The Official Libertarian/Anarcho-Capitalist Thread

#751
#751
n_huffhines said:
So you think every one of the 1000 protection agencies is going to have cops patrolling the streets? Neighborhoods and businesses would be patrolled by private security firms (often different, but sometimes the same as a protection agency). There is no military. You would likely see protection agency agents on the reg, but they will look more like insurance agents than military or police. They are mostly there to investigate claims and protect their customer's rights (or make their customer pay if they owe).
Click to expand...

Wouldn't they need military capability?

Without out it, what good would they be? And what rights would I have? The ones I pay for?
 
#753
#753
Grand Vol said:
So in your free market society. What to stop one company from buying out the others?
Click to expand...

It's not feasible. It's a subscription service. People won't feel comfortable with one provider, so if one provider buys up the others, they are going to take their business elsewhere. There will always be providers as long as their are people willing to give them money. Somebody who tries to gain market power by buying business is going to lose their shirts.

Think of it this way. If I sell you my protection agency business at market value, and then 40% of the customers I had switched away from you after the merger, how long are you going to be profitable doing that? It's impossible to "buy out" all potential competitors.
 
#754
#754
hog88 said:
Wouldn't they need military capability?

Without out it, what good would they be? And what rights would I have? The ones I pay for?
Click to expand...

They have no interest in invading geographic regions, if that's what you mean. They will have small forces for covert operations (save a kidnapped child, etc.) and they will have nukes for foreign threats.
 
#755
#755
n_huffhines said:
You're talking about a market of 1000 competitors becoming a market of 1 and then you make fun of my understanding of economics? I would guess that you've never stepped foot in an economics classroom, based on that statement.
Click to expand...

n_huffhines said:
It's not feasible. It's a subscription service. People won't feel comfortable with one provider, so if one provider buys up the others, they are going to take their business elsewhere. There will always be providers as long as their are people willing to give them money. Somebody who tries to gain market power by buying business is going to lose their shirts.

Think of it this way. If I sell you my protection agency business at market value, and then 40% of the customers I had switched away from you after the merger, how long are you going to be profitable doing that? It's impossible to "buy out" all potential competitors.
Click to expand...

You say this about me then post the above?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#756
#756
n_huffhines said:
They have no interest in invading geographic regions, if that's what you mean. They will have small forces for covert operations (save a kidnapped child, etc.) and they will have nukes for foreign threats.
Click to expand...

Yep, history proves it's not in mans nature to wage wars of conquest.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#757
#757
hog88 said:
You say this about me then post the above?
Click to expand...

Yeah. What is your qualm with what I am saying?

If your protection agency got bought by Wal-Mart, would you stick with Wal-Mart or would you switch?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and guessing you are smart enough to switch.
 
#758
#758
hog88 said:
Yep, history proves it's not in mans nature to wage wars of conquest.
Click to expand...

That's what governments do. Businesses make money. Sure they can try to seize power, but they know they can't beat everybody else combined, so they just keep on making money the fair way.
 
#759
#759
n_huffhines said:
Yeah. What is your qualm with what I am saying?

If your protection agency got bought by Wal-Mart, would you stick with Wal-Mart or would you switch?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and guessing you are smart enough to switch.
Click to expand...

What I'm saying is there would quickly be few of any options to switch to.

You completely ignore points contrary to your argument.
 
#760
#760
n_huffhines said:
That's what governments do. Businesses make money. Sure they can try to seize power, but they know they can't beat everybody else combined, so they just keep on making money the fair way.
Click to expand...

So everyone makes money the fair way?
 
#761
#761
hog88 said:
What I'm saying is there would quickly be few of any options to switch to.

You completely ignore points contrary to your argument.
Click to expand...

It's an invalid and baseless point. There is nothing about the study of economics that suggests there will be fewer suppliers in a free market if the market demands more suppliers.
 
#762
#762
n_huffhines said:
It's an invalid and baseless point. There is nothing about the study of economics that suggests there will be fewer suppliers in a free market if the market demands more suppliers.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen an economic study that calculates zero regulations and human nature together.

Please post a link.
 
#763
#763
What are you even asking? Given the context, I think you are asking for this:

demandsupplycurve.jpg
 
#765
#765
n_huffhines said:
There are controls. What you mean is that there isn't a top-down control, which is often just the illusion of rule of law.
Click to expand...

Give me an example of a control. You stated that if I breached a contract with you that your boys would come and place me in a work camp. I said that I would tell them to go spit and my guys would protect me from your enslavement. It IS feudalism or else there would have to be some sort of "central" .gov to arbitrate disputes. You can't have it both ways. So if I tell you to pack sand over the contract, you can't send your boys after me because you would have to appeal to a neutral 3rd. And unless they have some sort of power over me... which they wouldn't because it would no longer be an anarchial society... I'll tell them the same thing I told you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#766
#766
hog88 said:
And again you ignore the natural greed of man. Nowhere in any of your posts is this taken into account.
Click to expand...

It's accounted for:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n5K6TJWBIFQ[/youtube]
 
#767
#767
n_huffhines said:
Yeah, and that works really well in cleaning out government.

The government is the most well armed agency.

The thing you fear the most about ancap exists under government.
Click to expand...

No.... under a .gov, it is at least well ordered even though it might be corrupt. Under ancap, it is a free for all. If our .gov weren't well ordered, wouldn't you think that there would have been a military coup by now with all the corrupt retarded politicians we have had of late?
 
#768
#768
SpaceCoastVol said:
Give me an example of a control. You stated that if I breached a contract with you that your boys would come and place me in a work camp. I said that I would tell them to go spit and my guys would protect me from your enslavement. It IS feudalism or else there would have to be some sort of "central" .gov to arbitrate disputes. You can't have it both ways. So if I tell you to pack sand over the contract, you can't send your boys after me because you would have to appeal to a neutral 3rd. And unless they have some sort of power over me... which they wouldn't because it would no longer be an anarchial society... I'll tell them the same thing I told you.
Click to expand...

If a neutral 3rd party finds you owing, your protection agency gladly walks and leaves you on your own. They are not obligated to cover you when you are at fault. In fact, they may have an arrangement in dealing with other protection firms that they pay for your damages, and then it's up to them to collect from you. Good luck with that.
 
#770
#770
hog88 said:
Still waiting?
Click to expand...

Wait. You make a straw man argument and you are actually waiting for a response? Usually people want their fallacious arguments to fly under the radar.

There is your answer.
 
#771
#771
n_huffhines said:
Yeah. What is your qualm with what I am saying?

If your protection agency got bought by Wal-Mart, would you stick with Wal-Mart or would you switch?

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and guessing you are smart enough to switch.
Click to expand...

Why is it smarter in your estimation to switch in that case? If WAL provides my with protection/security for a low low price, I would be stupid TO switch. And since they have pretty much turned the retail industry on it's ear, I am sure they could do the same with your little fantasy. Buying power is what it's all about.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#772
#772
SpaceCoastVol said:
Why is it smarter in your estimation to switch in that case? If WAL provides my with protection/security for a low low price, I would be stupid TO switch. And since they have pretty much turned the retail industry on it's ear, I am sure they could do the same with your little fantasy. Buying power is what it's all about.
Click to expand...

Why weren't you with them in the first place?
 
#773
#773
n_huffhines said:
If your protection agency got bought by Wal-Mart, would you stick with Wal-Mart or would you switch?
Click to expand...

Wouldn't that depend on if they were providing what was needed at a good price? Weren't you recently lauding Walmart's return policy? Isn't that a good deal easier due to their enormous purchasing power and reach?

Or to put it another way wouldn't most people gravitate towards whoever best met their needs, even if that started producing more and more centralization of strength?
 
#774
#774
n_huffhines said:
Wait. You make a straw man argument and you are actually waiting for a response? Usually people want their fallacious arguments to fly under the radar.

There is your answer.
Click to expand...

No, no, you don't get off that easy after making claims that everyone would be fair and be on their best behavior.

Oh and nice using a John Stossle video.
 
#775
#775
n_huffhines said:
If a neutral 3rd party finds you owing, your protection agency gladly walks and leaves you on your own. They are not obligated to cover you when you are at fault. In fact, they may have an arrangement in dealing with other protection firms that they pay for your damages, and then it's up to them to collect from you. Good luck with that.
Click to expand...

Of course they are not "obligated" to do so. But I pay them well, and they will stay until somebody pays them better. The second part of your post is one reason why your whole premise falls apart. If they have deals with other firms, then they are not loyal and trustworthy, and would therefore go out of business, because who would hire them if there was a chance they would walk on THEIR bargain.... MY trustworthiness is irrelevant to this part of the equation because my dealings with them are monetary only, and I pay them well.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.
Advertisement





Back
Top