The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#426
#426
n_huffhines said:
What nobody seems to understand is that if you act out of turn, everybody will come after you. If the US acts out of turn, nobody is big enough to stand up to them. If company A acts out of turn, companies B-Z go after them.
Click to expand...

In theory, in reality companies g-p just might sit it out.

Face it, the reality of you model is militarized fiefdoms with everyone living within their territory subject to the CEOs will.
 
#428
#428
n_huffhines said:
They already do. Mutually assured destruction is a good thing. It leads to peace. Why do you think we only invade countries without nukes?
Click to expand...

But if the majority of our arsenal is for sale, then what?

Then they have our nukes, and we have none.

Plus what prevents warring factions within the US? Some CEO is going broke and decides to take the nation down with him? Not good.
 
#431
#431
hog88 said:
And what would be the difference in your "protection agencies"?
Click to expand...

Competition makes things better. When governments compete, they provide better services. Better property rights. Better contract enforcement. Better protection of life and liberty.

When governments don't compete, you get perpetual war. You get invasions of privacy. You get police brutality. Etc.

If you are worried about war, don't pick the system that clearly creates war.
 
#432
#432
n_huffhines said:
What nobody seems to understand is that if you act out of turn, everybody will come after you. If the US acts out of turn, nobody is big enough to stand up to them. If company A acts out of turn, companies B-Z go after them.
Click to expand...

I'm sure this was already addressed but what are the rules/laws here and who enforces them?

Can one protection agency claim the other was "going after them" and eliminate them?

Can protection agencies collude (who would stop them) and determine their "clients" are a threat and take actions to control the clients?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#433
#433
If you are going to advocate market forces then you can't ignore the quest for growth and profit. Without an enforcement/regulatory authority there is little to stop these agencies from taking whatever action necessary to grow and accumulate "market share".

The customer only matters in a market system when there is true choice. Given there would be significant barriers to entry for these "protection agencies" (scope and assets) it is easy to see a oligopoly at best and monopoly at worst (at least geographically). As choice dwindles the regulatory of the market fails.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#434
#434
volinbham said:
I'm sure this was already addressed but what are the rules/laws here and who enforces them?

Can one protection agency claim the other was "going after them" and eliminate them?

Can protection agencies collude (who would stop them) and determine their "clients" are a threat and take actions to control the clients?
Click to expand...

There would be norms for interaction, and most protection agencies would have adopted bylaws for dealing with the individual agencies.

For example, you might have a protection agency that protects your family from child molesters, but I choose a protection agency that is so anti-child molester that I pay extra for protection and stronger enforcement for my entire neighborhood. If you are my neighbor, and your child is hurt, your protection agency could appeal to mine for covering the investigation, trial, and punishment. They would already have agreements in place that they turn it over to my agency, pay what it would have cost them, and then I pay the difference for the extra justice I seek. Or your company might not agree with my agency's harsh penalties, so they agree to a middle ground approach for punishment. Etc.
 
#435
#435
Obsessed said:
Interesting.

I have begun to find myself drawn to different philosophies. I've been reading and watching a lot of philosophy movies.

I watched the doc on atlas shrugged the other day. It put her philosophy more in to perspective for me.

Objectivism vs altruism.

I enjoy learning. Even ifs wrong. Lol.
Click to expand...

Epistemology is different than economic/political philosophy. I haven't read Atlas Shrugged. If I want to read about free markets, I would go with Hayek, Smith, Friedman, etc.
 
#436
#436
n_huffhines said:
There would be norms for interaction, and most protection agencies would have adopted bylaws for dealing with the individual agencies.

For example, you might have a protection agency that protects your family from child molesters, but I choose a protection agency that is so anti-child molester that I pay extra for protection and stronger enforcement for my entire neighborhood. If you are my neighbor, and your child is hurt, your protection agency could appeal to mine for covering the investigation, trial, and punishment. They would already have agreements in place that they turn it over to my agency, pay what it would have cost them, and then I pay the difference for the extra justice I seek. Or your company might not agree with my agency's harsh penalties, so they agree to a middle ground approach for punishment. Etc.
Click to expand...

Who sets and enforces the norms? Who runs the trials? Who enforces rulings?

Why do you assume that everyone would just agree to work together?

What you are advocating could just as easily (more easily?) result in a Mafia style situation with no law enforcement to thwart it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#437
#437
n_huffhines said:
There would be norms for interaction, and most protection agencies would have adopted bylaws for dealing with the individual agencies.

For example, you might have a protection agency that protects your family from child molesters, but I choose a protection agency that is so anti-child molester that I pay extra for protection and stronger enforcement for my entire neighborhood. If you are my neighbor, and your child is hurt, your protection agency could appeal to mine for covering the investigation, trial, and punishment. They would already have agreements in place that they turn it over to my agency, pay what it would have cost them, and then I pay the difference for the extra justice I seek. Or your company might not agree with my agency's harsh penalties, so they agree to a middle ground approach for punishment. Etc.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling that in your society that u will end up paying a lot more than the taxes that u r complaining about.
 
#438
#438
n_huffhines said:
There would be norms for interaction, and most protection agencies would have adopted bylaws for dealing with the individual agencies.

For example, you might have a protection agency that protects your family from child molesters, but I choose a protection agency that is so anti-child molester that I pay extra for protection and stronger enforcement for my entire neighborhood. If you are my neighbor, and your child is hurt, your protection agency could appeal to mine for covering the investigation, trial, and punishment. They would already have agreements in place that they turn it over to my agency, pay what it would have cost them, and then I pay the difference for the extra justice I seek. Or your company might not agree with my agency's harsh penalties, so they agree to a middle ground approach for punishment. Etc.
Click to expand...

How does the punishment work?
 
#440
#440
volinbham said:
Who sets and enforces the norms? Who runs the trials? Who enforces rulings?
Click to expand...

No one centrally needs to decide these things. It's an invisible hand. Social norms will drive it for the most part.

Why do you assume that everyone would just agree to work together?
Click to expand...

Cause that's how markets work. That's what we do every day of our lives with or without the government's involvement. A lot of the parts of government that seem to work mostly work because people decide it's better to work together of their own volition, not because government is making them work together. A microcasm of that would be littering. Every city has codes against littering, but some populations value a clean city more than others. It's not about the city government.

What you are advocating could just as easily (more easily?) result in a Mafia style situation with no law enforcement to thwart it.
Click to expand...

Kind of. Mafias have control over their neighborhood. Mafias are successful when they can control entire regions, and they would have a very hard time controlling regions without government. It'd almost be impossible, IMO.
 
#443
#443
Huff, I think you are over estimating the way markets work.

It doesn't take many bad actors (with bad defined as profit seeking above all) to control supply.

One key market mechanism is profitability via market share growth. Particularly in the case of "protection agencies" which would have means to use lethal force, a natural market reaction for these suppliers would be to grow/consolidate. As this growth occurs they have assets and scope that others cannot easily match thus competition is lessened.

Without some over arching law enforcement there is nothing to stop one of the agencies from violently removing some of it's competition or to prevent several of them from colluding and consolidating power to a point where new entrants to the market simply cannot compete. Think drug cartel for a perfect example of what could happen without sufficient law enforcement.

As stated earlier - satisfying customers is only necessary in cases of customer choice. To presume "that's how markets work" necessarily mean people just agree to work together is as unrealistic as assuming "that's how communism works" and that people would just work together for the greater good.
 
#445
#445
Think of it like this....if you came from a top-down, government controlled economy, and were completely ignorant of the alternative, how crazy would it be to consider a free-market? It would never work, in your mind. Who decides how many widgets? Who decides the price? Why will people agree to work together? Etc.

My argument is that we would have similar success abandoning top-down systems for justice, for property rights, etc. It's hard to fathom, I agree. Just like a free market for goods would be hard to fathom for someone who hasn't seen it in action.
 
#446
#446
n_huffhines said:
No. We would all have protection agencies that agree to protect society from mob acts of violence. We don't suddenly change our values because government is absent. Come on.
Click to expand...

so are agencies fight each other?

More fundamentally, if you are suggesting that we will collectively develop a set of norms and empower agencies to enforce them then you are still advocating government. The only difference is your vote comes in the form of dollars. The agencies are your representatives that you've empowered to take action against citizens.
 
#447
#447
volinbham said:
so are agencies fight each other?

More fundamentally, if you are suggesting that we will collectively develop a set of norms and empower agencies to enforce them then you are still advocating government. The only difference is your vote comes in the form of dollars. The agencies are your representatives that you've empowered to take action against citizens.
Click to expand...

Anarcho-capitalists have a hard time grasping this concept. They aren't advocating for a governmentless free market but merely a different kind of government (many competing decentralized governments).
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#448
#448
PKT_VOL said:
Anarcho-capitalists have a hard time grasping this concept. They aren't advocating for a governmentless free market but merely a different kind of government (many competing decentralized governments).
Click to expand...

Sounds almost like what the founding fathers envisioned. Go figure.
 
#449
#449
volinbham said:
so are agencies fight each other?

More fundamentally, if you are suggesting that we will collectively develop a set of norms and empower agencies to enforce them then you are still advocating government. The only difference is your vote comes in the form of dollars. The agencies are your representatives that you've empowered to take action against citizens.
Click to expand...

Most likely they would have instances where that happens. They are much less likely to pursue conflicts than governments, though, because their profitability is contingent on minimizing cost. Government has no such incentive, and actually has an incentive to pursue war because of rent-seeking arms manufacturers, etc.
 
#450
#450
n_huffhines said:
Most likely they would have instances where that happens. They are much less likely to pursue conflicts than governments, though, because their profitability is contingent on minimizing cost. Government has no such incentive, and actually has an incentive to pursue war because of rent-seeking arms manufacturers, etc.
Click to expand...

Profitability is based in growth and market share. A larger organization with smaller profit margins still earns higher profits than a smaller organization (even if said organization has a higher profit margin).

The market forces you hold dear have a growth imperative. The pathway to profitability is growth in market share.

Each of these providers would be incentivized to grow. In a market controlled by a law-based regime, growth MUST be customer satisfaction focused. In one that is free of such regulation, growth could come by any number of means that do not require much concern with customer satisfaction.

In the particular example of "protection agencies" that have protection and punishment power there is an absolute incentive to grow to shield itself (and its constituents) from the actions of other such agencies. This would virtually guarantee conflict between agencies.

As a "customer" of one of these groups I would certainly want mine to be the strong one so it could protect me.
 
Last edited:
New Posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

Advertisement



Back
Top