it or can produce it, we have a conflict. If they can find some other group that also has it to trade, then problem averted. But if it's a relatively scarce resource and people don't want to trade it, you have a major problem. It has nothing to do with greed. We're talking about something needed for basic survival, not luxury items.

Let me provide a contemporary American example.  The United States went to war in Iraq, arguably to protect their access to oil.  Have oil prices increased or decreased since the war in Iraq?  Now, the United States enjoys a completely non-violent relationship with China.  And China is the largest trade partner to the United States. 

Note: This is in response to your whole post, but because of how you're doing quoting, it's only quoting that last part. I had a hard time figuring out how to quote multiple parts too. You need to click the top left icon which will open up the code and then you can copy and paste the beginning quote and end quotes around various sections and then respond between them. It will make it a lot easier to go back and forth that way.

 

I can't understand how you're claiming violence reduces your access to resources as if things always work in that order. As if you are trading happily, then you start being violent so your access is taken away. Sure that could happen. But the situation we're talking about is where trade is first refused and then violence ensues as a response. You're not saying things don't also happen in that order are you? You're not saying that violence is never the response to refusal to trade rather than the cause?

 

Thanksgiving has to do with an instance with certain settlers and certain natives. Nobody said there were never any friendly interactions or trades going on. But there were countless situations where, unlike in that one, the natives preferred not to trade and wanted to be left alone. The settlers wanted what they had (and in some cases needed what they had). We know what that led to.

 

How can you say "In all cases where the settlers weren't violent toward the native, they enjoyed free trade"? Really? The natives were always happy to trade whatever the settlers wanted and only resisted after violence was used? The natives never wanted to be left alone, did not want to trade certain things but to keep them to themselves, and then were attacked a result of that?

 

What you would have to do to convince me is this.

 

Here is the scenario. You have a city of a million people that can't provide its own water. And it can't find anyone else willing to provide that water voluntarily because, for whatever reasons, they wish to keep it to themselves. Tell me what you suggest the people in that city do in lieu of violence.

 

This is not some outrageous hypothetical. We already have battles over water going on right in the Western US. They want to take water from the Great Lakes. The people in the Great Lakes areas don't necessarily want to give that water up. Luckily, the situation isn't quite so dire in that case that it's on the verge of violence. But the situation I raise above is not only possible, but has happened throughout civilization.

 

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my argument. My argument isn't that trade never happens or that trade isn't great when it happens. My argument is that people can refuse to trade and do refuse to trade sometimes and if you need a resource and nobody will trade it to you, you are in a bind. If you think such a situation never happens, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you agree that it does happen sometimes, my question is what do you expect people in that situation to do and why would you not think this is a huge risk factor for violence?

 

Also, as far as Iraq and oil, that's not a good example. We may have protected access to the oil. But we didn't actually take the oil. The price would be a lot lower if we actually took the resource, not just fought to maintain an open line to continue trading for it. The settlers didn't attack the Indians and then say "Ok now how much for this land." They attacked and said "Our land now." That made the price 0 (other than the cost of the attack itself). Surely you're not saying that things cost more to steal violently than to buy.

[Josh F]

Here is the scenario. You have a city of a million people that can't provide its own water. And it can't find anyone else willing to provide that water voluntarily because, for whatever reasons, they wish to keep it to themselves. Tell me what you suggest the people in that city do in lieu of violence.

 

This is not some outrageous hypothetical. We already have battles over water going on right in the Western US. They want to take water from the Great Lakes. The people in the Great Lakes areas don't necessarily want to give that water up. Luckily, the situation isn't quite so dire in that case that it's on the verge of violence. But the situation I raise above is not only possible, but has happened throughout civilization.

 

I'm not sure if you're misunderstanding my argument. My argument isn't that trade never happens or that trade isn't great when it happens. My argument is that people can refuse to trade and do refuse to trade sometimes and if you need a resource and nobody will trade it to you, you are in a bind. If you think such a situation never happens, we'll just have to agree to disagree. If you agree that it does happen sometimes, my question is what do you expect people in that situation to do and why would you not think this is a huge risk factor for violence?

It is an absurd hypothetical, and you know that.  You sensed this was going to be my reply because it so obviously absurd, that you already began defending it.  Then you admit your own defense wasn't really equal to the hypothetical. 

 

Water is one of the most abundant resources, it is impossible no one would want to trade it for large sums of money to a desperate but non-violent population. If there is a historical example which meets your hypothetical (A peaceful community unable to access water who can't find anyone who will trade it), post it here please. 

 

I am completely comprehending your argument, but I find it unsupported by evidence.  If you want to present a reasonable criteria by which I can defend my argument, I will defend it, otherwise I don't want to get caught up in some circular battle of egos. 

 

I think my thesis is sound, and actually a valuable and profound way of looking at things often ignored, and which confirms this communities general ethics of free trade and non-violence.  I gave you real examples of a country which doesn't use violence to achieve its trade goals with other countries, and that it was the most prosperous country in the region.  You'll find trade between countries who are peaceful results in more resource acquisition than the resources gained by conquest. 

 

Also, as far as Iraq and oil, that's not a good example. We may have protected access to the oil. But we didn't actually take the oil.

So Saddam and the Iraqi government still run the oil to their demands, without threat of violence?  Let's not get caught on this topic about Iraq, please don't bother defending this plainly sophist assertion.  Your approach in this topic is highlighting my point in our other topic.  Your approach of trying to win this topic, is value neutral, and will never progress forward.  You're not convincing me, you're going deeper into a quote hole, a tit for tat, and I have little desire to give you the benefit of the doubt because you're not treating my arguments with respect.  Empathy, in this context, would be very useful to you, you could be asking questions to determine if maybe I am actually making a good point or not.  Instead you're going to disagree with every single thing I am saying with any desperate and sophist argument you can.

 

So forget this debate man, I don't care people can decide for themselves.  More important to me is understanding what your motive is with this topic?  Why are you trying to prove the demand for resources is sometimes best solved with violence?  Have you personally used violence to gain resources?  Have you, or do you currently, support people (like the US Government) who do use violence to gain resources? 

[Guest darkskyabove]

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

 

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.

 

History Nazi strikes again!!!

 

I call Fallacy of Composition. Just because some Native American tribes were war-like, does not mean all.

 

The main exception is the tribes of the Pacific Northwest (possibly the Cherokee, and others, as well). And being capable of defense does not qualify as being war-like. Their history lends credence to the resource issue. The tribes of Washington and Oregon had abundant resources: fresh water, fish and wildlife, and numerous plant species. The tribes of the central plains, extending from the southern deserts to the Canadian tundra, had far less. Without subjecting myself to the drudgery of research, common sense would indicate a correlation between resources and inherent violence.

 

When one has plenty to eat, one is less likely to be gung-ho for war. Of course, I'm applying that to a more primitive lifestyle.

 

Tune in next week for more from the History Nazi!

[STer]

It is an absurd hypothetical, and you know that.  You sensed this was going to be my reply because it so obviously absurd, that you already began defending it.  Then you admit your own defense wasn't really equal to the hypothetical.  Water is one of the most abundant resources, it is impossible no one would want to trade it for large sums of money to a desperate but non-violent population. If there is a historical example which meets your hypothetical (A peaceful community unable to access water who can't find anyone who will trade it), post it here please.

You think water shortages are an absurd hypothetical? We'll have to disagree on that. You also are really dodging the main point by focusing on the specific of water, though, which was a purely arbitrary example of any resource someone needs to survive. If you don't like water, then forget water. Fill it in with any other necessity. If your argument is that there is never a case where people can't find willing trading partners for necessities, we just disagree to the point where there isn't much more to say about it. My example of the Western US wasn't to show my hypothetical doesn't happen, but, on the contrary, to show that it's so feasible that there are even early stages of it within the US with something as basic as water. If even here, within the US, we have concerns over water importation being necessary from places hesitant to give it up, imagine what goes on around the world (or what may happen over time if things get worse). Just google "wars over water" and such terms to find more things to read than you can count. But again, if you don't want to focus on water, focus on any other necessity. I'm kind of surprised that you'd actually try to say that on a planet with 7 billion people, many of them densely packed into cities, it's just an outrageous hypothetical to believe people will be in positions where they cannot find people willing to trade them what they need. And this ignores that the population is increasing, as well. But this ties into the "infinite natural resources" fantasy some people have perhaps. 

I am completely comprehending your argument, but I find it unsupported by evidence.  If you want to present a reasonable criteria by which I can defend my argument, I will defend it, otherwise I don't want to get caught up in some circular battle of egos.

I don't know where you see egos involved. You seem to be stating that people do not end up in situations where they need something and cannot find someone to trade it to them. I've already given you the entire history of Manifest Destiny as just one example full of cases of that. You seem to be saying that people are always able to find someone to trade them what they need and that there are not groups of people who need resources and end up using violence to try to get them out of desperation. 

I think my thesis is sound, and actually a valuable and profound way of looking at things often ignored, and which confirms this communities general ethics of free trade and non-violence.  I gave you real examples of a country which doesn't use violence to achieve its trade goals with other countries, and that it was the most prosperous country in the region.  You'll find trade between countries who are peaceful results in more resource acquisition than the resources gained by conquest.

 These examples are not relevant because, once again, my argument is not "Countries that trade openly can't do very well." My argument is that, for a variety of reasons, this is not always going to happen. When countries both have things they wish to trade, they have that trade and do nicely. What does that have to do with the completely different situation I'm talking about where someone does NOT want to trade something that someone else needs? They are completely different situations. If I have something you want and you have something I want just as much and we trade and everything goes nicely, that's great. It has nothing whatsoever to do with a completely different situation where someone needs something and nobody wants to trade that thing away. 

So Saddam and the Iraqi government still run the oil to their demands, without threat of violence?  Let's not get caught on this topic about Iraq, please don't bother defending this plainly sophist assertion.  Your approach in this topic is highlighting my point in our other topic.  Your approach of trying to win this topic, is value neutral, and will never progress forward.  You're not convincing me, you're going deeper into a quote hole, a tit for tat, and I have little desire to give you the benefit of the doubt because you're not treating my arguments with respect.  Empathy, in this context, would be very useful to you, you could be asking questions to determine if maybe I am actually making a good point or not.  Instead you're going to disagree with every single thing I am saying with any desperate and sophist argument you can.

I disagree because I think your arguments are not sound. And this thread is clearly not a personal discussion of feelings. If you have a personal issue where you need some personal discussion and some empathy about it, I'm happy to do that, but I hardly think this thread, in the middle of a hardcore economics and war topic is the place for that. I find the argument you're making - that people do not end up in situations where they need something that nobody wants to trade to them - pretty extreme. You're saying everyone can always find a willing trade partner for everything they need. And even more, you're saying this will continue to be the case even as the population continues growing. We just disagree.

 

By the way, you can add on to that that it doesn't even matter if someone is willing to trade at all. It matters if they are willing to trade at a price that can be afforded. Perhaps if the demand was high enough, someone would be willing to sell for a high enough price. But if that price is too high, the situation remains. There is an incentive to use violence. 

So forget this debate man, I don't care people can decide for themselves.  More important to me is understanding what your motive is with this topic?  Why are you trying to prove the demand for resources is sometimes best solved with violence?  Have you personally used violence to gain resources?  Have you, or do you currently, support people (like the US Government) who do use violence to gain resources?

Well I had already responded to the rest of your post before getting to the end to hear you wanted to forget the debate. I'm not going to erase what I already typed, but I will now respond to this part. First, remember this was not my topic. Someone else asked if external dependence for resources was a cause for violence. I referred him to work that makes that argument. Again you seem to have what I'm trying to say literally completely backward. The point here isn't that violence is a desirable or tolerable solution for lack of resources. The point was that, because high-density population centers increase the risk for violence, high-density population centers are very unhealthy for humanity. The writer I was referencing in response to the OP is one who believes that the structure of civilized societies is inherently violent and that we should therefore change that structure - quite far from saying the violence is ok, he is absolutely not ok with it and believes it is imperative to change to a structure that will not cause as much conflict over resources. Somehow you got the completely reversed idea that I'm saying that it's ok to have things as they are and just use violence to get the demands met. No. What I'm saying is that a structure that increases the likelihood of such situations occurring is not a sustainable or healthy structure.

[Josh F]

Well I had already responded to the rest of your post before getting to the end.

This is what I mean though.  Convincing you is not an option on the table right now. 

[STer]

This is what I mean though.  Convincing you is not an option on the table right now. 

I'm not sure how that is "what you mean." When I respond to a post, I read through it and respond as I go. If you wait until the end of a long post to mention you don't want to discuss what you just spent 5 paragraphs discussing, I'm probably not going to see it until I've already gone through what you put before it.

 

If you want to change a subject or end a debate, you should probably put it at the beginning not the end.

 

Convincing me is an option. I told you how you could do it. You refused to do so and claimed my question was absurd. I disagree that it's absurd. And convincing you that it isn't absurd doesn't seem to be an option on the table.

 

Ultimately, you are making an incredibly bold statement. You are (or my understanding is that you are) saying that when people somewhere need resources, they can always find a trade partner willing to trade them what they need at a price they can afford. I think that's a remarkable statement. If you really believe that's the case, then we just have a factual disagreement. I think people sometimes need things and nobody will willingly trade them it at a price they can afford. I think that situation arises. You seem to think it doesn't arise. As you said, people can make their own judgment.

[Josh F]

There is no reason to invent my thesis for me, I made it fairly clear. 

[STer]

There is no reason to invent my thesis for me, I made it fairly clear. 

I've made clear that what I said was my understanding of your thesis multiple times. I didn't notice you say "No that isn't my thesis. This is my thesis." and then correct me. So I thought I was understanding what you were saying.

 

Here is the thesis I've been suggesting, quite succinctly:

 

"At a certain density of population, some regions can no longer provide all of their population's necessities from within. Therefore, they must get some of them from outside their bounds. As long as someone outside is willing to trade them those resources at an affordable price, all is well. Sometimes, nobody is willing to trade those resources at an affordable price, and, in that case, there is an incentive for violence."

 

Perhaps if you state your thesis in just 3 or 4 sentences like that we can get more clear on what each other are really saying if you believe I'm not understanding your thesis. I have been doing my best to understand it. If I've misunderstood it, then perhaps zeroing in on it very concisely will help me grasp it more accurately.

 

But if you prefer to just drop the discussion, that is fine too.

 

By the way, where the heck is the OP? Get back in here OP!

[PatrickC]

The issue isn't whether they trade or not in general. The issue is that a certain group may happen to live on land with a particular valuable resource that they would prefer to keep to themselves, whether so they and their descendants can use it or even just because it has religious meaning to them or whatever. NAP says they have every right not to trade that resource. But if someone else lacks that resource because they do not live on land that has it or can produce it, we have a conflict. If they can find some other group that also has it to trade, then problem averted. But if it's a relatively scarce resource and people don't want to trade it, you have a major problem. It has nothing to do with greed. We're talking about something needed for basic survival, not luxury items.

 

I got to say most of that seems highly unlikely to end up in war. Firstly outside communities are likely to accept a community that only possesses a self sufficient resource and will just look elsewhere for that resource. The chances of a basic need resource not being available elsewhere is just so unlikely as to be absurd. Any community that has an excess resource is most likely to exchange it in trade as they are likely to need some other resource themselves. For instance cities bring the country great art, film or design. This would be a valuable commodity in country communities that were unable to produce such things.

 

This  is really sounding like leftist scare mongering and lifeboat scenarios. Which is ironic, because it's traditionally Marxists that did go to war over resources.

[STer]

I got to say most of that seems highly unlikely to end up in war. Firstly outside communities are likely to accept a community that only possesses a self sufficient resource and will just look elsewhere for that resource. The chances of a basic need resource not being available elsewhere is just so unlikely as to be absurd. Any community that has an excess resource is most likely to exchange it in trade as they are likely to need some other resource themselves. For instance cities bring the country great art, film or design. This would be a valuable commodity in country communities that were unable to produce such things.

 

This  is really sounding like leftist scare mongering and lifeboat scenarios. Which is ironic, because it's traditionally Marxists that did go to war over resources.

As I pointed out, the issue isn't just that the resource may not be available at all anywhere else. It's that the price may be too high.

 

You said "Any community that has an excess resource is most likely to exchange it in trade..." 

 

But again, we're talking about when they either do not have an excess or, if they do, they would rather save it for later or for future generations. Is it really so hard to believe that sometimes people don't want to trade a particular resource?

 

It's kind of hard for me to believe that something as basic as a needed resource not being freely available for trade - which has happened countless times, including throughout the history of US settlement, as already pointed out - is being painted as some sort of outrageous scare tactic. Our basic worldviews appear to be remarkably different.

[PatrickC]

Ok, so if one community doesn't, then resources will be found elsewhere. With such a big market as a city, they'll be no doubt lots of people trying to find a market for such a resources. Or they will just offer higher prices to offset the need/advantage for such a community to hoard. There are an assortment of market mechanisms before war could ever ensue.

 

I still stand by your argument being scaremongering

[STer]

Ok, so if one community doesn't, then resources will be found elsewhere. With such a big market as a city, they'll be no doubt lots of people trying to find a market for such a resources. Or they will just offer higher prices to offset the need/advantage for such a community to hoard. There are an assortment of market mechanisms before war could ever ensue.

 

I still stand by your argument being scaremongering

I feel like we're going in circles. I'm not talking about a case where they can find it elsewhere. I'm talking about a situation where it can't be found elsewhere or the price is simply too high to get the amount needed - which is a great big amount because of the enormous size of modern cities. You don't just need some of these resources. You need a lot. Enough to support the entire population. And so does everyone else in every other huge density center on the planet.

 

Have you never had something that you wouldn't part with because it is dear to you? Especially with native or indigenous cultures, such things are very common. If the settlement of the US will just continue to be ignored, then let's look at what goes on with indigenous cultures now. How many stories have we heard where natives did not want industry coming onto their land and taking resources and fought at all odds against it? In some cases, they even were willing to commit suicide before parting with their land or resources. What happens in those cases? Are they told "Oh alright then, we understand. We'll just go find someone else willing to trade it to us voluntarily because it's so abundant and easy to find what we need"? I don't think so.

 

You say I'm scaremongering. I say you're in denial.

[PatrickC]

I feel like we're going in circles. I'm not talking about a case where they can find it elsewhere. I'm talking about a situation where it can't be found elsewhere or the price is simply too high to get the amount needed - which is a great big amount because of the enormous size of modern cities. You don't just need some of these resources. You need a lot. Enough to support the entire population. And so does everyone else in every other huge density center on the planet.

 

I still see this as a lifeboat scenario. It's highly unlikely that cities will grow to such sizes without those resources being met from the outside. Conversely cities would have to provide things the outside need. It's called the division of labour.

 

Suggesting that either community is mutually exclusive would be absurd. Of course it's entirely possible that cities may shrink, as and when resources or that division of labour are not being met. People will simply move to where the jobs are before taking up arms.

 

It is only a state that can hoard in this manner. Individuals will just go elsewhere to find those resources.

[STer]

I still see this as a lifeboat scenario. It's highly unlikely that cities will grow to such sizes without those resources being met from the outside. Conversely cities would have to provide things the outside need. It's called the division of labour.

 

Suggesting that either community is mutually exclusive would be absurd. Of course it's entirely possible that cities may shrink, as and when resources or that division of labour are not being met. People will simply move to where the jobs are before taking up arms.

 

It is only a state that can hoard in this manner. Individuals will just go elsewhere to find those resources.

Cities already are that size and were grown that way by getting resources from outside, often violently. Cities don't have to provide things the outside needs if they take the resources violently.

 

It's almost as if you're having a completely different discussion than the one I'm having. Zero response about the US settlement and the violence to take resources the natives did not want to give freely. Zero response about the constant violations of indigenous peoples that still go on in order to take their resources when, according to you, those resources can easily be found in abundance elsewhere available for trade. 

 

I think OP's point was quite valid and worth consideration. At this point I don't think I have much more to say on this unless OP returns and responds to his thread.

[PatrickC]

Well, if you are discussing the current state of city growth, then yes there are many problems with that growth. Not less the welfare state and the subsidizing of certain industry. I do think cities (particularly Europe) are likely to shrink, as the division of labour becomes more evenly spread.

[Phuein]

OP Summary #2

 

Jumping ahead to present day, while we still have an abundance of conflict we have not had a major war since WWII...

 

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.

 

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...

 

...But war is such an economic suicide for a nation, that it can only be [idiots] or sociopaths that would [pursue] 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.

 

Let me provide a contemporary American example.  The United States went to war in Iraq, arguably to protect their access to oil.  Have oil prices increased or decreased since the war in Iraq?  Now, the United States enjoys a completely non-violent relationship with China.  And China is the largest trade partner to the United States. 

 

When I respond to a post, I read through it and respond as I go...

 

If you want to change a subject or end a debate, you should probably put it at the beginning not the end.

 

I got to say most of that seems highly unlikely to end up in war...

 

This  is really sounding like leftist scare mongering and lifeboat scenarios.

 

First, it's important to note that this is a discussion. Naturally, conclusions are not mandatory here, but it is expected that their place will be at the end, rather than in the beginning of posts.

 

While the opposite would be more comfortable to the reader, the natural way of reaching conclusions in a discussion is by defining statements that seem true, and only defining conclusions after the statements.

 

So, let us make order in this thread, for the sake of future readers! :-)

 

The Perspectives

 

1. Market dependency cannot be avoided, and so it does not have a moral value.

 

2. Market dependency is beneficial, as we can see in cases of countries with good trade relationships and little conflict (e.g. America with China.)

 

3. Market dependency is a major cause for conflict. Local independent sustenance should be considered a defensible right (self-defense) and morally justified.

 

4. In a stateless society, where coercion is an unaccepted practice, market dependency will not be a cause for conflict. In other words, only a state would benefit from using force to get resources, but free traders would never benefit from initiating force to resolve trade disagreements over dependencies.

 

What does it mean either way?

 

I asked the questions about market dependencies, because my freedom is conflicting with the interests of those in power, and I wanted to understand better why that is so.

 

Why is it that those fascist pigs care that I have my own water and a remote piece of land?

 

What do they lose if I am really free? What do they gain if I am not free?

 

After all, they have so much, and I have.... Well, just about nothing, in comparison.

 

Kings and Emperors would take crops, slaves and soldiers, but they would not, otherwise, bother the common people. People were free, if they managed to stay out of sight, which was an actual practicality for most, as farmers and partial nomads.

 

So, I'm trying to understand if this is simply another case of NAP violation, or if it is a case of human greed, that is not yet defined as a violation of NAP, so clearly, such as in the case of not giving water to a thirsting person, in the desert.

 

What do you think about my conundrum?

[PatrickC]

As I earlier suggested the problems stem from the state either commandeering the market or granting privileges to certain companies within a particular market. The latter exhibited by the current US postal service, which is an umitigated disaster. Where you see large amounts of competition, such as in computing, you see a gradual lowering of prices and better hardware over the years. This despite the money printing by the worlds central banks.

 

But in regards to cities and outside communities in a situation of decentralised or non state environment, i.e. no one person or institution holds the monopoly of force against all the rest. Businesses, farmers, communities, developers, individuals will be forced to negotiate and cooperate with each other. Bear in mind that war is a huge cost and so most people will be looking for the best and most peaceful alternatives all round. If this means cities must shrink and diminish in size, then so be it. Since the market wont be providing it's populations with enough work, then they will simply move elsewhere.It's hard to argue that current city growth has anything to do with the free market, given all the subsidizing of a privileged sectors. So I agree that some form of significant shrinkage will occur, but unlikely while the state still wields so much power with taxation and borrowing. My thoughts are that if there is a need for cities in the market place, then cities will happen, if not, then they will simply disappear and in a stateless society that would most likely happen peacefully and over a period of time I guess.

[STer]

 

OP Summary #2

 

 

 

 

 

 

First, it's important to note that this is a discussion. Naturally, conclusions are not mandatory here, but it is expected that their place will be at the end, rather than in the beginning of posts.

 

While the opposite would be more comfortable to the reader, the natural way of reaching conclusions in a discussion is by defining statements that seem true, and only defining conclusions after the statements.

 

So, let us make order in this thread, for the sake of future readers! :-)

 

The Perspectives

 

1. Market dependency cannot be avoided, and so it does not have a moral value.

 

2. Market dependency is beneficial, as we can see in cases of countries with good trade relationships and little conflict (e.g. America with China.)

 

3. Market dependency is a major cause for conflict. Local independent sustenance should be considered a defensible right (self-defense) and morally justified.

 

4. In a stateless society, where coercion is an unaccepted practice, market dependency will not be a cause for conflict. In other words, only a state would benefit from using force to get resources, but free traders would never benefit from initiating force to resolve trade disagreements over dependencies.

 

What does it mean either way?

 

I asked the questions about market dependencies, because my freedom is conflicting with the interests of those in power, and I wanted to understand better why that is so.

 

Why is it that those fascist pigs care that I have my own water and a remote piece of land?

 

What do they lose if I am really free? What do they gain if I am not free?

 

After all, they have so much, and I have.... Well, just about nothing, in comparison.

 

Kings and Emperors would take crops, slaves and soldiers, but they would not, otherwise, bother the common people. People were free, if they managed to stay out of sight, which was an actual practicality for most, as farmers and partial nomads.

 

So, I'm trying to understand if this is simply another case of NAP violation, or if it is a case of human greed, that is not yet defined as a violation of NAP, so clearly, such as in the case of not giving water to a thirsting person, in the desert.

 

What do you think about my conundrum?

 

 

Well first of all, I don't think your list of perspectives covers what I've been talking about. I'm putting forth Jensen's idea, not that market dependence is good or bad, which is a separate issue, but that extremely high-density social structures like cities, which require importation, lead to a problem when they are market-dependent for necessities. That doesn't mean market dependence is always good or bad. It just means that market dependence for necessities, in the context of very high population-density centers, often leads to a higher risk of conflict. It's not an argument against the market, but an argument against having society set up in cities (ie: civilization - a social system based on cities)

 

For me the thread comes down to two questions:

 

1) Can a group of people end up needing something that nobody will trade them for at a price they can afford? - I think it's not only feasible, but has happened many times. If you think this can't happen, then there is nowhere further to go with the discussion.

 

2) If you think #1 can happen, then what do you think will be the result? - I think that regardless of morality, many, in the face of survival need, will use violence in that situation. Otherwise, they will perish. If you think #1 can happen, but that people in that position will not use violence, you are saying that people will sit passively and perish. In some cases, you're right, they will. They may feel so strongly about peace that they would rather perish than use violence. But I don't think that's the norm.

 

My initial response to what you say your concern is here is this:

 

Those in power, like most companies, don't like competition. They don't see your little piece of freedom as a threat in itself. But if you are able to go too far with it, then what happens if more and more people do it? So that kind of competition has to be quashed as a general policy.

 

However, I'm not sure why you say you can't have a remote piece of land with your water. Why can't you? Aren't there people who have that right now? As you say, you might get taxed on it, but, unless they want to take that land for eminent domain or something, why do you feel you wouldn't be allowed to live that way?

[PatrickC]

1) Can a group of people end up needing something that nobody will trade them for at a price they can afford? - I think it's not only feasible, but has happened many times. If you think this can't happen, then there is nowhere further to go with the discussion.

 

2) If you think #1 can happen, then what do you think will be the result? - I think that regardless of morality, many, in the face of survival need, will use violence in that situation. Otherwise, they will perish. If you think #1 can happen, but that people in that position will not use violence, you are saying that people will sit passively and perish. In some cases, you're right, they will. They may feel so strongly about peace that they would rather perish than use violence. But I don't think that's the norm.

 

My initial response to what you say your concern is here is this:

 

Those in power, like most companies, don't like competition. They don't see your little piece of freedom as a threat in itself. But if you are able to go too far with it, then what happens if more and more people do it? So that kind of competition has to be quashed as a general policy.

 

However, I'm not sure why you say you can't have a remote piece of land with your water. Why can't you? Aren't there people who have that right now? As you say, you might get taxed on it, but, unless they want to take that land for eminent domain or something, why do you feel you wouldn't be allowed to live that way?

 

Can you explain where this has happened, where there hasn't been a monopoly of force that could enforce such a situation? In a stateless world where that kind of power will be limited and more evenly spread I cannot see it ever occurring. Not to mention what particular resource could any group commandeer in it's entirety?

 

Again, this is why I cannot take your question seriously. It seems generally to be emanating from historical statist or monarchical systems of power at best. Having said that, I'll still give the book a chew on at some point.

[STer]

Can you explain where this has happened, where there hasn't been a monopoly of force that could enforce such a situation? In a stateless world where that kind of power will be limited and more evenly spread I cannot see it ever occurring. Not to mention what particular resource could any group commandeer in it's entirety?

 

Again, this is why I cannot take your question seriously. It seems generally to be emanating from historical statist or monarchical systems of power at best. Having said that, I'll still give the book a chew on at some point.

 

I have a hard time following your train of thought. I didn't say anything about the role or non-role of states. I was talking about social structures with certain levels of population-density. I don't see the relevance of state or no state to what I was saying. It's as if you've come into a discussion of one topic and, out of the blue, started promoting anarchism when that wasn't even the topic. The topic, as far I understood it, was whether a group of people needing resources they couldn't get affordably on the market would be a cause for violence. I believe yes it would be. If you are saying "yes it would be because the state would make it so" then I guess you agree, though you may have your own reasons for that.

 

For probably the fourth or fifth (and definitely last) time I will repeat - nobody has to commandeer 100% of any resource. All that has to happen is a group needs something and can't find a seller at a price they're able to pay. Maybe there are 5 groups with that resource and none want to sell it. Maybe there are 10 groups with it, but they are already selling it to someone else and there isn't enough left. Maybe some are selling to others, some want to keep it themselves, and some are selling at too high a price. There is a finite amount of each resource and sometimes demand outweighs supply. Do you believe there are infinite resources and there can never be a shortage where any group can't find what they need? I can't understand your confusion about this. You basically seem to be arguing that demand never outstrips supply, driving a price too high for some to reach.

 

If you want examples of violence driven by resource shortages, just google terms like "wars over resources" or "resource shortages and violence" and you'll find literally millions of results.

 

Like I said, this writer is putting forth this view as part of an argument against civilization (the growth of cities, which certainly goes along with the growth of powerful states). So he is certainly no fan of states either. But I think you may have things backward. States arose out of the accumulation of resources in concentration, not the other way around. It was the rise of consolidation of resources, leading to the development of storage and protection of these accumulations, that led to states. It's not like states came about first, then decided to accumulate resources and build up higher density populations. It couldn't have even worked in that order.

[PatrickC]

For probably the fourth or fifth (and definitely last) time I will repeat

 

I do have to laugh STer, this has become your stock position when ending most of the threads you've taken part in. And I mean that genuinely humourously. Not to mention having the last word also, which I will gladly hand to you.

[STer]

I do have to laugh STer, this has become your stock position when ending most of the threads you've taken part in. And I mean that genuinely humourously. Not to mention having the last word also, which I will gladly hand to you.

 

Well I'm glad it's humorous, since that will have to make up for it not being true

[aeonicentity]

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

While i'm not sure about your first or last questions, your second question has an easy answer: No. I don't think anyone in a libertarian or anarcho capitalist mindset could reasonably say there would never be any war. I think what you could say is that those wars would be more reasonable, fought over resources, generally be less bloodthirsty, and rarely if never fought for the personal gain of some polititcian. Self reliance does not neccissarally preclude the use of violence as a means of protection or aquisition (for needs of survival). For example, you may be a peaceful person, minding your own buisness, and someone breaks into your home. They're armed, you kill them. This scales up (After all, a war is just a big squabble between a lot of individuals). To parahprase machiavelli: Bakers and Princes quarrell for the same reasons.To paraphrase Sun Tzu: Conflict is an inevitable part of life. So always be concerened when someone comes up to you and says "My system of running the world will be totally peaceful, and there won't be any war/violence any more!" because either they haven't thought it all the way through, or they're off on cloud 9. I don't think even Steph makes claims of a world without any form of conflict, but rather a more peaceful world, preferably where conflict takes place in the market system rather than with the gun and cannon.

[Guest darkskyabove]

To paraphrase Sun Tzu: Conflict is an inevitable part of life. So always be concerened when someone comes up to you and says "My system of running the world will be totally peaceful, and there won't be any war/violence any more!" because either they haven't thought it all the way through, or they're off on cloud 9.

 

Or, they are lying!

[aeonicentity]

well that too dark, but I tend to give people with crazy ideas the benefit of the doubt, since I can dismiss their evil ideas as simply crazy.