Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 40 of 76

Thread: pick one socialism or anarchy

  1. #1

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default pick one socialism or anarchy

    anarchy

    by anarchy i mean this shit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchism this is interesting to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchist_communism or just do w/e anarchy ftw
    Last edited by trifling nincompoop; 06-06-2014 at 01:47 AM.

  2. #2
    Landlord of the Dog and Duck Subteigh's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    TIM
    EII-Ne Sp/So
    Posts
    14,935
    Mentioned
    243 Post(s)
    Tagged
    2 Thread(s)

    Default

    Everything reports to me.
    EII-Ne
    5w4 or 1w9 Sp/So

  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Subteigh View Post
    Everything reports to me.
    you are my sworn enemy now

  4. #4
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Just like in all of my personal relationships, I'd prefer voluntary interaction over forced 'virtue' through a monopoly on initiation of force.

    If, however, anarchy meant disarray of social order.. I don't know. That's rarely a permanent state of matters while socialism can be a hell that will endure a lifetime.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  5. #5
    killer wolf lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    emotionz
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,114
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    socialism, I think. but i have nothing to back it up.

  6. #6
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,126
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    socialism because anarchy will not last and It will be replaced by something new something random and revolution rarely leads to a better situation
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  7. #7
    killer wolf lemontrees's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    emotionz
    TIM
    SEI
    Posts
    1,114
    Mentioned
    100 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Chinese style state capitalism, but only because China is advancing rapidly and could colonize the solar system within the century. After that, do whatever you want on your own planet.
    we could all soon be living in space colonies put up in a single month, traveling between planets on high speed light-year trains that might collapse any moment from the sheer quality of worksmanship and craft.

  8. #8

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    You can fix socialism if it goes wrong. How do you control chaos should anarchy go wrong?

  9. #9
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by lemontrees View Post
    we could all soon be living in space colonies put up in a single month, traveling between planets on high speed light-year trains that might collapse any moment from the sheer quality of worksmanship and craft.
    LMAO.

    /thread
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  10. #10
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    From my observations Ti-creatives are bonkers - either commie or anarchist. Not to mention snitches, snitching to the forum word Police, being against calling the Police on your fellow man, of course. Equilibrium achieved...

    Last edited by Absurd; 06-05-2014 at 08:31 AM.

  11. #11
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    You can fix socialism if it goes wrong
    When has the state expanded to a large version and then voluntarily backed off because off it's inefficiency? Usually the reaction to inefficiency in government programs is throwing more money at it.
    How do you control chaos should anarchy go wrong?
    Give me an example of how this would happen and I can tell you possible cures that I can come up with that are not available in a society controlled by a state.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  12. #12
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Priceless.

  13. #13
    Pookie's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    TIM
    IEI-Ni 6w5-9-2 So/Sx
    Posts
    2,126
    Mentioned
    89 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    When has the state expanded to a large version and then voluntarily backed off because off it's inefficiency? Usually the reaction to inefficiency in government programs is throwing more money at it.

    Give me an example of how this would happen and I can tell you possible cures that I can come up with that are not available in a society controlled by a state.
    I'll Bite. Genghis Khan. How do you stop a massive Barbarian uprising for control of power over the lawless state with no unified front to stop all the inevitable raping and pillaging of the countryside?
    I would say that ethically you are still supposed to act as if you have unilateral responsibility; but simultaneously you have to be able to see the other as a fully autonomous, free, aware person.

    Medicalizing social problems has the additional benefit of rendering society not responsible for those social ills. If it’s a disease, it’s nobody’s fault. Yay empiricism.

  14. #14

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Give me an example of how this would happen and I can tell you possible cures that I can come up with that are not available in a society controlled by a state.
    I mean complete lawlessness and chaos. Is there a way back from that in a way that would not involve government?

    By contrast a lawless totalitarian state can be overthrown and reformed via revolution, democratic or violent, because all power is conveniently in one place.

  15. #15
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    I mean complete lawlessness and chaos. Is there a way back from that in a way that would not involve government?
    There is, but Aquagraph would have to get a job first.

  16. #16

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    From my observations Ti-creatives are bonkers - either commie or anarchist.
    lol Te demonstrative i would presume

  17. #17
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Pookie View Post
    I'll Bite. Genghis Khan. How do you stop a massive Barbarian uprising for control of power over the lawless state with no unified front to stop all the inevitable raping and pillaging of the countryside?
    Well, since there isn't any taxes being gathered, he must rely on building up an army with looted wealth. He would likely want to start from a wealthy and relatively disarmed population who haven't gotten around to pay for security for some reason, maybe some religious communities. Otherwise, he would just get shot like many robbers do in a society that doesn't trust that the police will come to rescue. Let's make it easier and say that he has enough charisma and status to gain followers from the poor and criminal underclass. The wealthy who are concerned would easily crowdfund a price on his head and maybe on the heads of his lieutenants. That should spark the attention of the poor and desperate in their ranks, not to mention making Genghis paranoid and probably deterring future criminals once his head is on a pike or whatever.

    Of course a foreign state could have motives to fund this and then I'd be pretty scared, but the same solutions apply. Then again a society that has decidedly turn to statelessness would probably hoist banners and yell out "live free or die" and such.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    I mean complete lawlessness and chaos. Is there a way back from that in a way that would not involve government?
    Hiring protection and buying a gun goes a long way. Put up an internet campaign that will arm peaceful individuals aiming to protect and many anarchocapitalists would be happy to chip in by sending a couple of Bitcoins for a good cause. If I'd be scared on behalf of my neighbourhood, I might start, or at least join, the neighborhood watch.

    Let's say that the Genghis from above still gets a hold of the people and starts demanding tributes and anyone who doesn't pay up gets violated.. well, I just described taxation and the state.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    By contrast a lawless totalitarian state can be overthrown and reformed via revolution, democratic or violent, because all power is conveniently in one place.
    I don't think that the power lies in buildings but in guns whose bearers believe in the authority of those buildings, thrones, ballot boxes etc. Democracies are a pain in the ass to overthrow and make away since citizens uphold the notion that says "the govenrment is us" which is like saying that the jews exterminated themselves during Hit-ler's reign.

    If you're a rich corporation trying to overthrow the state, then it's just business.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  18. #18

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    point is anything goes goes both ways and i dont know about you but id make quite a bit of cash from that situation

  19. #19
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5dolladogsoup View Post
    point is anything goes goes both ways and i dont know about you but id make quite a bit of cash from that situation
    Me too if I'd work for private security. I'm diplomatic, calm and peaceful yet assertive and I don't flich when facing violence. Ashton/mfckr has actually seen when I defuse a violent situation in a person's home. My webcam was left on when the situation arised so he actually just happened to witness this across the ocean.

    Most people want a stable steady and safe income rather than the opposite so usually the willing to work for private security can outnumber those willing to work in private theft. Assuming the former gets customers, of course.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  20. #20

    Join Date
    Feb 2014
    Posts
    184
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Hiring protection and buying a gun goes a long way. ...the neighborhood watch.
    What would protect the consumer from being coerced into buying "protection" from a group offering something like this? A group with a lot of guns could have anything it wanted at the expense of everyone else right? I don't think most people would fight back if they knew they would die. People would adapt and put up. How would a freemarket prevent this kind of gang tyranny?

  21. #21
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5dolladogsoup View Post
    lol Te demonstrative i would presume
    I'm going to read this thread with closed eyes from now on.

  22. #22
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    What would protect the consumer from being coerced into buying "protection" from a group offering something like this? A group with a lot of guns could have anything it wanted at the expense of everyone else right? I don't think most people would fight back if they knew they would die. People would adapt and put up. How would a freemarket prevent this kind of gang tyranny?
    That's a good question! Simply put: competition. If a group would start seeming like a threat, another security group would start advertising itself with that threat. Surely they would also lose their customers if they would include state building costs (indoctrination, in their fees. Remember that it is a lot more expensive to try to extort a population, especially one that isn't indoctrinated to the idea that paying taxes is good (anarchists never are), than to make them feel protected. In the end, I'd anticipate that protection services would end up auditing one another against this. Since this is a real threat, competing security agencies could set some of their assets aside as a bond held by a third party, making it more reliable for clients. Also some of their fees could go to an independent watchdog agency that other security agencies are also invested in.

    Maybe you, as their customer, wouldn't trust watchdog agencies paid by these factions due to conflict of interest? Then, you could vote with your wallet to pay to the organization that anyone can audit! Maybe you want to hire one that everyone can inspect for arms that are far beyond necessary for protection agencies. Maybe the third party holding the bonds could be instructed to give them as a reward for anyone who can prove this foul play. Or maybe the clientele would be given access to a network that enables the clients to disable the weapons of their protection providers and any weapon in their use not connected like this would be a deal breaker if found during the arms inspection. Or maybe their money could be frozen if some ascetic unbribeable organization of monks presses a button. Maybe the network could also be used to activate an exploding collar on the CEO's neck!

    Although some of these ideas wouldn't be as competetive as others, in purely free markets you can always say "Nah, I don't like it, bring me a better one". This is not to say that a new offer will appear everytime you decline one, of course.
    But it certainly isn't short of ideas to get you as their client.

    Even if you had the funds, training an army in secrecy is also pretty hard and there's a long gap between the training of a peace enforcer and a military personnel. It's also hard to purchase tanks, gunships and RPGs enough to conquer a territory without anyone noticing since those need labor and loose lips sink battleships.

    Of course, banks wouldn't want to lend them anymore money because who would protect them from expensive taxation? They would also insure themselves with a less aggressive security agencies ('offshore' bank security insurances = lots of ฿฿฿ for the service provider).

    Maybe the biggest banks would collaborate to enable a state and buy off these organizations? Nothing would stop those organizations just saying: "Nah, we'll just keep the money. By the way, we will seize the rest of your assets with combined effort, you tyrant.".

    Even if you would have everything necessary to conquer it, you would likely find yourself to be the king of ruins after the resistance has ended. So many anarchists and libertarians would rather die than to give up their wet dream.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  23. #23

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    That's a good question! Simply put: competition. If a group would start seeming like a threat, another security group would start advertising itself with that threat. Surely they would also lose their customers if they would include state building costs (indoctrination, in their fees. Remember that it is a lot more expensive to try to extort a population, especially one that isn't indoctrinated to the idea that paying taxes is good (anarchists never are), than to make them feel protected. In the end, I'd anticipate that protection services would end up auditing one another against this. Since this is a real threat, competing security agencies could set some of their assets aside as a bond held by a third party, making it more reliable for clients. Also some of their fees could go to an independent watchdog agency that other security agencies are also invested in.

    Maybe you, as their customer, wouldn't trust watchdog agencies paid by these factions due to conflict of interest? Then, you could vote with your wallet to pay to the organization that anyone can audit! Maybe you want to hire one that everyone can inspect for arms that are far beyond necessary for protection agencies. Maybe the third party holding the bonds could be instructed to give them as a reward for anyone who can prove this foul play. Or maybe the clientele would be given access to a network that enables the clients to disable the weapons of their protection providers and any weapon in their use not connected like this would be a deal breaker if found during the arms inspection. Or maybe their money could be frozen if some ascetic unbribeable organization of monks presses a button. Maybe the network could also be used to activate an exploding collar on the CEO's neck!
    interesting im starting to understand the order lies within the free market everything the government does can be integrated into the system and turned into a business opportunity the only thing is creating grand establishments for such things without organization of something greater sounds like a complete cluster fuck (sounds) and because of that i sorta understand y socialism may be needed before a country can progress into anarchy, its gives a government lots of control to set up these establishments
    oh and i had another idea of selling false info of the criminals whereabouts to bounty hunters and such im sure some would bite not sure exactly how much id get tho

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    I'm going to read this thread with closed eyes from now on.
    hey it can be a philosophical theoretical discussion not everything has to be all serious and practical its fun for us
    also id love to hear the Te approach if you ever feel like being relevant
    Last edited by trifling nincompoop; 06-06-2014 at 01:50 PM.

  24. #24
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5dolladogsoup View Post
    hey it can be a philosophical theoretical discussion not everything has to be all serious and practical its fun for us
    also id love to hear the Te approach if you ever feel like being relevant
    You don't even know how many times I wanted to penetrate (@Kill4Me) Aquagraph with my blade, sliding through him like a knife slides through butter but fun is over and I have to get serious...

    What the commie hippie now turncoat Aquagrapfh proposes, economically wise, is absurd. I take it he read Mises ad infinitum, taking him for some kind of god that waves his invisible hand and market is fine. Truth is, Mises is outdated and wrong, so he better suck cockie better if he wants to keep up.

  25. #25
    Queen of the Damned Aylen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Location
    MACS0647-JD
    TIM
    SEER ~ 458 sx/sp
    Posts
    9,888
    Mentioned
    730 Post(s)
    Tagged
    40 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Ainfigur View Post
    What would protect the consumer from being coerced into buying "protection" from a group offering something like this? A group with a lot of guns could have anything it wanted at the expense of everyone else right? I don't think most people would fight back if they knew they would die. People would adapt and put up. How would a freemarket prevent this kind of gang tyranny?
    Basically they become the police force governing the weak.

    "When I ought to be thinking of heaven he will nail me to earth"

     







  26. #26

    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    TIM
    ESFj E6 W9 TRI 420
    Posts
    193
    Mentioned
    4 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    You don't even know how many times I wanted to penetrate (@Kill4Me) Aquagraph with my blade, sliding through him like a knife slides through butter but fun is over and I have to get serious...

    What the commie hippie now turncoat Aquagrapfh proposes, economically wise, is absurd. I take it he read Mises ad infinitum, taking him for some kind of god that waves his invisible hand and market is fine. Truth is, Mises is outdated and wrong, so he better suck cockie better if he wants to keep up.
    you think Mises is a joke... go it
    Last edited by trifling nincompoop; 06-06-2014 at 10:38 PM.

  27. #27
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 5dolladogsoup View Post
    you think Mises is a joke go it
    Online translator can't translate what you scribbled for me. Sorry very much. And there isn't only Mises.

  28. #28
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    That's a good question! Simply put: competition. If a group would start seeming like a threat, another security group would start advertising itself with that threat.
    So, like rival mafias?
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  29. #29
    Contra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    TIM
    ILI-Ni
    Posts
    1,405
    Mentioned
    55 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Well, this is an obvious one: anarchy. Why would you choose a system that falls into diseconomies of scale over a system that finds the economies of scale? Also, its better to choose a minimalist government and then add to it than have a system that starts large. Its much harder, if not impossible, to downsize than it is to grow larger.

  30. #30
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    So, like rival mafias?
    Everyone of them will want to prove that the customers will want their services and waging war is expensive, hence bad for business (especially if you hurt a harm or threaten a potential client!) since a third party focused on deterring violence and not involved in the wars will just pick up the customers with lower prices.

    If one of them grows too large, another would go like "Gee, doesn't that look like it could turn in to ..a Government!?! We at Galt's Guard are dedicated to protect Life and Liberty. Galt's Guard is a proud member of No Taxes, No Representation Alliance. ..Special offer: Gun owners who subscribe also get a Silver Membership on Local Shooting Range that will give you a 10% discount on all purchases. Galt's Guard.. Because commies suck." Or something like that.

    These services would actually want to incentivize protective measures taken by their customers and might offer reduced fees for people who have a burglar alarm, a gun and so on since nobody would want to mess with a clients' of a security company that prepares their clients towards violations.
    Last edited by Aquagraph; 06-07-2014 at 08:29 AM.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  31. #31
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    Everyone of them will want to prove that the customers will want their services and waging war is expensive, hence bad for business (especially if you hurt a harm or threaten a potential client!) since a third party focused on deterring violence and not involved in the wars will just pick up the customers with lower prices.

    If one of them grows too large, another would go like "Gee, doesn't that look like it could turn in to ..a Government!?! We at Galt's Guard are dedicated to protect Life and Liberty. Galt's Guard is a proud member of No Taxes, No Representation Alliance. ..Special offer: Gun owners who subscribe also get a Silver Membership on Local Shooting Range that will give you a 10% discount on all purchases. Galt's Guard.. Because commies suck." Or something like that.

    These services would actually want to incentivize protective measures taken by their customers and might offer reduced fees for people who have a burglar alarm, a gun and so on since nobody would want to mess with a clients' of a security company that prepares their clients towards violations.
    Don't mafias go to war regularly? And aren't they just as likely to extract unreasonable concessions from their "customers"?
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  32. #32
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    Don't mafias go to war regularly?
    I doubt that the Hollywood image is an accurate one but, yes, dispute are often resolved with violence in underground societies. Hiring better security would prevent most of this, but when all you have is the police's monopoly on security you will only need a few well-selected friends from their reserve and you are good. You can't stand up against them because that might be considered as a murder or assault after the police is on their side. Mafias also have to settle illegal business disputes through violence because they can't exactly go to the court and say how Jimmy stole some of the drug money that he was supposed to launder.
    And aren't they just as likely to extract unreasonable concessions from their "customers"?
    Yes. Same applies to states, of course. I've also heard that they even use the money that they extract to fund expensive wars against other monopolies of violence.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  33. #33
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    I doubt that the Hollywood image is an accurate one but, yes, dispute are often resolved with violence in underground societies. Hiring better security would prevent most of this, but when all you have is the police's monopoly on security you will only need a few well-selected friends from their reserve and you are good. You can't stand up against them because that might be considered as a murder or assault after the police is on their side. Mafias also have to settle illegal business disputes through violence because they can't exactly go to the court and say how Jimmy stole some of the drug money that he was supposed to launder.

    Yes. Same applies to states, of course. I've also heard that they even use the money that they extract to fund expensive wars against other monopolies of violence.
    The fact that more than one state exists makes it not a monopoly on force, actually.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  34. #34
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    The fact that more than one state exists makes it not a monopoly on force, actually.
    No. Utter fucking bollocks, but it coming from ILE, is not surprising. You have to have a great amount of 'states' for monopoly to cease exist. Price eliminates monopoly, the lower it is, the less you're gong to have to sweat (doubtful) to see a one and only manufacturer, but you have to have competitors to go even lower than you propose. Or better quality than them all.

    This is not the commie land, where you get shit in return, you silly Mao.

    Last edited by Absurd; 06-07-2014 at 09:54 PM.

  35. #35
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Absurd View Post
    No.
    Yes.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  36. #36
    Decadent Charlatan Aquagraph's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Continental Vinnland
    TIM
    OmniPoLR
    Posts
    3,967
    Mentioned
    126 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by xerx View Post
    The fact that more than one state exists makes it not a monopoly on force, actually.
    If you have to marry someone from your favored country, learn the language and get the citizenship, change your job, find a new residence and leave your family and friends behind to get this service, I'd say it's a monopoly. If not, almost nothing is.
    “I tell you, freedom and human rights in America are doomed. The U.S. government will lead the American people in — and the West in general — into an unbearable hell and a choking life. - Osama bin Laden

  37. #37
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    TIM
    LSE
    Posts
    18,006
    Mentioned
    162 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    Default

    Aquagrah, tell your identical or whatever you type yourself now to kiike up or fingers be cut.

  38. #38
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Aquagraph View Post
    If you have to marry someone from your favored country, learn the language and get the citizenship, change your job, find a new residence and leave your family and friends behind to get this service, I'd say it's a monopoly. If not, almost nothing is.
    Equally, if you decide to switch protection agencies, you'd have to leave your beloved neighbourhood, change your job and leave your friends behind.

    ... unless you seriously believe that protection agencies can protect house-by-house and individual-by-individual in a checkerboard pattern, which isn't a scalable business model. Any sane business trying to reduce its costs is going to deny service to someone not on their main patrol route and focus on a core of territory that it can safely control. And the upshot? These agencies carve out territories for themselves. Good luck going to the green agency when you're smack dab in the middle of purple territory.

    But I digress; competition solves all our problems. Magically. And wipes your arse too.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

  39. #39
    the flying pig Capitalist Pig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Colorado, USA
    Posts
    5,929
    Mentioned
    122 Post(s)
    Tagged
    7 Thread(s)

    Default

    Why would PPAs have to patrol at all? Why would they need armed or uniformed enforcers? What would give the right of a PPA to enforce itself against people who aren't customers of that PPA or any other PPA?

    PPAs may be a poor model of private law enforcement. Or maybe they only have limited applications under certain circumstances. Either way, @xerx, failures of imagination -- whether yours or mine -- aren't evidence of a problem that the free market process couldn't possibly reconcile.

  40. #40
    xerx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    5,464
    Mentioned
    53 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Capitalist Pig View Post
    Why would PPAs have to patrol at all? Why would they need armed or uniformed enforcers? What would give the right of a PPA to enforce itself against people who aren't customers of that PPA or any other PPA?

    PPAs may be a poor model of private law enforcement. Or maybe they only have limited applications under certain circumstances. Either way, @xerx, failures of imagination -- whether yours or mine -- aren't evidence of a problem that the free market process couldn't possibly reconcile.
    I'm not sure what you're getting at. Protection agencies need to physically have men on the ground in their customers' vicinities to act as watchdogs against burglary, vandalism and such. I'm not sure how else they'd be able to stop crime against their customers or convince people that they could make them feel safe.

    Is there another way for people to protect their lives or physical assets in a libertarian society?

    [EDIT: The 2nd Amendment doesn't sound like a serious proposal to me, since most people don't have the dexterity to use guns (which does require training), are afraid of doing so, or don't have the time to constantly be guarding their homes. The 2nd amendment would leave power in the hands of self-proclaimed vigilante authorities which are just as likely to turn their guns on the people they're protecting. At least that's the way I figure.]
    Last edited by xerx; 06-08-2014 at 03:28 PM.
    You can do anything with a bayonet except sit on it.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •