How would a privately run court system possibly have the authority to punish somebody in any meaningful way?

And if it had that, what possible mechanism would there be to keep it from abusing its authority in a way that makes the current system's flaws look downright cute by comparison?

Don't just tell me to go read the damn book, either, I have no particular desire to throw money at mouthpieces for causes I despise. You read the fucker, lay it out for us.

7/24/2007 8:27:13 PM

^^that's alot of assuming that the poor own land.

7/24/2007 8:47:58 PM

sarijoul, hmm, they either own it or they are renting it, and people don't rent places without police protection. I suppose, being poor, they may be squatters; in which case I suppose they are actually hoping there is no police protection. But land-lords in general like the idea of having someone available to evict tenants.

Then again, if the society at large is using either a regional competition model or protection vouchers, then the land cannot legally be without police protection, since the cost is being paid through property taxes and failure to pay lands you in jail.

7/25/2007 7:33:58 AM

Quote :

"Money isn't the goal. Efficiency is. We want the best service for the least amount of money. You cannot achieve this with a bureaucracy."

Totalitarianism is the most efficient means of government. But it is undesirable... that means that there are other core values more treasured than efficiency. Blaming the bureaucracy is a red herring.... the fact they are there is to prevent very bad things from happening very quickly. Get rid of the "activist judges", "lazy bureaucrats" and all the other lesser institutions that check and balance our governmental entities and you have totalitarianism.

7/25/2007 8:21:42 AM

You've gotta be kidding, right? You don't know shit...


You cannot achieve efficiency with a totalitarian setup. You cannot manage an economy and a populous with a dictator and a few advisers. The Soviets tried that shit. They got rid of money and tried to micromanage their economy. I suppose we know how that ended.

Efficiency is when you don't have to manage shit. It manages itself, which is what the market (i.e. invisible hand) does. The market does a damn well near close to perfect job as it is, without supervision.

7/25/2007 8:47:48 AM

Quote :

"Because police protection is funded through property taxes, police protection is one of those that the poor already pay for. Beside that, at $20 a month it is fairly affordable even before you realize a government monopoly costs more to provide less service. Not to mention, in an area unsafe to live in, surely it would be better for the poor to have the option of allocating more money towards better police protection, perhaps $22 a month would get the hoodies off the street; the benefits to their property values alone would cover the expense. And, again, privatization does not mean marketization. As with education, the collective fear that the poor will stupidly spend too little money for police protection can be alieved by keeping the property taxes in place and providing protection vouchers to land-owners, which they use to buy police protection."

I don't usually like to suck up, but this guy is fucking brilliant.

7/25/2007 8:49:47 AM

Whoa, did you just take intro to Econ and think you have everything figured out? There is much, much more to this discussion than you are probably aware of.

7/25/2007 9:20:51 AM

what exactly are your economics credentials? I, at the very least, have a minor in it.

[Edited on July 25, 2007 at 9:31 AM. Reason : .]

7/25/2007 9:27:31 AM

Quote :

"Totalitarianism is the most efficient means of government"

As Oeuvre said, it may be the most efficient means of government, but it is absolutely the least efficient means of running a nation's economy. Competition tends to be outlawed and property rights get trampled on. You quickly settle into an economic model so common in today's third world nations: monopolized under-production, rife with poverty and unemployment.

7/25/2007 9:39:45 AM

Quote :

"Not to mention, in an area unsafe to live in, surely it would be better for the poor to have the option of allocating more money towards better police protection, perhaps $22 a month would get the hoodies off the street; the benefits to their property values alone would cover the expense."

Assuming the poor, who we are feeding, can afford this slight increase (which they can't).

7/25/2007 9:47:15 AM

If you're making $6 an hour, then $2/mo for safety is affordable. BEsides, most of these poor people have rims and satellite dishes anyway

7/25/2007 10:00:55 AM

Quote :

"it would be better for the poor "

Just as hospitals in the days before medicare, made arrangements with each other to help the destitute....private security firms would probably work something out between them to give poorer areas protection at lower costs.

Private security is a marketable service. It will faithfully follow the laws of supply and demand. Each citizen has the responsibility to maintain his own security, just as he does his own health. Since most people are not doctors, they contract medical services. The same would go for police protection. If you are not comfortable protecting yourself, you would contract your defense out to experts.

Again, many people's imaginations are trapped in a mindset that politics and gov't must be the solution to the important aspects of life. It's very hard for them to get out of that box and see the possibilities that a laissez-faire system could offer.

7/25/2007 10:02:21 AM

Quote :

"BEsides, most of these poor people have rims and satellite dishes anyway"

This sort of attitude is what pervades our society. Using factually inaccurate arguments to rationalize punishing the poor. We are so afraid of erring in helping the lower incomes while we spend much, much more on subsidizing business than we do on social programs. A recent article I saw on Yahoo said that we have given over $1.1 Billion in subsidies to deceased farmers.

I'm much more skeptical of paying a single farmer $400,000 not to produce soybeans than giving a single mother $5k a year in WIC to help feed her kids. We think we are participating in a free market, but the truth there isn't a single industry in the US that hasn't benefited or flourished or have been saved from total collapse from government subsidy. Banking, real estate, automobiles, agriculture, healthcare, technology, airlines etc.

7/25/2007 10:31:44 AM

Quote :

"I'm much more skeptical of paying a single farmer $400,000 not to produce soybeans than giving a single mother $5k a year in WIC to help feed her kids."

I agree with the spirit of your statement, but you can't compare the two in this way.

It isn't a "single farmer", it is a single business. He presumably has costs associated with not farming towards which much of this money will go.

7/25/2007 10:47:20 AM

Quote :

"Using factually inaccurate arguments to rationalize punishing the poor"

How is providing better and cheaper police protection to the poor "punishing the poor"? Similarly, how is rescuing the poor from failing public schools a form of punishment?

I don't think you bother reading anything written, and just go on these rants because in your world the only way to help the poor is to give more power to rich white bureaucrats.

7/25/2007 2:19:26 PM

Okay two things.

One, I am a libertarian in the context of our life and times. In ideals, I am pretty wholeheartedly communist/socialist.

Quote :

"It's funny. Libertarians make the same basic mistake as Communists, which is that they assume that human beings can, as a rule, be trusted to act decently, even altruistically. This is patently false."

Nope, this is what makes me a non-nutjob libertarian. And it's also the reason I know a completely privatized society would either implode or explode on itself quickly.

It's the reason OUR CURRENT system does work as well, and as long, as it has. Anytime you reach too far into socialism, or too far into free markets, greed and corruption become huge liabilities and do, eventually happen. It's human nature, it's happened to and eventually destroyed damn near every great civilization in history.

As long as there is monetary value on a global scale, there is no way this would ever work.

If we eliminated state run military and defense, sure we would get along just fine. Until some other country WITH state run military decided HEY LETS GO FUCK WITH THE USA. Then we'd be fucked. It's not so much that it wouldnt work internally, as external pressures and forces will disrupt the effort and fuck it all up.

Then there's the whole human nature problem again. People aren't good. People are what they are raised to be.

7/26/2007 3:39:39 AM

People are devils, so why should some people be given power over others if they cannot be trusted?

In an anarcho-capitalist society you can check the evil of others. If others are devils and try to rob you, you can arm yourself and your family to make it no-longer worth their while. If others are trying to defraud you, you can limit your dealing to counteract fraudsters.

But in a society with government, there is nothing you can do once the evil men obtain government power beyond leading a revolution against them.

So, if anyone's philosophy requires all men to be fundamentally good, it is the non-anarchist. Which includes me, as a libertarian my ideal society has a night-watchmen government, which requires men to suddenly become law-enforcing angels once they obtain a position in goverment. Which is unlikely, but at least the damage from their graft will be limited to putting innocent people in prison and letting criminals go free.

7/26/2007 7:57:49 AM

Quote :

"In an anarcho-capitalist society you can check the evil of others. If others are devils and try to rob you, you can arm yourself and your family to make it no-longer worth their while. If others are trying to defraud you, you can limit your dealing to counteract fraudsters."

"Hey guys, look over here, I have perfect intelligence about everything, and I know this guy is going to try and fraud me of my money. I don't think I'll deal with this guy"

"Hey guys, look over there, I am pretty sure that guy will try to rob me, so I'll make sure to arm myself so that it won't happen"

At least now, we have an understanding in society that even the richest of people can't get away with crimes if they make mistakes and get caught red handed. Imagine your society, where the richest of men will be able to rob, rape, kill, and steal to their little hearts content. You need to get your dreams out of a capitalist Utopia that doesn't exist.

7/26/2007 8:06:20 AM

^ You only read that one sentence, didn't you? My "society" is not anarchist, but thanks for playing.

But, you see, the rich don't need to make any mistakes to rob/steal/murder in our society, they just have the police do it for them. They steal from the national treasury, so there is no one standing there with a gun defending it.

At least in an anarchist world, the rich end up on national television being asked over and over "Doesn't John Michaels and the other four man shot dead while attempting to rob, rape, and pillage a home work for you?" In a government run world, all the reporters can ask is "Was it wise to ban firearms? Seriously, a lot of people are getting robbed, raped, and pillaged with no means of self defense, since for some-reason police protection wavers once a neighborhood falls out of political favor..."

But like I said, I'm not an anarchist. I'm a libertarian since I believe that is a nice tradeoff between the two: government is small enough to kill it when you need to and you know who to get rid of to do it.

And who said you don't do deals with fraudsters? It's called payment upon delivery.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 8:16 AM. Reason : .,.]

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 8:22 AM. Reason : .,.]

7/26/2007 8:15:28 AM

^^ Because under the great and powerful and wise government which protects us all people aren't getting defrauded, robed, raped or killed every day.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 10:40 AM. Reason : asd;lfkj]

7/26/2007 10:40:13 AM

Quote :

"Because under the great and powerful and wise government which protects us all people aren't getting defrauded, robed, raped or killed every day."

So explain to me, with the lack of a formal system for recourse when I am defrauded under your system, how I am supposed to get my retribution?

Quote :

"And who said you don't do deals with fraudsters? It's called payment upon delivery. "

Yes sir these are authentic American made, you'll have no problems with these....[6 months later] .... WHAT THE FUCK, THESE ARE CHINESE COPIES, AND HAVE KILLED 600 PEOPLE, my reputation, business, and life is ruined

Your reply is going to be that the guy selling the fakes wouldn't stay in business long, which is mostly true, until he sets up the same company under a different name and does it all over again.


I rather enjoy having a system with checks and balances built into it, even if it is less efficient, than a system where it might take awhile for a check or balance to exist. I mean, why would a check/balance exist if it weren't profitable? Then, we're back to where we started if it takes capital to create the check.

7/26/2007 12:10:55 PM

Why are you assuming there would be no justice system in place?

Quote :

"Your reply is going to be that the guy selling the fakes wouldn't stay in business long, which is mostly true, until he sets up the same company under a different name and does it all over again. "

Again, this happens even today. Scammers exist all over the world, and no ammount of government interference will stop them from scamming people.

7/26/2007 1:04:50 PM

Quote :

"In an anarcho-capitalist society you can check the evil of others. If others are devils and try to rob you, you can arm yourself and your family to make it no-longer worth their while. If others are trying to defraud you, you can limit your dealing to counteract fraudsters."

You can do this right up exactly to and not a step farther than your economic means permits. Your suggestions also effectively force people to accept the goodness and acceptability of armaments and, unless you're wealthy enough for some very fancy contraptions, lethal force. The altnerative to accepting this is to accept robbery and death. Remind me that if we ever go anarcho-capitalist and I'm strapped for cash that I should just go mug some Quakers.

Quote :

"But in a society with government, there is nothing you can do once the evil men obtain government power beyond leading a revolution against them."

In some governments that's true, but the good ones have the ability of revolution by ballot at increments. We can toss the bad man out. If we don't, well, it just goes to show what a pack of cowards people can be, which does not bode well for a system that is contigent on them all fighting little one-man wars against all the evils of the world.

Quote :

"So, if anyone's philosophy requires all men to be fundamentally good, it is the non-anarchist."

Nothing could be further from the truth. I like a healthy dose of government, if perhaps less than we've currently got, and I think people are the biggest lot of right bastards I've ever met. But I still don't mind having a government, because:

a) I at least have some say in exactly how big of a pack of bastards are in charge
b) If they turn out to be an unacceptable pack of bastards, I can help send them on their way
c) The bastards in charge have to kiss the ass of people like me for us to put them there, which means they have every incentive to protect me from all of the other bastards.

Now, of course, the bastards in charge do dump a fair amount of crap on us, but for the most part it is an acceptable level of crap, at least to people who live in North America and not Super Happy Funtime Land, these being the anarchists and socialists. With the anarchists:

a) I have no say the level of bastardization of the people in charge. It's just whoever has the most money or controls the most of some resource I need.
b) No matter how big of a pack of bastards they are, I can't get limit their influence by any means but out-riching or shooting them.
c) The bastards have some motivation to keep me alive and buying, yes, but whatever protection they offer is governed by rules that are ultimately designed to profit them.

Quote :

"Scammers exist all over the world, and no ammount of government interference will stop them from scamming people."

Stop? No. Limit? Yes.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 1:06 PM. Reason : ]

7/26/2007 1:05:04 PM

Grumpy, you failed to answer what happens when the bastards refuse to leave just because they lost an election.

As it is, George Washington was a saint, so was every administration since: they consciously tried to be good Presidents, which involved standing down after 8 years. The U.S. military was built by saints to be wielded by saints. When someone gets in that decides sainthood is pace, it's over. They will work their political friends into positions of military power, and then refuse to leave. The U.S. Military is the most powerful force in the world. Even if it is decimated in the following civil war, it would still be the most powerful force on the continent.

The richest man alive could not hope to build such a monument to force. Sure, Bill Gates could conquer a county or maybe a state, but not for long. George Bush accidentally conquered the entire south of the country through FEMA.

But again, i'm no anarchist. While I recognize the validity of their concerns, I think we have done a miraculous job picking saints to occupy the executive branch, no need to fix it if it is not currently broken.

7/26/2007 2:50:49 PM

Quote :

"Your suggestions also effectively force people to accept the goodness and acceptability of armaments and, unless you're wealthy enough for some very fancy contraptions, lethal force. The altnerative to accepting this is to accept robbery and death. Remind me that if we ever go anarcho-capitalist and I'm strapped for cash that I should just go mug some Quakers. "

For what it's worth, those without the money or ability to defend themselves are still targeted. Our police are (by design, and by nature) reactionary. Unless you are willing to defend yourself or can afford to have someone else defend you, you will accept robbery or death when it comes for you.

7/26/2007 3:35:53 PM

Quote :

"For what it's worth, those without the money or ability to defend themselves are still targeted."

Of course. I realize that all of the bad things I mention happen now. I just think they would get much worse and leave many with even less recourse than they already have.

The police system, while crucially flawed and in need of repair, first of all offers at least some "free" protection to everybody, but more importantly I think it is more fixable than the privatized system would be. We can vote on people with different law enforcement policies now. We could call customer service and bitch with all our futility at a security company, especially one with monopoly over an area, which would almost certainly happen often.

Quote :

"Grumpy, you failed to answer what happens when the bastards refuse to leave just because they lost an election."

Oh, you shoot the bastard(s). I realize that there always exists the potential that it will come to that. But I also think that there's a damn near certainty that it will come to that after a short while under anarcho-capitalism.

The government probably has greater potential force to employ on us than a cadre of the super rich would, but I think the cadre of the super rich would be more likely, and more likely to succeed, at least in this country. We damn well expect our politicians to leave when we tell them to, and if they didn't, it'd get an immediate and enraged response from at least a large minority.

It's also while enlisted men, officers, and civil servants alike take oaths to support, protect, and defend the Constitution rather than any man or institution. I know that an oath seems like a minor thing, but there's a lot packed into that, and it would take extremely effective brainwashing -- or the sacking of a large number of experienced, competent people who have a reason and often the training to fight -- to replace the sentiment.

7/26/2007 5:52:31 PM

viva la corporate monarchy!

7/26/2007 6:19:09 PM

Quote :

"The police system, while crucially flawed and in need of repair, first of all offers at least some "free" protection to everybody"

"Free", right, have I not already pointed out that the poor already pay property taxes dearly?

Quote :

"We could call customer service and bitch with all our futility at a security company, especially one with monopoly over an area, which would almost certainly happen often. "

But I am not a majority, I cannot replace the police chief. My neighborhood cannot. We know how the current system works: urban ghettos become cop-free zones to divert resources to protect the majority, which just happens to be suburbanites. This is not irrational behavior, it is the police serving the needs of the majority of voters and therefore maintaining power. This is because the government system is a monopoly. Going in and policing the ghetto not only takes effort and diverts resources, it makes police work more dangerous, driving up insurance and labor costs, and flooding the evening news with police shootings. No rational democracy would make the majority suffer for the benefit of the few. That so many cities do is a testament to politicians good nature.

The point of a privatized system is to introduce competition. Now, you say monopoly would almost certainly happen often, why? The only way to form a monopoly in an industry with minimal entry barriers (hire some people and buy a car or two) is through force; in effect, declaring war on other well-armed security companies. Such would be illegal, opening your company up to lawsuits from victims and criminal charges from the city district attorney.

Similarly, war costs a lot. You must pay death benefits, workers quit for less dangerous work, wages go up, insurance premiums become prohibitive. All this happens even if you win; and all you've done is gotten rid of one rival, with an army of others eager to enjoy the high premiums being paid by your customers.

As such, monopolies would be fairly rare; and even then they would be temporary. So, thanks to competition, companies will be eager to differentiate themselves from each other, perhaps by solving whatever problem you were bitching about.

7/26/2007 7:55:06 PM

Quote :

"The market does a damn well near close to perfect job as it is, without supervision."

The market is inherently imperfect in regard to equity amongst participants.
How exactly is the market perfect?

I concur that the invisible hand phenomenon is fascinating. But so is the invisible phenomenon of gravity; that doesn't mean I'd be down with experiencing the full effects of a black hole.

Free markets are great for study and all, but damn if they don't scare the hell out of me.

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 9:29 PM. Reason : d]

7/26/2007 9:02:42 PM

Who says the market is supposed to ensure equity amongst participants? The market ensures equity of opportunity not equity of outcome. Outcome is what you make of it. The lazy bum who refuses to work shouldn't have what I have, someone who works 50 - 60 hours a week.

7/26/2007 9:09:25 PM

How does the market ensure equity of opportunity?

Granted, hard work often pays off. But there are people at the top who have hardly ever worked and have never had to worry about losing what they've been given. And there are others at the bottom who have slaved their entire lives and gotten nowhere.

Individual circumstances come into play too, don't they?

[Edited on July 26, 2007 at 9:32 PM. Reason : more]

7/26/2007 9:28:23 PM

Quote :

"With the anarchists: a) I have no say the level of bastardization of the people in charge. It's just whoever has the most money or controls the most of some resource I need. b) No matter how big of a pack of bastards they are, I can't get limit their influence by any means but out-riching or shooting them. c) The bastards have some motivation to keep me alive and buying, yes, but whatever protection they offer is governed by rules that are ultimately designed to profit them. "

Again, it's hard for people stuck in the mindset of government control to imagine a laissez-faire society. You can't really mix today's political set-up with a laissez-faire set-up and then say it could never work. You have to have some fundamental changes in place before L-F can succeed.

You would have to eliminate gov't control..gov't is force and can only accomplish its goals using force or the threat of force...nothing else. Capitalism only succeeds when the participants use non-violent persuasion to get to their ends. Trade is the key-stone of capitalism. Force is the keystone of gov't.

Next, you would have in-place arbitration firms who would settle disputes. And you would have Insurance companies as an important player in a anarcho-capitalistic society.

With the proper systems in place, it could work.

7/26/2007 11:16:04 PM

Quote :

"And there are others at the bottom who have slaved their entire lives and gotten nowhere"

I find that very hard to believe. Odds are these individuals you claim have "gotten nowhere" managed to slice out a nice chunk of the American dream: raised a family, own at least two color televisions, one car, frost free refrigerator, and enough food to get fat. So what if they never see Paris. Sure, it would be nice if hard work alone guaranteed you financial independence eventually, but stuff we want keeps increasing faster than our ability to produce it.

Quote :

"How does the market ensure equity of opportunity?"

He mispoke, the market does not guarantee equity of opportunity. Someone that wants to prosper by selling bad art will find themselves spurned and punished by the market. Ultimately, the market merely allows us to do is maximize the possible opportunity. If you really want to sell bad art, then set your prices low enough and maybe people will buy it, but if they don't then you must find alternate work, making bad furniture perhaps. It is this competition among workers that allows us to seek out our chosen professions. Lots of women want to be secretaries, they like the ease of work and flexible hours. So the market adjusts: wages for secretaries fall, so companies hire more secretaries and women willing to accept stressful jobs do so for more money. Everyone is happy: lots of women get to be secretaries, non-secretaries get higher wages.

7/26/2007 11:23:09 PM

OK, the market maximizes opportunity amongst its participants. I can agree with that.

Quote :

"Granted, hard work often pays off. But there are people at the top who have hardly ever worked and have never had to worry about losing what they've been given. And there are others at the bottom who have slaved their entire lives and gotten nowhere."

The opportunity is still there. ALthough the rich trust fund baby has a leg up, it does not mean the person who is poor cannot achieve the same outcome.

Bush's secretary of Labor is a Cuban immigrant. He came here when he was a teenager and began driving a Kellogg's truck. Before accepting the position of Secretary of Labor, he became the CEO of Kellogg's Corporation. He's the very example of what the market can do for you. He could not have done that in China or Cuba.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 8:26 AM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 8:25:57 AM

So, I printed this tread out so I could read it while I was out in the woodline and at 8pt font it was still 28 damn pages. Anyway, as I see it . . .

Quote :

"the warning of the military-industrial complex. sound familiar"

The thing about this quote, is that it came not from a left-wing wheat-grass drinking hippie, but from the President of the United States whose resume had "Supreme Commander, Allied Forces Europe - 5 Stars" as his previous job expereince. This man knew of what he spoke.

Quote :

"Privatization would make sure the money was spent where it was supposed to be, not siphoned away to help pay for services to the rich."

So the rich wouldn't use their already considerable clout and greater expendable income to hire cops away from poor neighborhoods? That is some altruism, I applaud them.

Quote :

"Car makers must compete for the money of the poor, the police do not."

and as a general rule, poor people drive shitty cars. Having worked briefly in drug seizure, I can also tell you that large sums of money spent on rims and paint jobs generally conceal cars that are, well, shitty. It doesn't take mental cheetah flips to realize that police protection for the poor would be shitty as well.

Quote :

"It's funny. Libertarians make the same basic mistake as Communists, which is that they assume that human beings can, as a rule, be trusted to act decently, even altruistically. This is patently false."

Not quite. Hard-core Libertarians make the exact opposite assumption of communists, and that is that everyone will act in their own self-interest. What hard-core Libertarians assume (that is false) is that market forces (in monetary, moral, and ideological realms) will act as absolute balances to encourage individuals in a society to "act like somebody". It does not ignore the essential nature of human beings, it just over-estimates the transparency of their actions.

on the flip side:

Quote :

"As a libertarian-leaning fellow, I think altruism is one of the nastiest concepts ever to infect our culture."

It isn't an infection, it is a remnant of lessons learned from an evolutionary past that demanded group action for survival. What benefited the group also benefited the individual.

Quote :

"What is stopping our enormous military from doing just that today? The law?"

Quote :

"To some extent, it's momentum. The US military is used to being subservient to the US government. Also, it's because of the kind of people that a government-run standing army attracts. You don't go into the military to get rich unless the military is private."

nail + head. This isn't to imply that there aren't people in the military who feel that the armed forces should just take over everything, just that there are enough who believe the opposite to stop it.

Quote :

"providing protection vouchers to land-owners, which they use to buy police protection."

I think the intended effect of that sentence, and the actual effect, are two completely different things.

Quote :

"Just as hospitals in the days before medicare, made arrangements with each other to help the destitute....private security firms would probably work something out between them to give poorer areas protection at lower costs."

cut rate costs, cut rate security. You don't have your Rolls worked on at the Wal-mart lube center for a reason.

Quote :

"If we eliminated state run military and defense, sure we would get along just fine. Until some other country WITH state run military decided HEY LETS GO FUCK WITH THE USA. Then we'd be fucked. It's not so much that it wouldnt work internally, as external pressures and forces will disrupt the effort and fuck it all up."

Not to mention that, because of the relatively few competitors and my aforementioned massively high barriers to entry, the contracted firm would have a monopoly and could charge exhorbatant fees because they were, literally, saving the country from destruction. You can't re-negotiate a contract or switch armies in the middle of a firefight.

Quote :

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. "

Seeing as this is the introductory paragraph to the document upon which US law is (theoretically, at least) based, I think it's pretty obvious that the founders . . . whose experience, shocking as it may seem, actually eclipses that of a college bulletin board . . . felt that both some form of government police protection and a government run military, were necessary to the running of a free state. You know, just tossing that out there, for what its worth.

7/27/2007 9:06:19 AM

Quote :

"It isn't an infection, it is a remnant of lessons learned from an evolutionary past that demanded group action for survival. What benefited the group also benefited the individual"

If everyone in the group wanted some of your money to help pay their bills in order to "survive", would you give and give until you were broke? Group action, such as specialization of skills, is very different from self-sacrifice to the collective.

Quote :

"is that market forces (in monetary, moral, and ideological realms) will act as absolute balances to encourage individuals in a society to "act like somebody". "

Capitalism in a free society encourages peaceful trade between people. Gov't can only accomplish its aims through force and coercian. A laissez-faire system will effectively deal with criminality in its own way. It may seem unworkable looking at it with centuries of barbaric political history as your standard.

Quote :

"cut rate costs, cut rate security. You don't have your Rolls worked on at the Wal-mart lube center for a reason."

Currently, The gov't provides cut-rate everything.

It's up to each individual to protect themselves. Some can afford to contract that protection out. Some cannot. The gov't should stop preventing people from protecting themselves, such as passing gun bans.

Quote :

"the founders . . . whose experience, shocking as it may seem, actually eclipses that of a college bulletin board . . . felt that both some form of government police protection and a government run military, were necessary to the running of a free state."

Yes they based their system on what they knew and were comfortable with at the time...English-type gov't. The revolutionary aspect that the founders added was that the gov't was limited somewhat on what it could do to the individual.

Their goal of protecting rights was admirable, but they used a flawed system (gov't and political action) to achieve it. Government, by its very nature, becomes more and more tyrannical as it ages. Our gov't today, with its Patriot acts and Smoking Bans, is gradually becoming more and more a totalitarian state.

7/27/2007 10:17:14 AM

Quote :

"If everyone in the group wanted some of your money to help pay their bills in order to "survive", would you give and give until you were broke? Group action, such as specialization of skills, is very different from self-sacrifice to the collective."

No. But this example assumes that only one person in the group is a producer and the rest are consumers. Interestingly enough, while one person in the group is acting altruistically, the remainder are acting in their own self interest. So the logical conclusion of your example is that a group of individuals, acting in their own self interest, is a dysfunctional system. But that is irrelevant since your example is an extreme one. A society that dysfunctional would collapse on itself.

Classical economics, upon which Capitalism is based, is quite elegant really, but it is based on the logical fallacy that humans consistently make rational decisions and that those rational decisions can be measured by assuming they all correlate with monetary gain. This assumption, while brilliantly accounting for human self-interest, runs counter to the fairer side of human nature which has been with us prior to us existing formally as "humans".

Quote :

"Capitalism in a free society encourages peaceful trade between people."

Yes, it does; but it requires low barriers to entry, complete transparency of production, and perfect buyer knowledge. In early 18th century England, this was theoretically possible when your economy was largely confined to a small village with limited trade. This does not hold true for the early 21st century global economy. Technology has made barriers to entry quite high for many fields, transparency -- even with the best of intentions -- can be very difficult when companies span the globe and externalities, in particular, are hard to measure and asking a buyer to have perfect knowledge of a product designed in the United States, using parts manufactured in China, and assembled in Mexico is asinine. LoneSnark is going to aruge with me on one, rightly pointing out that trade was a huge industry by the 17th century, but that doesn't change the fact that a) its effect on the day to day life of a commoner was limited and b) the upper class it did effect, lived under a government markedly less free and much more arbitrary in its punishments.

In this situation, some form of government oversight, acting as the executors of the will of the people, is necessary to ensure that the above criteria for effective market operation are maintained.

Quote :

"It may seem unworkable looking at it with centuries of barbaric political history as your standard."

Humans are a lot closer to our centuries of barbaric political history than probably you, or most other Americans, are comfortable with.

Quote :

"Currently, The gov't provides cut-rate everything. It's up to each individual to protect themselves. Some can afford to contract that protection out. Some cannot."

That is the antithesis of a free society. It is damn near the definition of the barbaric political history that you speak of.

Quote :

"The gov't should stop preventing people from protecting themselves, such as passing gun bans."

I agree. This has nothing to do with expecting the government to provide a police force dedicated to the supression and deterrant of crime.

Quote :

"Yes they based their system on what they knew and were comfortable with at the time...English-type gov't. The revolutionary aspect that the founders added was that the gov't was limited somewhat on what it could do to the individual. Their goal of protecting rights was admirable, but they used a flawed system (gov't and political action) to achieve it."

I think it was quite brilliant, actually, in that it allows for a non-violent system to correct those flaws and makes it a painstaking process so we're forced to consider the larger implications.

Quote :

"Government, by its very nature, becomes more and more tyrannical as it ages. Our gov't today, with its Patriot acts and Smoking Bans, is gradually becoming more and more a totalitarian state."

I agree that we're losing our freedoms at an alarming rate, but that is largely due to the lack of participation by our fellow citizens, not the form of government that was originally set up by the founders.

The lack of government you're proposing requires a much higher level of interaction than we're managing at the moment. I'm not so sure that is a good idea.

[Edited on July 27, 2007 at 12:04 PM. Reason : .]

7/27/2007 12:00:07 PM

Quote :

"asking a buyer to have perfect knowledge of a product designed in the United States, using parts manufactured in China, and assembled in Mexico is asinine."

I don't know why people keep bringing up this asinine point. It is disinformation to suggest libertarian ideology rests upon consumers punishing producers for externalities. No, the fundamental ideology rests upon the theory that everyone should mind their own business. If the externalities do not affect you directly, then it is not up to you to do anything about them.

If you are a worker suffering in a bad work environment, having customers boycott your produce is counter-productive. You should demand a better work environment or threaten to quit. If they refuse, go find alternate employment. If you are a company, then realize you might be able to convince your workers to accept lower wages if you improve safety.

If you live next to a company that is ruining your land with pollution, sue them. Either in a Government court if available or in an anarchist private court if necessary. Or, if all such remedies are unavailable, attempt to use compensation in concert with your neighbors to persuade them to stop polluting.

7/27/2007 12:43:41 PM

Quote :

"The only way to form a monopoly in an industry with minimal entry barriers (hire some people and buy a car or two) is through force; in effect, declaring war on other well-armed security companies."

I think this would almost certainly happen from the get-go, though I don't think it's the only way a monopoly would come about, especially in small towns and rural areas which simply cannot support multiple competing security firms.

But force would be applied as it always is when you have competing groups of people whose job it is to exercise the same. The city district attorney? You mean the lovely privatized court system that strikes me as the most ludicrous of all the anarchists suggestions? Aside from my many, many questions about how that would even be feasible, what possible safeguard could prevent the owner of the big security company from also being the owner of the big courts?

And yes, war is expensive. And yet, at any given time, there are at least a couple of them going on somewhere in the world, and those out of a much smaller set of rival groups than there would presumably be rival security companies.

Quote :

"The market ensures equity of opportunity not equity of outcome."

How in the name of all that is good and sacred will the market pull this off? I'm trying to think how the invisible hand is going to start sending poor geniuses to Harvard and rich idiots to Wake Tech.

Quote :

"Capitalism only succeeds when the participants use non-violent persuasion to get to their ends."

Right, which is why, unfettered, it would never succeed, because people resort to thoroughly violent persuasion quite often when they get the chance to do so. Government did not invent violence, force, or coersion. People did.

I stand by my list for the anarchists, because I'm not so naive to believe that there will never be somebody in charge. It will either be the industrialists who control the resources we need to live, or it will be the politician that we put into power, or it will be the guy that fell out of the right vagina to call himself King, and so on.

Quote :

"Next, you would have in-place arbitration firms who would settle disputes."

And by what authority would they do anything? How can a private firm require someone to appear before it when that person has not signed any agreement with them?

Quote :

"It does not ignore the essential nature of human beings, it just over-estimates the transparency of their actions. "

I really chose some horrible words there. "Ideally" would have been much better than "decently."

Quote :

"A laissez-faire system will effectively deal with criminality in its own way. It may seem unworkable looking at it with centuries of barbaric political history as your standard."

No, it seems unworkable because the only explanation you've given for how it will work is that we're blinded by growing up under a government and there will be some private arbitration and police companies that will somehow have the right or power to force action, which is of course exactly what the government does but somehow it's better if someone does it privately.

Quote :

"If the externalities do not affect you directly, then it is not up to you to do anything about them."

And if they affect you indirectly, you should just trust the middleman to work it out for you?

7/27/2007 2:00:47 PM

Quote :

"The city district attorney?"

I don't know why you insist on having us argue from a position that is not our own (I think it is called a scarecrow or some-such). I am trying to fix a very real problem the current system is suffering from: heavy taxation and poor police protection for the poor. Now, to do this I have no need of privatizing the court system, so I would opt to change as little as prudent. This is why I called him "the city" district attorney, strongly implying that he (and he is a he) was elected and works for the city Government.

Quote :

"Aside from my many, many questions about how that would even be feasible, what possible safeguard could prevent the owner of the big security company from also being the owner of the big courts?"

It is a side discussion, but as you point out, a court is not a court if no one else recognizes it. And no one would ever accept adjudication against you by a company you own. Anarchist theory presumes that all decisions are made before the fact. You, a home-owner, researched and purchased security protection from Provider A. Me, your neighbor, purchased security protection from Provider B. Now, no laws have been broken yet, but Provider A and Provider B have good reason to believe that eventually you and I will have a dispute, so they agreed together on a dis-interested third party to adjudicate future disputes, lets call them Private Court C. Now, my contract with Provider B has a clause binding me to honor any rulings from Court C as a condition of protection if I offend against customers of Provider A.

So, time passes, and I murder your wife. Provider A investigates and implicates me; Provider B arrests me and turns me over to Private Court C, where I am tried and convicted, possibly executed. The anarcho-capitalist world is an elaborate construct built from a study of voluntary law currently in practice among insurance companies, for example, because Government courts are slow and expensive. Lets say you and I have auto insurance with different providers and then crash into one another. If both of us proclaim the other was at fault, this is why every insurance company in a given market has already agreed to a disinterested private arbitrator. This is why anarchists talk so much about insurance companies, because in that industry private courts already exist; the only difference is that they have no legal authority to imprison or otherwise physically punish people. All anarchists really ask is for that right to be given.

Quote :

"And if they affect you indirectly, you should just trust the middleman to work it out for you?"

"indirectly" how? Are the externalities harming your brothers health but is in no way harming you or your property? Then yes, let your brother work it out, it is his life after all.

7/27/2007 3:05:00 PM

Externalities had nothing to do with my original comment, quality control did. Hiding the use of cost effective but carcinogenic materials in the production of a good isn't an externality, but without knowledge of the product, how am I to avoid it?

7/27/2007 4:44:16 PM

Quote :

"I don't know why you insist on having us argue from a position that is not our own"

You'll have to forgive me, I'm arguing with a number of people in this thread and it's hard for me to keep straight which ones are lunatic enough to say that we should have a privatized court systems and everything else and which ones are merely so crazy as to suggest private police forces.

Still and all, a city district attorney with no police force of its own to enforce things seems pretty toothless.

Quote :

" Anarchist theory presumes that all decisions are made before the fact."

Oh, well, given the thoroughly and completely predictable qualities of human nature, I suppose I don't have to worry about it anymore.

Quote :

"The anarcho-capitalist world is an elaborate construct built from a study of voluntary law currently in practice among insurance companies, for example, because Government courts are slow and expensive."

Because insurance companies are so notoriously expeditious and cheap.

Quote :

"This is why anarchists talk so much about insurance companies, because in that industry private courts already exist; the only difference is that they have no legal authority to imprison or otherwise physically punish people."

And it's because they don't have these rights, and because there is a real police and court system in place as well, that they can't make arbitrary, oppressive, and otherwise destructive decisions that can do real damage. It is also because of an existing legal system that the insurance companies know that if anyone tries anything shady they have recourse in the real court system.

Quote :

"Are the externalities harming your brothers health but is in no way harming you or your property?"

As I understood the discussion, it revolved around the assertion that buyers could not have perfect knowledge of a product designed in A, built in B out of parts made in C.

7/27/2007 5:01:34 PM

Quote :

"Still and all, a city district attorney with no police force of its own to enforce things seems pretty toothless."

Well, sure enough. Actually proposed private enforcement companies never have law making ability either, so you need to keep the city/county/state legislators to go along with the city/county/state courts. However, I don't see why you say this about the government not having a police force of its own. Most bad-acts by security firms will be civil in nature and banks are not about to start ignoring writs. Similarly, just call the management and inform them if a criminal case is being brought against one of their agents; they are not about to risk civil action to protect a criminal. If, in the ungodly event that it is company wide and the guilty parties refuse to turn themselves in and their cohorts refuse to produce them, then it is no different than if the city police refused to turn in someone; just call the state and federal corruption taskforce.

Then again, one of the added benefits of a competitive market for law enforcement is that one company cannot help but police the other companies. So, one company allying with the mafia to engage in criminal activity risks being arrested by other companies, unaware they are cops.

Quote :

"Because insurance companies are so notoriously expeditious and cheap."

Have you ever tried to sue someone? By comparison, insurance companies work at breakneck speeds.

Quote :

"Oh, well, given the thoroughly and completely predictable qualities of human nature, I suppose I don't have to worry about it anymore."

All that is agreed upon up-front is who the arbitrator will be. As unforeseen circumstances arise, the arbitrator will use whatever legal code to discern fault and punishment.

Quote :

"As I understood the discussion, it revolved around the assertion that buyers could not have perfect knowledge of a product designed in A, built in B out of parts made in C."

And in what circumstances do they want it? All I care about is how Consumer Reports rated the product compared to other products, beyond that I cannot imagine anyone carring to know everything about anything.

7/27/2007 7:53:03 PM

Quote :

"By comparison, insurance companies work at breakneck speeds."

Perhaps, but they don't have the ability to detain someone under bail for periods while they're sorting that out.

Quote :

"As unforeseen circumstances arise, the arbitrator will use whatever legal code to discern fault and punishment."

They can discern all they want, but they still lack any means to enforce it.

Quote :

"All I care about is how Consumer Reports rated the product compared to other products, beyond that I cannot imagine anyone carring to know everything about anything."

And because nobody wants to know everything about anything, they cannot have the perfect knowledge or transparency or whatever the term is that so much of this plan seems to take for granted.

If the companies that control some raw material necessary for all brands of a certain product decide they want to jack up prices -- I think OPEC would be a fine example here -- then it will affect either the price or the quality of whatever end product I can get. You've essentially said that I've no need to express any concern whatsoever to the raw material guys, but rather that I should bitch to the people that sell the finished good, in hopes that they will then go up the line and bitch to the raw material folks.

In Super Happy Fun Land, the complains of the finished product guy carry through, because the raw materials guys don't want to lose business. But what happens when either factor is something we simply cannot live without? What happens when we can't realistically say, "Well fine, I'm not going to buy your product anymore," because doing so would render us sick, dead, or simply incapable of any sort of participation in the financial system? I don't like to think that some group of companies we can't get rid of have us by the balls. I want some mallet to hit them in the head with. That mallet is government.

7/27/2007 8:54:59 PM

Quote :

"it's hard for me to keep straight "

Granted. I think L-Snark is arguing for a system with limited gov't control, mainly on a federal level. I am arguing for a gov't-less laissez-faire system.

Quote :

"So the logical conclusion of your example is that a group of individuals, acting in their own self interest, is a dysfunctional system. But that is irrelevant since your example is an extreme one. A society that dysfunctional would collapse on itself."

Doesn't matter if you have a person, two or a mob of thousands. Whenever you are coerced to sacrifice for the sake of someone who is a lesser value to you than someone else (your family, a friend, yourself), that is altruism. It ia assumed under laissez-faire, that everyone is always acting in their own self-interest. It is only when someone tries to stop you from acting in your own best interest to serve their needs and desires that things go awry.

Some would say, as our own gov't controls us more and more under the guise of altruism, that our society will eventually collapse on itself.

Quote :

"That is the antithesis of a free society. It is damn near the definition of the barbaric political history that you speak of."

I would argue that the barbaric history of mankind is a record of centralized gov'ts/leaders enslaving its people and forcing them into wars for personal gain and glory of said leaders. And the chief tactic used to ensare the masses into supporting these wars has usually been altruism...doing it for god and country, for the fatherland, for the homeland.

Quote :

"But force would be applied as it always is when you have competing groups of people whose job it is to exercise the same.."

Let's take an example. In our laissez-faire society, let's say you want to take over a town. First you must take control of a security company. In order to get any paying customers, you will have to be bonded by an insurance company. After years of building up a good reputation and earning money to stock up on tanks and weapons- by supplying top-notch protection for your customers, you decide it's time to strike.

You will have to order your employees to now use force against the townspeople, some of who are your paying customers. In a laissez-faire system, each individual is responsible for his own actions. So the first time one of your employees shoots someone, they will be caught and hauled before a court. When your insurance company gets wind of this, they will drop you like a rock. Once your employees see that they are being ordered to do things that will get themselves in trouble, they will quit you. Your customers of course will abandon you too, leaving you broke.

It may end up with just you and some loyal followers who have evaded capture. But the relatives of your victims will probably hire another security force to take you out.

Brutal? yes. But the market system will not permit abuse for very long. Your customers will leave, competitors, unfettered by gov't control, will enter the market. Using force will only result in your own destruction.

Quote :

"How can a private firm require someone to appear before it when that person has not signed any agreement with them?"

In the current system, the state punishes criminals by tossing them in jail where they learn to be better criminals. Under a laissez-faire system, we would view criminals as causing financial loss to victims. They owe the victim restitution. They don't just sit in jail, they must work to pay off their debt.

Let's say someone breaks into your home a robs you of $10,000. Your insurance company will reimburse you and then send its security force after the culprit. Once captured, he will face a arbitration court as designated in the insurance agreement. If the suspect is found guilty, he may appeal to the next level of arbitration. (all courst actions are designated up front).

If found guilty after appeal, the suspect must pay the victim back the $10K and other costs.

7/27/2007 10:24:58 PM

Quote :

"And the chief tactic used to ensare the masses into supporting these wars has usually been altruism...doing it for god and country, for the fatherland, for the homeland."

There is an important distinction between "altruism," patriotism," and "idealism."

Now, onto your big paragraph about taking over a town.

First you assume that customers, by and large, will have the sense and ability to check or care about whether the warlord in question is insured.

You assume that only somebody who had to spend substantial time building up the public trust could buy tanks and guns, and ignore that somebody wealthy from other means could do the same and tell the public to screw off.

You assume that some other entity will exist with the capacity to overcome and detain one of the warlord's "soldiers."

You assume that the warlord cannot keep his employees in line, either by having enough money to fund them independently, or by convincing them that they only need to hold out a little while before the town is theirs.

You have lastly and most importantly assumed that people act rationally solely in their best financial interest.

If all of these things hold true, you still, at best, have a large number of small wars across the country, happening at various times with little reason to expect them to end. We can accept larger, foreign wars because they only affect us so much, generally in the pocketbook and somewhat rarely in terms of loss of our loved ones. What you are talking about has the very easy potential to affect virtually all people in all ways at all times.

Quote :

"Your customers will leave, competitors, unfettered by gov't control, will enter the market."

Government did not invent force, nor is it the only one to think to employ it.

Quote :

"They don't just sit in jail, they must work to pay off their debt."

Who will make them? How will they make them? By what authority will they make them?

7/28/2007 12:08:21 AM

Earthdogg: laissez-faire does not work in the reality of the 21st century. Plain and simple. Un-regulated free markets WILL NOT balance. You have a number of primary industries (power, raw materials, food, medicine, health care, electronics, automobiles) that all have huge barriers to entry, both financially and geographically. In a true laissez-faire economy, industry would QUICKLY merge into major monopolies who would control not only the markets, but the american consumer.

LoneSnark: Okay, 1) Your anarchist society will not work. You CANNOT privatize industries where profit jeopardizes ethics. Our current HMO system is a great example of that. A privatized police force or court system will almost instantly become corrupt and worthless, turning into mercenaries and witch hunts.

2) I don't know where you get this "OMG THE POOR" hysteria. Yes, the poor are eating more taxes than everyone else. You change the tax code, not throw out the fucking government. Yes, in highly urban, large cities there is a problem with police equality. That accounts for what, MAYBE 2% of the US geographically? You don't throw out the fucking police force, you help the community move itself out of violence. See Boylan Heights and Oakwood here in Raleigh for excellent examples of what urban renewal will do to crime.

Both of you guys are living in a micro-world. It's absolutely obvious neither of you have ever been inside a major corporation from the top looking down. Businesses are FAR MORE crooked, unethical and unbalanced than you realize. I've dealt with so many crooked as hell companies, so many scam artists, frauds and cons it's almost laughable. I mean, jesus christ look at the IRS. An organization that exists almost exclusively because businesses are not honest. Also see the SEC.

Look at every major corporation in the world. Something like 1 in 5 have been involved at one point or another in a major scandal.

---------------------------

Government is not as efficient. That's by design. Slow to act, slow to react, slow to change. That prevents any one person or organization from every seizing complete control. It keeps balance in the system. The military machine is a volunteer army, there is no way in hell it will every lead a secession from the governmental structure. Our president is too power limited to ever break the binds of his service limits. At every step, there is a check and balance that prevents completely collapse or takeover.

Business is efficient and nimble (in theory). That's by design. Driven by ONE motive, profit. That makes it extremely susceptible to corruption, failure and collapse. It also allows it to progress and grow much more quickly. There is nothing stopping an appointed president from serving for his lifetime. As long as the numbers are there, he/she stays. The only check and balance is the bottom line.

The funny thing is, the larger a company gets, the more it turns into a government-esque organization. The reasons for this are outlined above. Less risk, more oversight, less potential for collapse. But the driving force is still profit. Which can bring good people to do a lot of bad things, many times without even realizing it.

7/28/2007 6:39:13 AM

Quote :

"Let's take an example. In our laissez-faire society, let's say you want to take over a town. "

Grumpy responded and I pretty much agree. Here's what I can add to it.

What happens if I am General Motors and I want to take over Detroit? I'll tell you exactly how I will do it, that will ruin your plan and turn our country into corporate monopoly city-states.

I don't need to take control of a security company. Instead, I retool my line for high security vehicles. I call up a few weapons manufacturers and a couple of airlines. I Using my holdings I buy the needed high power arms and planes and maybe a few tanks.

Next, I announce that General Motors now owns Detroit. I call the security companies (since police will be privatized right?) and they merge into GM, for guaranteed service contracts. I call the publics works companies, and do the same. The few thousand or so townspeople who are trying to run small outfits that get in the way (mom and pop security companies, public works, etc) I just kill them, using my weapons and my newly acquired police forces.

Next I setup a perimeter around the city. Check points in and out. Within a few weeks of the announcement, all competition has been eliminated, now GM is a conglomerate city-state. One company that runs everything. Within the city, my citizens are paid more than ever (because GM has significant buying and selling power), they get goods for below the going rate elsewhere, and everyone works hard.

As an average joe in this, you would see the following: GM just bought out all the companies Joe uses. No rates change, so no need to worry. Then GM merges with Joe's company and they offer him a raise. They also lower the price of Joe's goods. Joe is happier than ever.

Point, counterpoint. laissez-faire does not work in modern society. Aquisitions and market power destroys the free market.

7/28/2007 6:56:20 AM

Quote :

"If the companies that control some raw material necessary for all brands of a certain product decide they want to jack up prices -- I think OPEC would be a fine example here -- then it will affect either the price or the quality of whatever end product I can get. You've essentially said that I've no need to express any concern whatsoever to the raw material guys, but rather that I should bitch to the people that sell the finished good, in hopes that they will then go up the line and bitch to the raw material folks."

If you feel like bitching, I guess you could. But as a customer, your obligation is to buy the products that satisfy your cost/quality requirements. If no one is willing to sell you gasoline for less than $1.99 a gallon, complaining isn't going to do any good. You, as a customer, must allow the market system to operate. Entrepreneurs will go to work finding alternatives, consumers will find ways to reduce consumption, and ultimately the cartel will collapse as supply floods the market from seemingly nowhere (as occurs in the OPEC dominated oil market every decade or so).

Quote :

"In Super Happy Fun Land, the complains of the finished product guy carry through, because the raw materials guys don't want to lose business. "

Huh? People do not cut prices because you complain to them. Have you actually tried this at a gas-station? People cut prices because they ALREADY lost business and are getting desperate to sell their growing inventories. You've been here long enough, surely you have read the history of monopoly. Only once in history has a company managed to maintain monopoly pricing, De Beers, and only then because they were damn lucky. Africa is filled with diamonds, lots of possible competition for De Beers, but socialism and political instability keeps it all locked up and off the market. Today I would argue their monopoly is over, since artifical diamonds are readily available, it's just that everyone wants expensive ground diamonds.

Quote :

"But what happens when either factor is something we simply cannot live without?"

Then you buy it; if you need it then you need it. But the lone historical example of a successful monopoly was in diamonds, not a necessity by any stretch.

Quote :

"I don't like to think that some group of companies we can't get rid of have us by the balls. I want some mallet to hit them in the head with. That mallet is government."

It is a long complicated argument, but the existance of that mallet makes monopolies more likely to form. Anti-trust laws have never once been used against an actual resource monopoly; the verdicts are always restraint of trade, which usually means the company's prices were too low, and made the mistake of taking business away from politically connected rivals. The result is companies are warry to compete as hard as they can in the marketplace, lest they find themselves in court. Nevermind the externalities of its existance: every major corporation keeps lobyists on staff in Washington, working to bring legal and government action against their competitors and ward it off themselves.

From a standpoint of effects upon society, all your mallet seems to do is make lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians wealthy, at the expense of consumers.

Quote :

"Next I setup a perimeter around the city. Check points in and out. Within a few weeks of the announcement, all competition has been eliminated, now GM is a conglomerate city-state."

I like what-if scenarios. This one is fun. I suspect you failed to realize that most companies, GM included, are owned by individuals outside of Detroit. Presumably, either they or their security firms will be on hand to defend their property eventually. Not to mention, all the businesses you say GM merged with, how? Did GM really just buy out everyone? Does GM really have the $1.3 trillion to buy all those companies outright? Not to mention, if GM buys up all the other security companies, then the value of my company is astronomical as customers, affraid of GM, would pay anything for my protection. As such, we have a holdout problem, as security company owners are demanding GM pay all it can afford, praying we will be the last holdout and can extort GM, which we are not. As such, GM could at most buy out maybe 50% of the market before everyone got wind of its acquisitions, making further acquisition impossible. Similarly, if GM stopped making cars customers wanted and went to making tanks that only it wanted then pretty soon its outside debts would become prohibitive, as its stock and bond holders in New York call up an army to retake their company from an obviously deranged leadership. Presumably the investors would offer a reward for the return of their company, say 10% of its value, or $130 billion, so the attacking army has access to all outside resources and strong incentives, too. Which itself is silly, because even if GM manages to buy out all the security firms, they were not much better armed than the populous at large. If GM sends out its troops to attack others, it will find a very high casualty rate.

After a short while, GM would run out of money and everything would go back to normal, and the GM leadership would end up being executed.

[Edited on July 28, 2007 at 8:55 AM. Reason : ^]

7/28/2007 8:37:40 AM

Quote :

"There is an important distinction between "altruism," patriotism," and "idealism.""

Altrusim: Selfless devotion to the welfare of others. Patriotism: Love for or devotion to one's country. Am I close?

Quote :

"you assume that some other entity will exist with the capacity to overcome and detain one of the warlord's "soldiers.""

A warlord's soldiers are not immune from attack. Look at the US. The world's most powerful soldiers are being cut down daily by a rag-tag bunch of insurgents. And without the altrusitic appeals to defend the flag, how many of your employees are going to continue risking the hatred and retribution of the populace?

Quote :

"You assume that the warlord cannot keep his employees in line,"

Even assuming you can convince your employee soldiers to stay in line, your biggest problems are going to come from your customers. They will revolt in mass, they will fleee your area. They will refuse to buy your cars. Other security firms, wanting to make a reputation, will flock to take you on.

Your Ian Fleming scenarios could happen. Anyone can try to subvert any system. But for all of your Blofelds, Dr. Nos and Goldfingers, the Free Market will produce enough Bonds...James Bonds.

Quote :

"Who will make them? "

: Private defense companies.

Quote :

"How will they make them?"

: Using appropriate force.

Quote :

" By what authority will they make them?"

: The right of self-defense against fraud and force. We do not seek to punish but to only gain restituion for our loss.

[Edited on July 28, 2007 at 10:29 AM. Reason : .]

[Edited on July 28, 2007 at 10:31 AM. Reason : ..]

7/28/2007 10:28:44 AM