The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#527
#527
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, but you aren't their only client. You pay them to protect you. You don't pay them to be bullies. That's not what they do. They will fight for you if they have to. They don't want to fight, cause fighting is expensive. If you call on them to fight for you when you misbehave, then they will say, "that's not the business we're in."

I'm sure your next question is, "what if the copper company has so much money they are the only client." which is basically the same question as "what if the copper mine had its own army?". Well, If that happened, I am certain all the protection agencies combined would demolish the mine's army. First of all, they outnumber them, and it is what they are built for. I can't imagine a mining company waging war as effective as the professionals.
Click to expand...

What are they protecting the copper company from? The farmer's agency?

What is the farmer's agency authorized to do in this case and who authorizes that?

Can they inflict physical damage on the company? Freeze assets (at who's behest?) Would the other customers of the agency all support this too? Maybe some of them have relatives that work at the copper company.

In the end, I see no reason why the copper company wouldn't make a business decision and if the numbers look right just tell the farmer (and his protection agency) to pound sand.
 
#528
#528
volinbham said:
1. Why is this a core assumption? Why are these not like lawyers who protect your rights regardless of what you did? To me this is one the major leaps of faith - that in a free market all such agencies would choose to just operate this way.
Click to expand...

I assume the protection agency would be motivated by profits, and minimize cost, only fighting the battles they have to fight. Why would they fight battles they aren't obligated to fight. It'd be like objecting to insurance companies providing insurance (rather than government) because they might provide more than what they're obligated to provide. Insurance companies that do that will lose money. Why on earth would they provide more than they are obligated to?

1a. Is my pollution behaving badly? Do I have to operate completely pollution free? My agency may say "hmmm, that's not really so bad"
Click to expand...

If you're not polluting, then nobody has a case against you.

2. What could the farmer's protection agency do to me? What power do they have? Presumably they are some puny little group (one of hundreds). Where does their authority come from and how could it be exercised?
Click to expand...

Their authority comes from the fact that they outnumber you, and nobody is going to come to your rescue because you are misbehaving. You're on your own against a force mightier than you.
 
#529
#529
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Yes i do. I just don't believe in the concept of nationalism. People should be allowed to travel freely.
Click to expand...

Can they travel freely across your property? Presumably in the world you are advocating all property would be owned by someone and each of those owners has the legitimate right to prevent trespassing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#530
#530
n_huffhines said:
Because your protection agency won't protect you if you behave badly. You go to arbitration, or you face the farmer's protection agency.
Click to expand...

Another term you use frequently. Who decides this and if wealthy enough couldn't I buy a decision in my favor? We are talking unrestrained capitalism here.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#531
#531
volinbham said:
Can they travel freely across your property? Presumably in the world you are advocating all property would be owned by someone and each of those owners has the legitimate right to prevent trespassing.
Click to expand...

Sure, if they have my permission. It's my property after all. and they would have a privilege to cross. They don't have a right to cross over my land however.
The whole rights vs privileges argument ensues.
 
#532
#532
n_huffhines said:
I assume the protection agency would be motivated by profits, and minimize cost, only fighting the battles they have to fight. Why would they fight battles they aren't obligated to fight. It'd be like objecting to insurance companies providing insurance because they provide more than what they're obligated to provide. Insurance companies that do that will lose money



If you're not polluting, then nobody has a case against you.



Their authority comes from the fact that they outnumber you, and nobody is going to come to your rescue because you are misbehaving. Your on your own against a force mightier than you.
Click to expand...

Only if the farmer's protection agency has more means than I do as a company. I still don't know what the sanctions would be.

It's interesting that you are advocating forced compliance via violent means. I thought that was the argument against the government.
 
#533
#533
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Sure, if they have my permission. It's my property after all. and they would have a privilege to cross. They don't have a right to cross over my land however.
The whole rights vs privileges argument ensues.
Click to expand...

It's the same situation now - the government grants permission in some cases and not in others.
 
#534
#534
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Car accidents? I don't imagine insurance companies would be going away.
Land disputes? Arbitrator to decide, that both parties agree upon.
Immigration? I don't believe in borders.
Click to expand...

Who's going to make the insurance company pay? Hell they are the richest entities out their, they could afford A1++ protection agencies to enforce their decisions.

Who's going to enforce that people have insurance or is this just an added feature of coverage from the protection agencies?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#535
#535
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, but you aren't their only client. You pay them to protect you. You don't pay them to be bullies. That's not what they do. They will fight for you if they have to. They don't want to fight, cause fighting is expensive. If you call on them to fight for you when you misbehave, then they will say, "that's not the business we're in."


I'm sure your next question is, "what if the copper company has so much money they are the only client." which is basically the same question as "what if the copper mine had its own army?". Well, If that happened, I am certain all the protection agencies combined would demolish the mine's army. First of all, they outnumber them, and it is what they are built for. I can't imagine a mining company waging war as effective as the professionals.
Click to expand...

Would Warren Buffet or Bill Gates get the same answer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#536
#536
n_huffhines said:
I assume the protection agency would be motivated by profits, and minimize cost, only fighting the battles they have to fight. Why would they fight battles they aren't obligated to fight. It'd be like objecting to insurance companies providing insurance (rather than government) because they might provide more than what they're obligated to provide. Insurance companies that do that will lose money. Why on earth would they provide more than they are obligated to?
Click to expand...

This is not how lawyers operate.

Why couldn't/wouldn't they simply charge for each act of protection? Surely the market would support that and it could be quite profitable.

In a free market there will be providers of all sorts to match the varied needs of customers.
 
#538
#538
hog88 said:
Who's going to make the insurance company pay? Hell they are the richest entities out their, they could afford A1++ protection agencies to enforce their decisions.

Who's going to enforce that people have insurance or is this just an added feature of coverage from the protection agencies?
Click to expand...

Once again we are on contracts and agreements. You would have a policy with the insurance companies, much like you do now. As I stated earlier, most contracts on a free society would also come with an arbitration agreement, in the case of a dispute, or non payment of funds owed.

If the insurance company didn't pay, and did it enough to garner a bad reputation for not paying, I don't much imagine they'd be very rich anymore.

No one will "enforce" someone to have insurance, if you total your car and you're not insured, that's on you.
 
#544
#544
DEFENDTHISHOUSE said:
Once again we are on contracts and agreements. You would have a policy with the insurance companies, much like you do now. As I stated earlier, most contracts on a free society would also come with an arbitration agreement, in the case of a dispute, or non payment of funds owed.

If the insurance company didn't pay, and did it enough to garner a bad reputation for not paying, I don't much imagine they'd be very rich anymore.

No one will "enforce" someone to have insurance, if you total your car and you're not insured, that's on you.
Click to expand...

There has to be an authority to enforce the agreements.

Good point, the first thing I would do as an owner of a protection agency is buy up, take over as many news outlets as possible. Then crush any that attempted to besmirch me or my rich clients.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#545
#545
volinbham said:
Only if the farmer's protection agency has more means than I do as a company. I still don't know what the sanctions would be.
Click to expand...

Interesting business model for a copper mine. I wonder how you will compete in the marketplace when you add war to the cost of doing business.

It's interesting that you are advocating forced compliance via violent means. I thought that was the argument against the government.
Click to expand...

The argument against government is that they have a monopoly on force. I mean, a gun is a tool for forced compliance. Just because I argue against government's monopoly on force doesn't mean I'm not gonna use a gun to force a home burglar to comply.
 
#548
#548
hog88 said:
There has to be an authority to enforce the agreements.

Good point, the first thing I would do as an owner of a protection agency is buy up, take over as many news outlets as possible. Then crush any that attempted to besmirch me or my rich clients.
Click to expand...

I have a feeling you'd be a very broke man very quickly hog lol.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top