Coercion requries aggression. Where is the aggression? Where is the theft, fraud, extortion, or physical force? All I see is voluntary association -- a threat to voluntarily end a voluntary relationship.
I think what you meant to say was "economic pressure". Coercion requires an act of force. You ought to just say what you really mean, instead of trying to justify it by re-defining voluntary association. I think what you really meant to say is that government knows better how to run a business than the business owners themselves, and therefore government should interfere by force.
Of course, Intel didn't achieve their market share entirely through voluntary association -- this is nearly impossible where a free market doesn't exist (and it doesn't, not even close). They exploited the force of government, just like any other business which operates in a non-free market. Once again, the root of the problem is government.
The term "voluntary" cannot be used loosely: any interaction between two human beings MUST be one of either voluntary association or force. Moreover, the line between force and voluntary association is the only constant by which human beings can judge right from wrong -- anything else is inherently arbitrary by human nature. There are very few cases where the mode of a human interaction (voluntary or force) is up for debate, and these mostly involve young or mentally-handicapped individuals interacting with mature individuals.
You're the buyer, you can do what you want anyway.
Aha, so there's a double standard? If I'm reading this correctly, the buyer is entitled to voluntary association but the seller is not? Does this apply only to big business or would it apply to (for example) a private sale of a used car?
"You own an AMD, so that video card in your hand will cost double" would you call that a fair trade practice?
Sure, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Yes, that is fair business practice. Whether it's smart business is another matter, but fair, yes. Why is it fair? Because the transaction (or lack thereof) is still engaged voluntarily. Why is voluntary association fair? Because human nature says so.
If they're the only computer store in the country?
Not likely -- hell, impossible -- in a free market scenario, but I'll bite anyway: yes, it's still fair (I prefer the less-ambiguous term "voluntary"). Of course, Japan's economy is not a free market (neither is the US -- not even close), so there's a worm in the apple right from the start. (I define a free market as one in which government is authorized only to protect against force, not one in which government is authorized to be the aggressor itself, as in today's world.)
it is only wrong if you threaten them when they consider using another companies product
Of course, Intel did not actually threaten to initiate force against their customers (theft, fraud, extortion, murder, rape, etc). If they had, there would be no debate over the ruling. Intel only "threatened" to stop engaging in voluntary trade with their customers! Can you not see the difference here? Or were you deliberately trying to present the case as an actual threat of force?
The fact is that Intel's customers voluntarily chose to do business with Intel, and they can voluntarily choose to end that business relationship. Can Intel choose to end the business relationship, as long as they don't break any contracts? Why or why not?
I can and have "threatened" to quit doing business with online stores who tried to sell me damaged computer parts. Should I be charged with antitrust violations? Why or why not?
Disclaimer: Personally I am no fan of Intel, and I buy AMD whenever possible. But I know the difference between a voluntary business relationship and on which is based on force. This isn't the mob we're talking about.
This is the same school that teaches it is ok to fire workers who have worked at a company for 10-20 years so the execs can make 5% more on their stocks by moving factories overseas.
Not that I am defending Harvard, but many of these "unethical" companies you speak of are only responding to the ever-increasing burden of government. Being slammed with more and more taxes and regulations, they are faced with a choice: cut costs, or go out of business.
Do you really think that outsourcing would be such a popular solution if it didn't make such a drastic difference in the bottom line? Of course not -- it's a last resort, not some fundamental law of business. The real question is, why DOES outsourcing make such a drastic difference in the bottom line? Look no further than government for the answer.
Martha Stewart only committed a crime against government, as a drug user does. The act in question is not criminalized because human nature says so, like any real initiation of force; it is only criminalized because government says so.
Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.
Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.
Governments so often believe they can wave a piece of paper and behavior stops.
Before you ask yourself whether or not a new law will work, or how the new law will benefit the people, or what the basic rationale is behind the whole thing, ask yourself how does this new law benefit government.
Consider that government benefits even from outright failures. Typically, government failures are rewarded with more revenue, and even if the program is scrapped, they still reap the administrative costs and (perhaps even more valuable) the precedents for greater expansions of power.
Nobody really wants to believe that government is first and foremost concerned with its own interests, but the facts are on the table for anyone to see. History proves that governments have a tendency to expand over their lifetimes, and there's a very good reason for that: expansion of government benefits those in power.
Since the beginning of time, all governments have been concerned primarily with increasing their own power and wealth -- it's just that some are more bold than others, some have more resources to plunder than others, and some have a better understanding of just how much they can get away with.
When you see that your government is planning to expand its powers once again, before you ask yourself how the people will benefit, ask yourself how government will benefit. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but nobody can deny that expansion of government powers benefits government. The question is not if, but who, when, and how much.
Where exactly has libertarianism existed? (I'll ignore your roundabout insult of implying that libertarianism is a hopeless/utopian "paradise".) As far as I am aware, no state on this planet has even approached libertarianism, except perhaps for the US 200 years ago (but then, how can a state which permits slavery be considered libertarian). So, either show me a state whose government is/was permitted ONLY to protect the people against the initiation of force, or you will have to admit that your comment was just baseless assumption.
Furthermore, depending on the situation, deliberate false advertising could be considered an initiation of force. What makes you think a libertarian government would refuse to deal with such a problem? Or were you simply assuming the problem can't possibly be dealt with unless some blanket regulation is passed? Libertarianism is about justice as much as it's about freedom you know.
Man, get with the times. The name of the game is exploiting government for your own interests, at the expense of everyone else. Get yourself a piece of the pie before it's all gone. Every man for himself... uh, I mean government for the people, by the people! Yeah, that's it!
But the debate here is not if a city should decide whether or not to offer wifi paid by the taxpayers, it's if the government has the right to ban it altogether.
Never mind the more fundamental question of, does the government have the right to force people to pay for this service against their will? Nope, that's not even a consideration, is it? We're way past that one.
Man, it's sad when "the people" don't even think twice about screwing over everyone else for their own special interests. But that's the general theme of big government, right? Get yourself a piece of the pie, because everyone else is getting theirs. Never mind that the pie is poisoned with corruption.
I'm still on dial-up, $10 a month. Would I like to have broadband? Sure. Would I consider using the force of government as a means to achieve that? Not in a million years. I take full responsibility for my own wants an needs, because I actually respect free will.
Somehow when I think of people calling their senators to ward off yet another government attack on freedom, I can't help but think of the game "whack-a-mole". You whack one, and 2 pop up in its place. You whack another, and 2 more pop up. Little by little, step by step, the overall size of government increases.
This is exactly how the US government has expanded on a near-exponential scale over the past 200 years (in terms of both revenue and power over the people). At the root of it all, it is their main objective to increase the net worth of government, just as it is a CEO's main objective to increase the value of the firm.
Somehow I doubt that if the television industry were to reinvent itself, government would simply lose interest in regulating, taxing, fining, and exploiting the industry.
As history shows, government follows the money. If it will make government bigger and more powerful, and it can be done without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (the market), then it will be done.
You have to realize that government is a business too, and the people who run government concern themselves with the bottom line, just like any other business -- the only difference is that government is authorized to use deadly force to conduct its business. To government, a multi-billion dollar industry is a business opportunity that simply can't be passed up.
The best solution would be more Congressional accountability, but that is not so easy to achieve.
You're on the right track. The best solution is strictly limited government, i.e. government which is authorized only to protect the people from aggression (theft, fraud, murder, assult, war, etc). Yes, this would mean the end to all special interest politics, and a government which has only a small fraction of the revenue and power it does today. But, it would also mean a much less corruptable, much more accountable government.
How would limited government reduce corruption and increase accountability? By eliminating the incentives to exploit government right from the get go. You can't bribe a politician who doesn't have the power to take your offer!
Of course, what we have in the US isn't capitalism -- not by a long shot. Capitalism is founded on voluntary association. The bigger the government, the less voluntary association, and therefore the less capitalism.
Considering the size of the US government, the idea that our economy is capitalist is almost laughable. What we have is a bastardized version of capitalism, where the state is heavily entangled in the market.
Stop right there. Before we even consider where the money comes from, could there possibly be a problem with the fact that money buys government? If so, where exactly is the problem? Is it rooted in the permanent line of crooks waiting to exploit government? Or is the problem rooted in the fact that government is exploitable in the first place?
The root of the problem is that government is not held to strict limits on power. Until that day, government will be exploitable. For those who favor big government, stand up and be proud, because this is big government in all its glory.
Campaign contributions wouldn't mean jack if government was strictly limited in power. The lobbying industry (think about that for a second -- there is an entire industry dedicated to bribing government) only exists because government is exploitable.
Until government is held to strict limits on power, there will be a permanant line of crooks waiting for their turn to exploit that power (both inside and outside the political circle). That's not theory -- that's simple reality. If you favor big government, give yourself a pat on the back, because this is it.
In general, the bigger and more powerful government becomes, the more success you will find among those who know how to bribe, cheat, and steal -- and the less success you will find among those who know how to make the best product at the lowest cost. This is the fundamental difference between a market which is ulimately controlled by voluntary association (a free market) and a market which is ultimately controlled by force (government).
What happened to the old days when the customer was king and great customer service was the way to do business.
That was when government was half the size it is today. As government grows richer, more powerful, and more entangled in the market, you can bet that private firms will increasingly view their customers not as individual, thinking beings who must be won over by better products and services, but as mindless drones just waiting to be ripped off. Why do private firms take on this mindset in the wake of big government? Because they aren't exactly private firms anymore. The free market and its fundamental principle of voluntary association is endangered. Increasingly, the private sector is becoming just another arm of government and its fundamental principle of association by force.
Does everyone like the way they're treated at the DMV? Does everyone like being treated as a problem instead of a paying customer? Get ready, because in due time, that's how all "private" business will treat you.
In 5-10 years time, wireless internet will become a commodity service just like air conditioning did. The businesses we see today offering wireless service at no charge are the ones who correctly anticipate the future trend. As you pointed out, they will reap the benefits -- while the service can still be considered a competitive advantage. In due time, there won't be such a thing as a cafe without this service.
do you believe in the fundamental right of individuals to possess doomsday devices which have the potential to kill in the billions
No I do not, because as the destructive capacity of such a device goes up, the more it becomes an active threat rather than a defense mechinism. How does it become a threat? Let's use the analogy of the drunken driver. He doesn't set out to initiate force against others. But, the drunker he gets, the more his presence on the road becomes an active threat to others, and the greater the likelyhood of accidental disaster. Similarly, the more powerful a weapon becomes, the greater the likelyhood of an accident causing mass destruction. This, I believe, would be interpreted as an active threat (an real initiation of force) by the free people who have settled in the area before such a weapon came into existence. (How could one possibly live peacefully knowing that a simple accident next door could blow up the entire city?)
How to solve the problem is another question. Personally I believe that in a purely voluntary society, the issue would never come up in the first place. Incidentally, I see you citing Somalia as an "anarchist" society. Would you consider Somalia a voluntary society? I certainly do not, so I don't know where you are trying to go with that. If it's not voluntary, it's not anarcho-capitalism -- remember, the basic tool of both warlords and government is force! (To the anarchist, there is no fundamental difference between being ruled by a warlord, king, or elected official. If you are ruled by anyone other than yourself, you are subject to an initiation of force.)
Do you believe that preemptive strikes are immoral (being that they violate the non-initiation of force principle)... even when the stakes could be all human life?
Of course I do. Under no circumstances may any individual or government choose to "sacrifice" a human being for any reason. Why? Property rights. You cannot choose to trade (or destroy) something you don't own in the first place! If human rights are absolute -- which I belive they are, because I am a human being myself and as such, I do own myself -- then nobody can possibly make that decision but each individual human being who would be "sacrificed". To go ahead with such a plan -- the war on Iraq to cite a current example -- is to rob each individual of their most fundamental human right to own themselves.
Don't know why I'm replying to your canned arguments, but I will point out that today, in our statist world, WMD not only exist, they are used on a regular basis! (You didn't think the US government managed to kill over 100,000 Iraqi civilians with bows and arrows, did you?) Ironically, the state which claims to be saving the world from WMD is the state which posesses more WMD than any other, and has proven over and over its will to use them to murder innocent civilians.
So much for your theory of governments solving the problem of WMD. No, I didn't prove that a voluntary society guarantees the absence of WMD, but I did just prove that governments haven't solved the problem of WMD (or war in general) -- not by a long shot. Why? Because the root of all war is centralized power. As long as government exists, war is guaranteed.
You should do some reading up on the philosophy of anarcho-capitalism if you're interested. There is solid evidence (as well as philosophical rationale) that a voluntary society would result in much lower crime rates than any coercive (government-run) society ever could.
Of course, no voluntary society could ever possibly exist until the majority of the world's governments evolve to embrace libertarianism (strict limits on government power). Why? Because if such a voluntary society were to emerge, it would be immediately destroyed by the current world superpower.
There will ALWAYS be someone who is willing to use force to obtain the selfish desires that society as a whole refuses to cede him. But any true anarchist society will be very slow to respond
Don't confuse anarchism with pacifism. Anarchism only forbids the initiation of force; reasonable force used in self-defense is entirely moral according to natural law. Also consider that anarchism does not promise 100% morality and justice; it promises the closest thing to 100% morality and justice.
A violation of business ethics, perhaps, but certainly not immoral. The relationship between an employer and employee is voluntary. Unless the voluntary contract specifically states that Gates will never fire or lay off his employees (which it doesn't, because that would be economically impossible), then it is entirely moral for Gates to do so. So you can claim a violation of business ethics, but you can't claim an initiation of force (immoral association).
Of course, government is so entangled in the market nowadays that it's not this clear and straightforward. Is Gates receiving some benefit from government which is ultimately provided not through voluntary association but force? If so, then there is no clear answer, because whoever "wins", wins only at the expense of somebody else's right to voluntary association.
Slashdot Mirror
Coercion requries aggression. Where is the aggression? Where is the theft, fraud, extortion, or physical force? All I see is voluntary association -- a threat to voluntarily end a voluntary relationship.
I think what you meant to say was "economic pressure". Coercion requires an act of force. You ought to just say what you really mean, instead of trying to justify it by re-defining voluntary association. I think what you really meant to say is that government knows better how to run a business than the business owners themselves, and therefore government should interfere by force.
Of course, Intel didn't achieve their market share entirely through voluntary association -- this is nearly impossible where a free market doesn't exist (and it doesn't, not even close). They exploited the force of government, just like any other business which operates in a non-free market. Once again, the root of the problem is government.
The term "voluntary" cannot be used loosely: any interaction between two human beings MUST be one of either voluntary association or force. Moreover, the line between force and voluntary association is the only constant by which human beings can judge right from wrong -- anything else is inherently arbitrary by human nature. There are very few cases where the mode of a human interaction (voluntary or force) is up for debate, and these mostly involve young or mentally-handicapped individuals interacting with mature individuals.
Aha, so there's a double standard? If I'm reading this correctly, the buyer is entitled to voluntary association but the seller is not? Does this apply only to big business or would it apply to (for example) a private sale of a used car?
"You own an AMD, so that video card in your hand will cost double" would you call that a fair trade practice?
Sure, I'll put my money where my mouth is. Yes, that is fair business practice. Whether it's smart business is another matter, but fair, yes. Why is it fair? Because the transaction (or lack thereof) is still engaged voluntarily. Why is voluntary association fair? Because human nature says so.
If they're the only computer store in the country?
Not likely -- hell, impossible -- in a free market scenario, but I'll bite anyway: yes, it's still fair (I prefer the less-ambiguous term "voluntary"). Of course, Japan's economy is not a free market (neither is the US -- not even close), so there's a worm in the apple right from the start. (I define a free market as one in which government is authorized only to protect against force, not one in which government is authorized to be the aggressor itself, as in today's world.)
Of course, Intel did not actually threaten to initiate force against their customers (theft, fraud, extortion, murder, rape, etc). If they had, there would be no debate over the ruling. Intel only "threatened" to stop engaging in voluntary trade with their customers! Can you not see the difference here? Or were you deliberately trying to present the case as an actual threat of force?
The fact is that Intel's customers voluntarily chose to do business with Intel, and they can voluntarily choose to end that business relationship. Can Intel choose to end the business relationship, as long as they don't break any contracts? Why or why not?
I can and have "threatened" to quit doing business with online stores who tried to sell me damaged computer parts. Should I be charged with antitrust violations? Why or why not?
Disclaimer: Personally I am no fan of Intel, and I buy AMD whenever possible. But I know the difference between a voluntary business relationship and on which is based on force. This isn't the mob we're talking about.
Not that I am defending Harvard, but many of these "unethical" companies you speak of are only responding to the ever-increasing burden of government. Being slammed with more and more taxes and regulations, they are faced with a choice: cut costs, or go out of business.
Do you really think that outsourcing would be such a popular solution if it didn't make such a drastic difference in the bottom line? Of course not -- it's a last resort, not some fundamental law of business. The real question is, why DOES outsourcing make such a drastic difference in the bottom line? Look no further than government for the answer.
Did you know that Martha Stewart was NOT convicted of insider trading (which the government and media furiously hyped as her "crime") -- all they could muster up in the end was essentially "lying to government" to protect herself against government. Yet millions of people still think her "crime" was insider trading, or at least associate the whole spectacle with insider trading. Judging by your sneering and pointing of fingers, I would bet you are one of those people who actually thinks that insider trading had something to do with her conviction. I suggest you do some reading -- not everything you see on Fox News is true.
Would you lie to government if you thought it necessary to protect yourself against an unethical government? I think any rational person would. Skim over the following articles, and reconsider what you believe about Martha Stewart.
Link 1
Link 2
Link 3
Link 4
Before you ask yourself whether or not a new law will work, or how the new law will benefit the people, or what the basic rationale is behind the whole thing, ask yourself how does this new law benefit government.
Consider that government benefits even from outright failures. Typically, government failures are rewarded with more revenue, and even if the program is scrapped, they still reap the administrative costs and (perhaps even more valuable) the precedents for greater expansions of power.
Nobody really wants to believe that government is first and foremost concerned with its own interests, but the facts are on the table for anyone to see. History proves that governments have a tendency to expand over their lifetimes, and there's a very good reason for that: expansion of government benefits those in power.
Since the beginning of time, all governments have been concerned primarily with increasing their own power and wealth -- it's just that some are more bold than others, some have more resources to plunder than others, and some have a better understanding of just how much they can get away with.
When you see that your government is planning to expand its powers once again, before you ask yourself how the people will benefit, ask yourself how government will benefit. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but nobody can deny that expansion of government powers benefits government. The question is not if, but who, when, and how much.
Where exactly has libertarianism existed? (I'll ignore your roundabout insult of implying that libertarianism is a hopeless/utopian "paradise".) As far as I am aware, no state on this planet has even approached libertarianism, except perhaps for the US 200 years ago (but then, how can a state which permits slavery be considered libertarian). So, either show me a state whose government is/was permitted ONLY to protect the people against the initiation of force, or you will have to admit that your comment was just baseless assumption.
Furthermore, depending on the situation, deliberate false advertising could be considered an initiation of force. What makes you think a libertarian government would refuse to deal with such a problem? Or were you simply assuming the problem can't possibly be dealt with unless some blanket regulation is passed? Libertarianism is about justice as much as it's about freedom you know.
Man, get with the times. The name of the game is exploiting government for your own interests, at the expense of everyone else. Get yourself a piece of the pie before it's all gone. Every man for himself... uh, I mean government for the people, by the people! Yeah, that's it!
Never mind the more fundamental question of, does the government have the right to force people to pay for this service against their will? Nope, that's not even a consideration, is it? We're way past that one.
Man, it's sad when "the people" don't even think twice about screwing over everyone else for their own special interests. But that's the general theme of big government, right? Get yourself a piece of the pie, because everyone else is getting theirs. Never mind that the pie is poisoned with corruption.
I'm still on dial-up, $10 a month. Would I like to have broadband? Sure. Would I consider using the force of government as a means to achieve that? Not in a million years. I take full responsibility for my own wants an needs, because I actually respect free will.
This is exactly how the US government has expanded on a near-exponential scale over the past 200 years (in terms of both revenue and power over the people). At the root of it all, it is their main objective to increase the net worth of government, just as it is a CEO's main objective to increase the value of the firm.
Somehow I doubt that if the television industry were to reinvent itself, government would simply lose interest in regulating, taxing, fining, and exploiting the industry.
As history shows, government follows the money. If it will make government bigger and more powerful, and it can be done without killing the goose that lays the golden eggs (the market), then it will be done.
You have to realize that government is a business too, and the people who run government concern themselves with the bottom line, just like any other business -- the only difference is that government is authorized to use deadly force to conduct its business. To government, a multi-billion dollar industry is a business opportunity that simply can't be passed up.
You're on the right track. The best solution is strictly limited government, i.e. government which is authorized only to protect the people from aggression (theft, fraud, murder, assult, war, etc). Yes, this would mean the end to all special interest politics, and a government which has only a small fraction of the revenue and power it does today. But, it would also mean a much less corruptable, much more accountable government.
How would limited government reduce corruption and increase accountability? By eliminating the incentives to exploit government right from the get go. You can't bribe a politician who doesn't have the power to take your offer!
Considering the size of the US government, the idea that our economy is capitalist is almost laughable. What we have is a bastardized version of capitalism, where the state is heavily entangled in the market.
Money buys government. (My emphasis.)
Stop right there. Before we even consider where the money comes from, could there possibly be a problem with the fact that money buys government? If so, where exactly is the problem? Is it rooted in the permanent line of crooks waiting to exploit government? Or is the problem rooted in the fact that government is exploitable in the first place?
The root of the problem is that government is not held to strict limits on power. Until that day, government will be exploitable. For those who favor big government, stand up and be proud, because this is big government in all its glory.
Until government is held to strict limits on power, there will be a permanant line of crooks waiting for their turn to exploit that power (both inside and outside the political circle). That's not theory -- that's simple reality. If you favor big government, give yourself a pat on the back, because this is it.
In general, the bigger and more powerful government becomes, the more success you will find among those who know how to bribe, cheat, and steal -- and the less success you will find among those who know how to make the best product at the lowest cost. This is the fundamental difference between a market which is ulimately controlled by voluntary association (a free market) and a market which is ultimately controlled by force (government).
Here in the land of the free, we rob Peter for Paul's sake, in the name of "public good". But we're still free, damn it!
That was when government was half the size it is today. As government grows richer, more powerful, and more entangled in the market, you can bet that private firms will increasingly view their customers not as individual, thinking beings who must be won over by better products and services, but as mindless drones just waiting to be ripped off. Why do private firms take on this mindset in the wake of big government? Because they aren't exactly private firms anymore. The free market and its fundamental principle of voluntary association is endangered. Increasingly, the private sector is becoming just another arm of government and its fundamental principle of association by force.
Does everyone like the way they're treated at the DMV? Does everyone like being treated as a problem instead of a paying customer? Get ready, because in due time, that's how all "private" business will treat you.
In 5-10 years time, wireless internet will become a commodity service just like air conditioning did. The businesses we see today offering wireless service at no charge are the ones who correctly anticipate the future trend. As you pointed out, they will reap the benefits -- while the service can still be considered a competitive advantage. In due time, there won't be such a thing as a cafe without this service.
No I do not, because as the destructive capacity of such a device goes up, the more it becomes an active threat rather than a defense mechinism. How does it become a threat? Let's use the analogy of the drunken driver. He doesn't set out to initiate force against others. But, the drunker he gets, the more his presence on the road becomes an active threat to others, and the greater the likelyhood of accidental disaster. Similarly, the more powerful a weapon becomes, the greater the likelyhood of an accident causing mass destruction. This, I believe, would be interpreted as an active threat (an real initiation of force) by the free people who have settled in the area before such a weapon came into existence. (How could one possibly live peacefully knowing that a simple accident next door could blow up the entire city?)
How to solve the problem is another question. Personally I believe that in a purely voluntary society, the issue would never come up in the first place. Incidentally, I see you citing Somalia as an "anarchist" society. Would you consider Somalia a voluntary society? I certainly do not, so I don't know where you are trying to go with that. If it's not voluntary, it's not anarcho-capitalism -- remember, the basic tool of both warlords and government is force! (To the anarchist, there is no fundamental difference between being ruled by a warlord, king, or elected official. If you are ruled by anyone other than yourself, you are subject to an initiation of force.)
Do you believe that preemptive strikes are immoral (being that they violate the non-initiation of force principle)... even when the stakes could be all human life?
Of course I do. Under no circumstances may any individual or government choose to "sacrifice" a human being for any reason. Why? Property rights. You cannot choose to trade (or destroy) something you don't own in the first place! If human rights are absolute -- which I belive they are, because I am a human being myself and as such, I do own myself -- then nobody can possibly make that decision but each individual human being who would be "sacrificed". To go ahead with such a plan -- the war on Iraq to cite a current example -- is to rob each individual of their most fundamental human right to own themselves.
Don't know why I'm replying to your canned arguments, but I will point out that today, in our statist world, WMD not only exist, they are used on a regular basis! (You didn't think the US government managed to kill over 100,000 Iraqi civilians with bows and arrows, did you?) Ironically, the state which claims to be saving the world from WMD is the state which posesses more WMD than any other, and has proven over and over its will to use them to murder innocent civilians.
So much for your theory of governments solving the problem of WMD. No, I didn't prove that a voluntary society guarantees the absence of WMD, but I did just prove that governments haven't solved the problem of WMD (or war in general) -- not by a long shot. Why? Because the root of all war is centralized power. As long as government exists, war is guaranteed.
There will ALWAYS be someone who is willing to use force to obtain the selfish desires that society as a whole refuses to cede him. But any true anarchist society will be very slow to respond
Don't confuse anarchism with pacifism. Anarchism only forbids the initiation of force; reasonable force used in self-defense is entirely moral according to natural law. Also consider that anarchism does not promise 100% morality and justice; it promises the closest thing to 100% morality and justice.
A violation of business ethics, perhaps, but certainly not immoral. The relationship between an employer and employee is voluntary. Unless the voluntary contract specifically states that Gates will never fire or lay off his employees (which it doesn't, because that would be economically impossible), then it is entirely moral for Gates to do so. So you can claim a violation of business ethics, but you can't claim an initiation of force (immoral association).
Of course, government is so entangled in the market nowadays that it's not this clear and straightforward. Is Gates receiving some benefit from government which is ultimately provided not through voluntary association but force? If so, then there is no clear answer, because whoever "wins", wins only at the expense of somebody else's right to voluntary association.