[ExI] Private and government R&D

[Stathis Papaioannou]

2009/7/21 Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>:

> ### Huh?
>
> Anybody who encounters a businessman who feels he is not bound by the
> ethical considerations of non-initiation of violence may use any means
> at his disposal to deal with the business, since refusing to be bound
> by moral law excludes the businessman from its protections.

A rich and powerful individual or corporation would have no trouble
squashing anyone that gets in their way, either directly or
indirectly. This is the main reasons traditional anarchists are not
capitalists: the wealthy have power over the poor, in the same way
that government has power, but without even the pretence of allowing
the governed a say in how they are governed.

Suppose you are a mining company with a turnover of tens of billions
of dollars a year. A village is situated on top of a resource you want
and the villagers refuse to move. You figure it will cost you $5
billion in bad publicity if you forcibly relocate the village but gain
you $10 billion in extra profits (you could also just kill the
villagers and save on relocation costs, but that would cost you $15
billion in bad publicity, defeating the purpose of the exercise).
What's to stop you forcibly relocating the village? Why would you give
consideration to anything like a principle of non-violence or
non-coercion if you can see it would adversely affect the bottom line?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou