Search content
Sort by
Showing 20 of 70 results by Alpaca John
Uh... what? I take this to mean that you assume that they could have gone from 64% back up to 88% or more?
Yes, that is what I meant.
Quote
Well, they have government to regulate their industry, and keep competition from horning in on their business, don't they? They still suffer from diseconomies of scale, but with the competition kept out of the market, their inefficiency doesn't limit their size. If not for the regulations raising the barriers to entry, they could never expand beyond their "ideal" size.
This is your assumption, and I disagree because I have yet to see solid proof of this hypothesis.
Edit: wait, sorry, I'm not 100% sure whether I'm understanding you correctly. How are any of these corporations not suffering from diseconomies of scale exactly? Or are you suggesting that they are?
Quote
Your personal incredulity of the science of economics does not mean that I am failing to debunk your fallacies, or even doing a poor job of it. It just indicates that you are unwilling to examine any other point of view.
Economy is a social science, not an exact science, like many people seem to think. And since it is a social science, you should wonder whether we should call it 'science' at all. The father of modern science (=scientific method) will explain to you why this is the case, if you really care: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Popper#Philosophy_of_science.
As opposed to a growing number of scholars, I don't think economic 'science' is totally useless myself. But you need to apply it in a very different way than you do exact sciences. If you drop a ball in an enclosed environment, you will be able to measure the velocity it falls with, how long it will take to hit the ground, etc. Do it again, and the outcome will be exactly the same. This is one of the main reasons the result will be scientific.
However, if you start a business, or fuel the economy of a country in some way, or anything like this, and it turns out to be a succes, that does not mean you can just do it again. There are way to many factors involved to be able to point out what caused the succes with certainty. Maybe it was a specific aspect of the policy. Maybe it was some other aspect of the policy. Maybe it was the weather, maybe it was dumb luck. You can not know this for sure, and you can not repeat the experiment since the conditions will not be exactly the same.
The usefulness of social sciences (including economics) lies in the discussion itself. Someone will pose a hypothesis, and that hypothesis should be studied. On what basis did he/she draw these conclusions? What other possible causes may have influenced the result? Etc. On basis of this discussion, everybody should make up their own mind. Nobody can prove anything in any scientific way, however.
I am willing to examine an other point of view. I have just done so yesterday, although I must admit I have not put hours and hours in it because it seems to be a waste of time. This is because your point of view seems extremely one sided; your argumentation is weak and relies on a handful of very shaky sources and cherry-picked data.
Quote
The natural result of that train of thought is that economies of scale, left alone, will result in monopolies for everything. Yet, we don't see evidence for this in the real world. Standard Oil, the poster child for this kind of thinking, had, at it's peak, only 88% of the refining market. By the time the regulation came through, they were down to 61%. How to explain this?
I don't know whether this is true, since you didn't provide any source, but even if it is - and it might very well be - I don't think this example says anything. People are still discovering new oil today, so the market was not saturated yet, like it was in my corn fields example. I'm guessing this was the case in your example. Somebody just found new oil. At one point the market would be saturated though.
And even if this was not the case, a monopoly or cartel might have still been the end result. It wasn't exactly the end of history, was it? Bitcoin dropped 10% today. Given your flawless logic I assume you've sold all of it, and are not gonna buy back in, right? Surely the trend could never reverse again.
Also, it's astonishing how the biggest corporations on planet earth seem to have no problems with these economies of scale you are mentioning, isn't it? Even though that flawless theory is based on such elaborate research:
- Kelly Essentials, DIT Publishing, Perth 1999
- Blodget, Henry (2002-01-02). "excerpt". The Wall Street Self-Defense Manual. Atlas Books / Slate. Retrieved 2002-01-03.
- Wherry, Rob (2006-09-27). "The Harder They Fall". SmartMoney.
I'm sorry about the sarcasm, but you're argumentation is a joke. You cherry pick your sources with the sole intention of reaffirming your own preconceptions, and are not really interested in any other point of view except for debunking it (and doing a bad job at doing so). And the worst part is that you have a very supercilious way of doing it.
Ok, instead of replying and rebutting everything that was said, let me try to explain this as simple as I can.
1) Take a finite resource. A scarce resource. For this example, I will use corn fields. I could have also gone with oil(fields) or some type of metal or farmland in general or street corners or anything else that is finite. But I'll go with corn fields for this example.
2) In order to keep this simple, let's say that the entire planet holds a maximum of 1000 equally sized corn fields, all of them owned by individual farmers. These farmers are competing with each other in order to sell their corn.
3) At some point, a couple of things will happen.
Some farmers will realize that cooperating with their neighbors gives them an advantage over all other farmers. They can - for instance - share tractors and other equipment, hence lowering the production cost per square mile. This will enable them to sell their product cheaper than the competition can. Hence, they decide to merge their farms/corn fields.
Other farmers will probably innovate in some other way. This will enable them to lower production costs, which will help them out-compete their neighbors. At some point, the neighbors just can't compete anymore, and they will go out of business. The innovating farmers will have made a lot of money though, so if they're smart - and they are - they will buy up their neighbor's land.
Either way, after a while, every farm will have to merge in order to remain able to compete with all the others. Hence, after a while, the initial 1000 corn fields will have merged into 500 bigger corn fields.
4) Because scaling up will always enable the farmers to out-compete the competition, step three will repeat itself over and over again. Until, at some point, there will be only a handful of huge multinationals holding all of the corn fields in the world.
This is not necessarily a problem yet, I think, but...
5) At this point, the multinationals would be foolish to compete against each other. People need corn, so they could just collude and ask whatever they please instead. They could fix the prices into oblivion, and there would be nothing anyone could do about that. Nobody can start a new farm to undercut the prices, provide better service, or innovate in any way, because all of the corn fields are already taken.
The multinationals could even merge into one even bigger multinational, but like I said, it doesn't really matter at this point. Monopoly or cartel; same difference.
Now, you could argue: "People could switch to grain, hence there would still be competition between the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s)." That would obviously be a false argument, because the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s) could collude with each other just as well, or even merge to form an even bigger bigger multinational.
Bottomline: when scarcity is an issue, an unregulated free market will inevitably lead to a lack of competition, and thus price fixing.
1) Take a finite resource. A scarce resource. For this example, I will use corn fields. I could have also gone with oil(fields) or some type of metal or farmland in general or street corners or anything else that is finite. But I'll go with corn fields for this example.
2) In order to keep this simple, let's say that the entire planet holds a maximum of 1000 equally sized corn fields, all of them owned by individual farmers. These farmers are competing with each other in order to sell their corn.
3) At some point, a couple of things will happen.
Some farmers will realize that cooperating with their neighbors gives them an advantage over all other farmers. They can - for instance - share tractors and other equipment, hence lowering the production cost per square mile. This will enable them to sell their product cheaper than the competition can. Hence, they decide to merge their farms/corn fields.
Other farmers will probably innovate in some other way. This will enable them to lower production costs, which will help them out-compete their neighbors. At some point, the neighbors just can't compete anymore, and they will go out of business. The innovating farmers will have made a lot of money though, so if they're smart - and they are - they will buy up their neighbor's land.
Either way, after a while, every farm will have to merge in order to remain able to compete with all the others. Hence, after a while, the initial 1000 corn fields will have merged into 500 bigger corn fields.
4) Because scaling up will always enable the farmers to out-compete the competition, step three will repeat itself over and over again. Until, at some point, there will be only a handful of huge multinationals holding all of the corn fields in the world.
This is not necessarily a problem yet, I think, but...
5) At this point, the multinationals would be foolish to compete against each other. People need corn, so they could just collude and ask whatever they please instead. They could fix the prices into oblivion, and there would be nothing anyone could do about that. Nobody can start a new farm to undercut the prices, provide better service, or innovate in any way, because all of the corn fields are already taken.
The multinationals could even merge into one even bigger multinational, but like I said, it doesn't really matter at this point. Monopoly or cartel; same difference.
Now, you could argue: "People could switch to grain, hence there would still be competition between the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s)." That would obviously be a false argument, because the corn multinational(s) and the grain multinational(s) could collude with each other just as well, or even merge to form an even bigger bigger multinational.
Bottomline: when scarcity is an issue, an unregulated free market will inevitably lead to a lack of competition, and thus price fixing.
If most of your customers are law abiding they may choose to not support your unlawful (in natural law sense) actions against another.
People still go to BP.
Quote
The question also becomes IS killing a competitor lower cost and lower risk then arbitration, licensing, marketing, or other non-violent means.
I would say so, yes. Ignoring the drug-cartel example I can't think of any way to prove this in any way, so I'll just say it's my opinion, for now. Maybe I can come up with something better if I think a bit more about it. (Or maybe I'll find that I'm wrong.) But for now, I'm gonna go ahead and say that it is probably much cheaper.
Quote
Once again all theory but if private security forces replaced police states then you could find your security contract revoked per a condition in the contract.
What's the point of having a contract if there is no state? (Or: what is the point of having a state if it can't enforce it's law?)
Quote
Still I wasn't really talking about the lack of a state.
Oh? Sorry, that's what I thought. My bad, I guess.
Quote
I was just pointing out the power of the cartels is a direct result of regulation, namely the prohibition on certain substances, not a lack of regulation as you seem to claim.
I think it's both. The regulation made them rich enough to defy the state, resulting in a failure of the state (absence of state power and thus regulation), leading to cartels.
Well, let's start with the things that a natural monopoly must worry about as much as the cartel does:
Competition. If the monopoly/cartel raises prices enough that a new competitor can undercut them and still make a profit, then that new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Customer dissatisfaction. If the monopoly/cartel provides a poor enough product or service that the customers are willing to pay more for a superior one, then a new competitor will appear to take advantage of that situation.
Alternatives/new technology. This is somewhat of a subset of the first point, but it's separate enough to warrant being it's own point. The monopoly/cartel need not only worry about someone coming along to provide the same product or service at lower prices or better quality, they must also worry about someone coming along and providing a competing product or service. For example, let's say one company managed to get a monopoly on fast-food hamburgers. They bought up or out-competed every other burger joint in town. They would still be competing with fast-food tacos, pizza, and chicken. Additionally, one of their out-competed rivals might switch gears, and sell frozen hamburgers, that the consumer could microwave at home.
If I'd have a monopoly and any of the above would happen, I'd just buy them up and have all of that annoying 'competition' over with it. Either that or I'd buy up their suppliers.
This actually happens all the time.
Quote
Now for the additional worry that a cartel has:
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)
Infighting. A cartel is, as I mentioned in another thread, somewhat like a wolf-pack made entirely of alphas. At any time, one of those members could turn on the others, and by utilizing one of those methods that I mentioned earlier could bring down a monopoly, squeeze out some extra profits at the expense of the other cartel members. For example, if Burger King, White Castle, McDonalds, and Hardee's/Carl's Jr were the members of a cartel which set hamburger prices, one could cut prices and "steal" business from the others, or refocus on service or product quality, and likewise "steal" business from the others. Or they could start selling frozen burgers (White Castle already does this, Harold and Kumar could have just gone to Wal-mart, instead), or branch out into Pizza (KFC, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell, for instance, are all part of one company, Yum! Brands.)
You have just explained why infighting would not be a rational thing to do if you'd have a cartel. If you believe that you are able to figure this out a priori, but those who'd own a cartel would not, that strikes me as very naive.
No, not to "avoid" monopolies. To ensure that only the right people get monopolies, and to protect those who do.
That is what I said.
Well, Let's say you were a drug dealer. You had your "turf" staked out, your favorite corner where people came to you to buy their drugs. Now, let's say another dealer "muscled in" on your turf, and one morning, you walk out to "your" corner, to find him and two big tough guys standing where you usually do. You go up to him, and you say, "Yo, this my turf, man, go get yer own corner." He replies, "It's my turf, now, punk. Piss off."
At this point you have several options: You could try for a peaceful solution, you could shoot him yourself, or you could go to the cops. Let's assume that you're a more enlightened drug dealer than is average, and you know that shooting him yourself will only start a war between his gang and yours, and going to the cops will, at best, still mean you need to get a new corner, because the cops will be watching that one for a while, and at worst, land you in jail right next to your rival and his buddies. So you opt for a peaceful solution.
Let's further say that I am an arbitrator (I am, by the way) and offer services to the drug dealers in the area (I don't, but only because I don't know any). You come to me, and ask for my assistance in resolving this turf dispute between you and the new guy. I accept, and proceed to offer my service as an arbitrator to the new gentleman, offering a peaceful solution, one that does not end up with him dead or behind bars. Now, we're starting to strain credulity, but let's assume that the other drug dealer is also wiser than average, and sees the benefit of my proposal. He agrees to arbitrate the dispute, rather than deal with the issue in the typical violent manner.
We then go to a room, and discuss the problems. It is discovered that the new guy was pushed out of his turf by yet another dealer, and just needed a place to conduct his business, and that's why he's taken over your spot. I suggest that the particular intersection where you do business has four corners, and he can simply take the opposite one, which is closer to his home anyway. He accepts, and you get your corner back, and he has a shorter "commute." Everybody happy, nobody dead. This is just off the top of my head, understand, and may not be entirely accurate, it's certainly grossly simplified. But it gets the gist across.
It does get the gist across. You don't seem to properly understand scarcity. You can't just make up a new street corner and have a happy end. What if all the corners are taken? Like they probably would be in real life?
Also, what if the dude with the two strong henchman decides that he'd rather not have a competitor across the street at all, and tells you to fuck of?
I'd say the Sinaloa Cartel is doing a pretty good job of "regulating" the drug economy in Mexico.
Right, so you agree that somebody will use force to establish power even in the absence of a state then? In that case we agree.
That is why I prefer a state over the alternative.
DeathAndTaxes: what you are saying seems to be besides the point, to me.
This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.
This is my question. If there would be no state monopoly on violence (=regulation), what would stop me from killing my competitor instead of improving my product? A bullet is surely cheaper than investing in actual innovation is.
This is a valid point, but in a free market, the same things that would topple a natural monopoly would topple or disintegrate a cartel.
Such as?
Quote
As I said, you have to go through proper channels to get a monopoly in the US. If you don't, the penalties are harsh. But if you do, the benefits are enormous.
So we agree that the market is currently regulated to avoid monopolies then? (And yes, it is regulated to enforce certain monopolies as well.)
Quote
They need peaceful means of dispute resolution. Such as arbitration.
By whom? How would this work? Elaborate please...
Quote
My point was that the drug market is anything but "unregulated." It's been regulated to death, in fact.
Yeah? Who is doing the regulating in Northern Mexico?
The answer is: nobody. That's the whole point. It's a failed state (in that region).
That outlaws cartels, not monopolies (please take note, that is the proper pluralization).
Monopolies. Not monopoly's. Got it. (English is not my first language.) For the rest, I'd argue that cartels are from a consumers perspective the exact same problem. As long as prices are fixed, I don't care if it is one corporation doing the job, or several that are colluding. Same difference. Centralization of power.
Quote
And "pretty sure" is a poor basis for argument.
Actually, I'd wish you would question your own dogma's from time to time. The fact that you are only here to prove other people wrong, instead of trying to actually progress your way of thinking, is exactly why I do not like to argue with you at all; there is not really a point in doing so.
Also, I'm not American so excuse me for not knowing what the exact laws of that country are.
Quote
Monopolies are anything but illegal in the US. You just have to go through proper channels to establish one.
"The law's treatment of monopolies is potentially the strongest in the field of antitrust law. Judicial remedies can force large organizations to be broken up, be run subject to positive obligations, or massive penalties may be imposed the people involved can be sentenced to jail."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law#Monopoly_and_power
Quote
The reason violence is the dispute resolution method of choice in the drug market is because of the regulations making participation in that market illegal. They have no legal means of resolving disputes.
Wait, so we dó need a state in order to legally resolve disputes then?
Also, the drug gangs are not really "resolving disputes", are they? They are killing their competitors in order to monopolize their trade. And they are doing so in area's where the state has lost all it's power to do something anything about it. No policeman dares to get involved in large parts of northern Mexico, and new majors are being killed the same day they get appointed.
It's not because there are states that such violence happens, but because of the failure of states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Failed_state
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Failed-states-index-2012.png
(I'm lucky enough to happen to live in one of the sustainable states by the way, which is probably why I think we need them.)
In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.
This is patently and provably false. The computer market is one of the least regulated on the planet. Cars have only safety and emissions regulations to contend with (and many companies voluntarily exceed those regulations). Food, similarly, has only health and safety regulations, and a few labeling requirements. You chose the worst possible examples for natural monopolies, since all of those industries show robust competition, in a largely unregulated (free) market.Actually I was not talking about natural monopoly's. I was talking about monopoly's from integration - why did you choose to let that one out?
Plus, I'm pretty sure that all of these markets are regulated, since monopoly's are illegal in the US. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_antitrust_law
Also, it is illegal to kill your opponent, so that's another regulation. Sounds silly? The drug market is truly unregulated. The free market turns out not to work very well there. Violence works.
I'm not sure what we are talking about here. Monopoly's on money, or monopoly's in general?
In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.
Since you can use anything as money though (hence it is not necessarily scarce) I agree with you (Myrkul) on the money part.
Adrian-x: Yeah you could say that some meme's are a problem. However, there is absolutely no way to be sure that your meme is better than any other meme, since that thought itself would be (part of) the meme. Therefore, you should not able to force memes on anyone nor remove them. Neither do I really think you could be able to do so; a totalitarian society would be the closest thing to accomplishing such a thing. I'd say that shitty meme's are just something we need to deal with as best as we can.
In a free market, I think monopoly's in general will almost certainly develop over things that are scarce. (Car's, food, computers, etc.) This is not a good thing, because it centralizes power.
Since you can use anything as money though (hence it is not necessarily scarce) I agree with you (Myrkul) on the money part.
Adrian-x: Yeah you could say that some meme's are a problem. However, there is absolutely no way to be sure that your meme is better than any other meme, since that thought itself would be (part of) the meme. Therefore, you should not able to force memes on anyone nor remove them. Neither do I really think you could be able to do so; a totalitarian society would be the closest thing to accomplishing such a thing. I'd say that shitty meme's are just something we need to deal with as best as we can.
To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.
Define a monopoly for me.No, that is way offtopic. I'm willing to have the conversation, but not in this thread. You can make a new thread if you want? I'll be back in five.
Regardless, I'd suggest you watch the documentary. I think you'll like it. http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI
To those of you who are still of the impression that the Fed is not privately owned, and that government is the problem, I urge you to watch the documentary The Secret of Oz: http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI
Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/
Please watch.
Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/
Please watch.
What about those of us of the impression that the Fed is "privately" owned, and that the government is the problem?
Monopoly is the problem, the market is the solution.
Sorry, that was a dumb typo. I'll fix that. (The Fed is privately owned indeed, is what I meant to say.)
Edit: Fuck never mind it was not a typo at all.
To those who think monopolies won't exist on a free market, I'd say: I think you are very wrong.
To those of you who are still of the impression that the Fed is not privately owned, and that government is the problem, I urge you to watch the documentary The Secret of Oz: http://youtu.be/swkq2E8mswI
Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/
Please watch.
Before you dismiss me as some leftist statist or whatever, the documentary is made and narrated by Bill Still, a libertarian: http://still2012.com/
Please watch.
Re: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?
And yes, politics is a science.)
We both know that the two of us are not gonna have a fruitful discussion, so I'm not gonna get into one again, but I will tell you this.
Anyone who has a degree in political science can tell you (or: should be able to tell you) that the name is misleading, since politics does not adhere to typical scientific standards; it's not falsifiable and it's not repeatable (especially not in an enclosed environment).
That does not mean that political science (or any other non-beta type of science) is useless, or at least I do not think it is. I think it can certainly teach us useful stuff, but it is very important to realize that it is not science in the "traditional" sense of the word. We cannot prove anything in a scientific manner; the usefulness rests in the discussions more than anywhere else. We can pose ideas and discuss hypothesis, in this way we can even get to some sort of estimation of probability, but we must always realize there just is no real way of knowing anything in any scientific way.
In other words, political science is paradoxically only useful if you first realize that it's actually not science at all.
In this case, I think you are projecting modernism - the believe in progress as based on science - on non-scientific concepts like politics, or freedom. If political science tells us anything, it is that we can not do that. We can not say whether or not the concept of freedom has progressed, at least not in a scientific way as you seem to be suggesting.
See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Post-structuralism and/or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postmodernism
Re: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?
Quote
This month marks the 20th anniversary of its demolition.
Sounds to me like it did not work.
It did work, read the diagram. Just because they decided to do something else with it doesn't mean it didn't "work" it was a completely functioning city of anarchy.
But it did not last, which I would consider to be a pretty vital aspect of 'it working'. It didn't last, therefore it didn't really work.
Re: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?
300 Trojans died at Thermopylae for freedom. You could say it was for the "illusion of" freedom. But that tells us nothing about them and a lot about you. Likewise, over 100,000 Britons died for the right to have taxation based on the consent of the Commons. What exactly is the point of saying they died for "the illusion of" freedom. Do you seriously imagine the concept of freedom in 350 years will be the same as it is today? Are you arguing for the "illusion of" freedom yourself?
This is the core of the discussion.
People like Myrkul don't seem to understand that freedom is not some sort of metaphysical concept. There are vastly differing concepts of freedom; a lot of people and cultures have their own interpretations of it.
Case in point: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/what-can-we-learn-from-de_b_3339736.html
Quote
In Denmark, there is a very different understanding of what "freedom" means. In that country, they have gone a long way to ending the enormous anxieties that comes with economic insecurity. Instead of promoting a system which allows a few to have enormous wealth, they have developed a system which guarantees a strong minimal standard of living to all -- including the children, the elderly and the disabled.
Bitstamp.net zullen we ook is kijken thanks 
Zij zitten binnen de EU (Slovenië), en je hoeft verder ook geen kopie's van paspoorten enzo op te sturen om je te laten verifieren. Gewoon euro's overmaken met SEPA, en een werkdag later staat het op je account.
Bij Mt.Gox (Japan) ben je - zo heb ik begrepen - soms wel twee weken aan het wachten voordat ze je ID etc. hebben geverifieerd.
Daarbij is het ook nog beter voor de 'bitcoin-ecologie' als mensen meer verschillende exchanges gaan gebruiken, zodat niet alles afhankelijk wordt van een single point of failure.
En tenslotte zijn de bitcoins bij Bitstamp dus al een week lang voor ongeveer vijf euro minder te krijgen, maar dat had ik al gezegd.
Re: Will Satoshi be the most influential man of the century?
If Bitcoin doesn't go down for some reason then it will become a huge part of our lives and Satoshi might be the most influential man.
It's kinda sad though that this man that has then brought so much change to humanity is vanished and will probably stay vanished forever.
It's kinda sad though that this man that has then brought so much change to humanity is vanished and will probably stay vanished forever.
I'd say that is one of the greatest things about it, actually. He's like a real-life digital Batman. Gotta love that.
Re: If Anarchy can work, how come there are no historical records of it working?
Actually, humanity has arguably known anarchism all over the world for tens of thousands of years - most of its existence. Historians label that period in time prehistory.
That's a good point. The first 90k years of humanity were exclusively free of any authority greater than the tribe. (as far as we know)That era included some of humanities greatest challenges; such as the ice ages, competition with Neanderthals, and legendary adventures with Pleistocene beasts. I doubt we have ever been in more danger, or more free.
Yeah you know what, I think I'll actually take up on that offer of yours of starting an army once anarchy kicks in. I'm your man!
Actually, I've got an additional idea. Once we've established sovereignty over a decent area of land, we could maybe figure out some sort of system to devoid future generations from exorbitant levels of tyranny? A system in which everybody could live in relative peace? I was thinking in lines of a balance of powers, or a trias politica? Maybe we could even think of number of rules, or 'rights' if you will, to protect individuals within out society? I think 'human rights' has a ring to it, but this is something we can talk about. Hey you know what, we could eventually even conceive of a system in which the people could rule themselves, a kind of popular sovereignty if you know what I mean? We could even have elections to determine who gets to lead at some point?
I know, I know, all of this sounds very futuristic, but hey, a man can dream right?
Anyways, yeah, it's time for this anarchy thing if you ask me; the sooner that happens the sooner we can work towards realizing these ideas!