If decentralized "free market" sorts of systems are so superior to central planning, why has no military ever adopted them?
Seems like every military in human history operated as a "command economy" of sorts. You'd think that if dispersed systems were so superior, some empire at some point would've adopted an ancap army and conquered the world or something.
>serious thread about politics
>straight to death
Reasons OP is a faggot:
1) Kike
2) Conflating a civilian economy with the military
It's still a good question! What makes the civilian economy so different from the military?
I mean, look at it another way - why are 99.99% of private businesses functioning like practical dictatorship? Especially beginning in the 1980's, with the worldwide rise of managerialism, even the "mean and lean" private sector has been getting bureaucratized up the bum.
What keeps generals from turning into warlords and use the troops under his command for his own gains?
The power of the general above them?
The issue of legitimacy?
Fear of mutiny?
Iso certifications requiring all business processes to be formalized and documented?
This question is valid even for the "laissez faire" era of the 1800's.
Except they do.
The last time there was any major army commanded centrally was during the Napoleonic wars.
>if free market superior, then why hasn't it been enforced
>free market
>enforced
Nice try kike.
Decentralized it means from government , usually.
"We have never had to set up and direct the entire system of nature as we are forced to do today with society.... Mankind is tending more and more to regulate the whole of its social life, although it has never attempted to create a second nature."
-Mannheim, Man and Society in an Age of Reconstruction
Nice PLANNING you got there.
The leeway and initiating given to low-ranking officers in modern militaries is not much higher that that given to USSR factory director. Even in the IDF, which is considered one of the more initiative-driven forces in the world, commanders are operating in very limiting conditions.
My point is that emergent order is overrated, and is barely ordered at all.
If you want to get anywhere, you always need a central coordinator, whether explicit or implicit.
>since X is most productive, why hasn't society implemented such?
People do what's most productive for themselves- a degree of stealing and protecting against theft.
The "free market" is enforced by the state.
If you have no state to define and enforce property rights and exchanges, there is no market to speak of.
If I had to guess, a sucessful military operations is less complex and more reliant on speed than what you find in a civilian economy. Like Patton said, a good plan violently executed is superior to a perfect plan. But the military machine still requires a healthy economy to provide it with resources to fight.
A highly regmented civilian economy, like post Weimar Germany, or present day China can be very effective, but only because what is needed to be done is very clear. In a developed economy, the next step, the next technology, etc. needs the seemingly disordered free market/democratic approach to figure out what is next, even if it means making wrong steps along the way.
You mean people cannot excbange between themselves?
>planning
Read the last sentence especially, Jew.
"Although competition can bear some admixture of
regulation, it cannot be combined with planning to any extent
we like without ceasing to operate as an effective guide to production.
Nor is "planning" a medicine which, taken in small
doses, can produce the effects for which one might hope from
its thoroughgoing application. Both competition and central direction
become poor and inefficient tools if they are incomplete;
they are alternative principles used to solve the same problem,
and a mixture ofthe two means that neither will really work and
that the result will be worse than if either system had been
consistently relied upon. Or, to express it differently, planning
and competition can be combined only by planning for
competition, but not by planning against competition"
>freedom
>in enforced
Freedom is not enforced. The lack of force is what's enforced.
>but they're the same thing
No- you cannot make one be free, but you can prevent one from limiting another's freedom.
I mean real capitalism, as existing in the actual world people live in (as opposed to the abstract "lemonade stand and flower shop" fantasies of libertarian ideologues) cannot exist without state enforcement.
Why?
>freedom must be enforced
>"We must force them to be free."
Prettymuch a meme of the planners, pulled from Atlas Shrugged.
Check your premises.
>Alright guys, we have to TAKE THAT HILL
>....you know if you want to, no pressure this is a free market army after all
>to get things done, you must force people
You can't force progress:: you can only give people incentives to be productive.
>but I'll force them to be productive
America is proof that 'forcing people to be productive' does not work.
You're confusing 'arranging production' with 'ordering production.' The first assures you people are acting profitably (for themselves), where the latter does not.
Negative freedom ("you are only free if you aren't being interfered with") is a bullshit tautological construct.
Freedom is your ability to actualize your aspirations. If you are unable to do that, it does not matter whether it's because you're being actively hindered or are being denied the resources you require. You are unfree either way.
"Positive freedom" is the only type of freedom that actually matters to real people in the real world.
Imagine a world where the state doesn't enforce property rights.
>If you want to get anywhere, you always need a central coordinator, whether explicit or implicit.
I have to explain this to Chinese students when they compare the chaos of the american political system to that of China, they immediately hold it as inferior. But when the Chinese are just adopting western tech, business, legal, and financial ideas, the way forward is crystal clear, when pulling starving farmers from poverty. As you reach parity, the what's next question becomes really hard. Only some seem to get this response.
>Freedom is your ability to actualize your aspirations.
No. Freedom is not what you do, but what others don't do.
And how will world look like on your opinion?
>As you reach parity, the what's next question becomes really hard
Huh, I genuinely never thought of it this way.
A central coordinator may be good at treading proven ground, but we must have low-level experimentation and "breach-exploitation" to get further ahead.
It seems obvious when you say it like that, but I never thought of it in this context.
Questioning Libertarianism is like beating a dead horse.
If there ever was a political philosophy that was BTFO by human nature, it is the one.
All economic miracles of industrialisation happened under some forms of State Capitalism or heavy interventionism. A short flirt with Lazies Faire ended with a Great Depression. More radical ideas never, ever had a practical application to begin with.
No. Freedom is your ability to actualize your aspiration. It's your ability to act on your own agency.
lolbritarians love to forget how Mises' theories have actually been put to the test in the Fascist Austria in the 1930's. It was a complete disaster and even Nazi Germany (through its Accidental Keynesianism) outperformed them.
A state didn't enforce property rights in Liberal/Capitalist sense for the most of human history. You don't have to ponder.
That is bullshit. You are free to try and fail. Maybe you have a better approach, maybe not. Only one way to find out, in the marketplace. And yeah, most small businesses fail. There is no way to foresee all obstacles, at some point you have to take a risk.
>Chinese think order is superior, but they adopt Western tech
Imitation can be planned, discovery cannot.
" It is not generally realized that education can never be more
than indoctrination with theories and ideas already developed. Education,
whatever benefits it may confer, is transmission of traditional
doctrines and valuations; it is by necessity conservative. It produces
imitation and routine, not improvement and progress. Innovators
and creative geniuses cannot be reared in schools. They are precisely
the men who defy what the school has taught them.
In order to succeed in business a man does not need "
-Mises
freedom: Absence of subjection to foreign domination or despotic government.
>libertarianism failed because statism failed
OOF
you act as if private companies cannot have tight organization.
Military is not an economy
It's not enforced by the state, it's protected by it...
>you act as if private companies cannot have tight organization.
Kikes malign Rand/Mises by saying "look how this system, different than the one they support, failed" and "look, Sears failed."
Sears' CEO's "let's make a company compete with itself" is not supported by Rand/Mises as Kikes say.
>It's not enforced by the state, it's protected by it...
This. Kike is saying that "freedom" means "power to do what one wants."
Kike being a Kike, nuff said.
Yeah, that's why Hong Kong is so much better than mainland China
>you act as if private companies cannot have tight organization.
"Goys are helpless, and we must help them help themselves."
This is actually somewhat trumpian, and what kanye west echoed: what is the purpose of freedom without the economic wherewithal to exercise it.
We are just westerners, wrongly taking for granted (and squandering) the immense wealth concentrated by our forefathers.
You are just apparently speaking from a background where you lack resources. But you don't seem to get that even having the recources is zero guarantee of success. It is just a hurdle along the way. There is so much money sloshing around the world, desperate to be invested profitably, and few places for it to find a home, so it just drives bubbles in stocks, and property, etc.
Capital just isn't a problem in the real world.
Because they didn't that kind of knowledge?
For the most part of the human history people struggled to define laws of economics and surrounding questions.
They couldn't enforce anything to an extend in which we do today and barely anybody (government of people) tried to change that drastically.
tl;dr governments and people started enforcing lots of things recently because economical models let them do that.
Economists actually try to apply their theories everywhere.
Even in things like screwing the bulb.
Discovery still requires funding, though.
What I hate most about libertarian writings about innovation (whenever it's not just being invoked like a magical panacea) is how they are still stuck in a 19th century conception of invention. As if all innovation comes from brilliant Edison-like individuals. As if it doesn't happen, and productivity stagnates, only when those pesky meddling government people get in the way of the otherwise ultra-productive Geniuses.
In reality, innovation is a long and arduous process which takes place over many many years and required combined team efforts of many individuals and organizations. The fabled iPhone, always wheeled out as a brilliant example of private sector benefits, is based on multiple layers of government-funded decades-long research conducted in public universities and centralized corporate research firms (e.g. RCA Labs, Bell Labs, WAN Labs, PARC, Kodak and many many more).
Similarly, we can see how productivity growth was historically the lowest when the markets were the most "free".
PMCs exist.
There's no reason for a state military to behave like a private company, it's funded through taxpayer money and doesn't need to turn a profit.
You can't just say "free market sorts of systems" and handwave the details, that's not how it works.
freedom: the power or right to act, speak, or think as one wants without hindrance or restraint.
>tl;dr governments and people started enforcing lots of things recently because economical models let them do that.
The point of government education is to justify government doing things. Their theories are what people use to justify government's intrusion.
haha thank you for bringing up Sears before I could!
Don't try to reason with them.
Free marketers are retarded.
lolbertarianism and gommunism are both tools of the jew.
It's not "trumpian", it's basically socialist.
Your reading comprehension is terrible.
>Capital just isn't a problem in the real world.
Again capitol markets are a western innovation and sometimes curse. Look at google who can create a globe crossing mix of data centers, at spaceX and Tesla that can invest billions in just a few years. The availability, or at least the existence of capital in this age is immense. You may not have access to those markets, but you also could be doing something wrong, or society could have something broken I.e. the rich get richer and the poor get poorer.
>productivity can be measured
No
>productivity is caused by discovery
It's *enabled.*
>teams do things, not individuals
True
>government has made discoveries, therefore government is necessarily the source of discoveries
False. Seen and unseen.
>productivity decreases as freedom increases
Or: government increases (parasite) as people's (host's) productivity increases.
>why has no military ever adopted them?
Because the military is inherently a state institution, dipshit. You're asking why the public sector doesn't work the same way as the private sector.
this
>definition
True, which is what I said. Note the word "power" does not mean "ability."
What happens when government labs fail to achieve their goal?
why didn't you let your banks go bankrupt then?
Those empires have existed, they were long before a world peacekeeper existed
>libertarianism means not defending yourself
This is what Jow Forumslibertarian thinks. It's not what's true.
Here is Rand on such:
"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [impede her without cause.]"
-Atlas Shrugged
Also, pic related thinks the same.
Not him, but they should've gone bankrupt. Propping them up with taxpayer money is bullshit. I don't care how many fancy bonuses bank directors give themselves, if their banks go bankrupt they'll be replaced by banks that more responsible manage their money.
Text of pic in Bob Murphy (also goes by Robert Murphy), chairman/founder of the Mises Institute, understands Hitler's motives. And, while he wouldn't condone, he won't condemn either:
From his facebook post:
"Back when 9/11 happened, the people with whom I'm closest ideologically behaved in this way:
==> Didn't endorse killing innocent people to achieve desired ends, and were surprised they even had to clarify that.
==> Didn't ask law-abiding Muslims to condemn killers.
==> Tried to understand what motivated those who were so angry and violent.
==> Pointed out the ways in which the US government--the entity through which mainstream America would try to "do something" about the tragedy--had exacerbated the problem and that the proposed solution would only make it worse.
==> Pointed out how awful major media was in its reporting, and how government offici8als and certain interest groups were profiting (in terms of power and profit) from all of the misguided fighting among regular people
==> Went back to Step One when most people took the above to mean, "Oh, so you're actually OK with terrorism?"
I won't spell out the specifics of how the above applies today, because I don't feel like proving I'm not a Nazi twice in the same month."
Market, Superior... Big Words You Jews there..
The Brave Kike swatter his Bronze sward at the Egyptians... But he was Unable to stop his Forskin from being cut off... The Jew Was Angry... The Egyptian Cut His Forskin off... The jid Must Find a way toHide this history from the rest of the world....
Militaries don't generate internal revenue.
>t's not "trumpian", it's basically socialist
I don't think so. Governments and laws and corporations are just human centric technology that we have developed to maximize our own productivity and maximize our own wellbeing. None of this exists for any other purpose. You can label it however you want, and I certainly feel that capitalism works pretty damn well, but even the purpose of that in the end is just to maximize well-being.
And it isn't socialist to want a solid middle class, they are the people that actually do the innovation anyway. You need to make choices as a society to empower people.
Hayek:
Yet the difference is that, while the general who is put in
charge of a campaign is given a single end to which, for the
duration of the campaign, all the means under his control have
to be exclusively devoted, there can be no such single goal
given to the economic planner, and no similar limitation of the
means imposed upon him. The general has not got to balance
different independent aims against each other; there is for him
only one supreme goal.
>real capitalism has never been tried
>if not defending yourself was so superior
Hard to believe you're honest in your question.
>capitalism means not defending yourself
t. lolbertarian
"Calmly and impersonally, she, who would have hesitated to fire at an animal, pulled the trigger and fired straight at the heart of a man who had wanted to [impede her without cause.]"
-Rand
ITT: Jew demanding control, since control has always failed.
There have been plenty of private armies that (in all honesty) would be more effective than government funded one's, but the problem is that most governments outlaw that sort of thing, so they can only do wetwork in shithole countries
The question was why there is hierarchy in army?
He takes thesis about free market relationships and tries to apply it on army
>the middle class
You mean minorities and retards..
Mises recognizes only non-retarded Whites as human- as able to think and discover:
" Beings of human descent who either from birth
or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in
the strict sense of the term and not only in the legal sense) are practically
not human."
"It is nonsensical to fiqht the
racial hypothesis by negating obvious facts. It is vain to denv that up
to now certain races have contributed nothing or very Iittle to the
development of civilization and can, in this sense, be called inferior"
Because it works? If there were a better way of delivering violence to our fellow man, that is what we would do. Maybe some future technology or weapons will change this, but having a professional army with a heiarchy with discipline and order enforced by up to capital means (decimation?!) goes back at least to the romans.
military isn't production though, it's consumption.
Militarism is very expensive and basically the reason we are cursed with jewish central banking, the only single factor driving evil...
Well some od them were completely isolated
inb4 aboos are retarded
Maybe they are but what about others?
It neans you are partially for control?
>minorities provide some advancements
Sure. But I'm contending with saying that we must empower the middle class.
Ok
How about a counter-question:
why aren't states run as corporations?
...until you realise they are.
Kikes are very happy to offer up Libertarianism as a counter ideology as it it ultimately ineffective at organising against the system.
This is why so many of us are fascists now, we saw that without collective action you basically don't stand a chance at all.
>kikes offer libertarianism, and make you believe you're not allowed to defend yourselves
I'm not sure why libertarians think they can't act unless there is 0 collateral damage, such as when your enemy is using human shields. But this interpretation is wrong.
Being fascist, in order to defend oneself, is not anti-libertarianism.
"At all times sincere friends of freedom have been rare, and its triumphs have been due to minorities, that have prevailed by associating themselves with auxiliaries whose objects often differed from their own; and this association, which is always dangerous, has been sometimes disastrous, by giving to opponents just grounds of opposition, and by kindling dispute over the spoils in the hour of success.”
-Acton
Get fucked by Hezbollah.
Not all businesses have a ridged hierarchy with top down control. Some are more decentralized and there are some extreme examples such as Valve, Gore and Associates and to a lesser extent Svenska Handelsbanken. All of those companies do very well. I even worked at a bank for many years that had a federated model, where the business divisions had a lot of independence. There were downsides, but it worked well. Everything went to shit when they moved to a more traditional model.
Sad fact is the main reason that companies are the way they are is because the people at the top want to maintain power and control, and don't want to let any of that go to people down the ranks, which is required for a more decentralized model. It can make sense if the company is staff is mostly a legion of retards but for business that have smart, educated and motivated staff a more decentralized model is much better.
>you can't defend yourself unless you dominate everyone else
t.American military policy
Can't say I disagree.
Anti-war cucks will disagree.
Way to strawman my argument, leaf. You miss the forest for the trees. Care to try again?
Try doing a decentralized model in actual manufacturing and energetics.
You named IT and banking, economically speaking - parasitic activities.
Because liberalism is literally anarcho-anti-civilizationism and your thinking is actually completely correct, Moishe
>truth is esoteric
>genetic is truth
>truth is genetic
Nice circular logic you got there.
Are you descended from USSR?
You show remarkable grasp of reality.
>it's parasitic if it does not have you touching the product
Check your premises.
This. Libertarianism can be order, just not coercive order.
>Libertarianism can be order
Communists are less retards than libertarians
Military operations do not want a free market equilibrium. Supply demand analysis fail when you murder the supplier or the demander
>freedom means no contracts
oof