Minyin Bison

[Hasbinbad]

Dude, you seriously support the lack of a state eh? Coz me and a couple friends have some ideas about that. Their last names all end in vowels, and the only reason you don't pay them protection money is because of the state.

What say you about anarchy (anarchocapitalism whatever) in the face of those who are much smarter than you or i, who are bent on taking what is yours - at gunpoint if necessary?

Private police? Who pays them? More to the point, who pays them MORE than criminals can make by taking what is yours?

[M.Bison]

This tends to be peoples number one concern in regards to an anarcho system.
The short answer being, laws and law enforcement is an economic good. In the absence of the state, private law enforcement companies would fill the void.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This explains it better than I ever could.

[Hasbinbad]

This tends to be peoples number one concern in regards to an anarcho system.
The short answer being, laws and law enforcement is an economic good. In the absence of the state, private law enforcement companies would fill the void.

http://www.daviddfriedman.com/Libertarian/Machinery_of_Freedom/MofF_Chapter_29.html
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This explains it better than I ever could.
So an economic good would be recognized and promoted by corporations? So a quorum of super corps forms to agree on and fund a private police force, and you've just created de facto government in the form of fascist oligarchy, defeating your original point..

[Hasbinbad]

As far as the gobbledy**** in that url, it is my opinion that people like your man tend to fixate on the ideal and trend away from talking about reality. The description he would have you believe is of late 1940's - mid 1950's small business as the dominant economic force, and seems to ignore the fact that the economy is now dominated by dividends rather than providing a good or service.

[M.Bison]

So an economic good would be recognized and promoted by corporations? So a quorum of super corps forms to agree on and fund a private police force, and you've just created de facto government in the form of fascist oligarchy, defeating your original point..

A government isnt a bad thing. A government that is localized and has consolidated all power on the other hand can be very dangerous. Under Friedman's model, no one PDA(private defense agency) would have any more power than the other. And if one agency did find themselves with more power, then people would stop patronizing it. Effectively putting them out of business. The free market would govern itself.

[M.Bison]

As far as the gobbledy**** in that url, it is my opinion that people like your man tend to fixate on the ideal and trend away from talking about reality. The description he would have you believe is of late 1940's - mid 1950's small business as the dominant economic force, and seems to ignore the fact that the economy is now dominated by dividends rather than providing a good or service.

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

[Hasbinbad]

A government isnt a bad thing. A government that is localized and has consolidated all power on the other hand can be very dangerous. Under Friedman's model, no one PDA(private defense agency) would have any more power than the other. And if one agency did find themselves with more power, then people would stop patronizing it. Effectively putting them out of business. The free market would govern itself.
So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

[Hasbinbad]

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.
So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

[purist]

Anytime anyone says anything promoting libertarianism, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving the libertarian ideology. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union. That’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors, and then spitting on them.

[Nakara]

Wow you typed up a lot of bullshit for nothing. He's promoting anarcho-capitalism, not libertarianism, please don't lump the two together because they are nothing alike.

[Nakara]

Although you are obviously not serious dumb people will still believe what you said

[Nakara]

So stop posting ironically because people here won't get it

[Nakara]

Including me for 30 seconds

[purist]

*spits on Nakara*

[Hasbinbad]

Anytime anyone says anything promoting libertarianism, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving the libertarian ideology. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union. That’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors, and then spitting on them.
http://gaygamer.net/images/thumbs-up.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

You people quit shitting up the thread.

Topic:

A government isnt a bad thing. A government that is localized and has consolidated all power on the other hand can be very dangerous. Under Friedman's model, no one PDA(private defense agency) would have any more power than the other. And if one agency did find themselves with more power, then people would stop patronizing it. Effectively putting them out of business. The free market would govern itself.

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

I await your response, BISON.

[M.Bison]

So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

If at any point in time a criminal agency 'outguns' a individual PDA, that would definitely become a threat to all other PDAs. At which time the 'outgunned' PDA would find itself backed by numerous other PDAs. If some criminal force is undermining PDAx, the public could view this as a direct threat to their protection.(IE. If that criminal organization can outgun and bully PDAx, what is stopping them from doing the same to PDAy and PDAz on down the line?) At which point PDAy, and PDAz, recognizing a threat to their customer base, come in and say ' well you outgun PDAx but do you outgun all 3 of us together?' The affect of all of this is ultimately a scalable organized peacekeeping force. On the surface this might look similar to what we have today, local police, state police, and federal law enforcement. The key difference being that today these state provided services have to provide for the entire public, and are all controlled by the same governing power. Under Friedman's model, individual PDAs would not have the burden of policing everyone, just the protection of its customers. Which is a much easier job in comparison, driving quality and response up, and through competition with numerous other PDA's, driving price down.


Anarcho-Capitalism(AC) is NOT anarchy. An anarchist detests the state, or any form of it. An AC recognizes the dangers of the consolidation of power(the state). While simultaneously recognizing the legitimacy of all the goods and services it provides. In a free market model, all the goods and services the state provides will instead by offered by private businesses. That way no one "state" controls all the healthcare/law enforcement/anything.

[Lazortag]

Bison, if market forces aren't enough to stop businesses in Somalia (where there's essentially no government) from selling expired food to people for greater profits, how do you expect the free market to improve the quality "private defense agencies"?

[Japan]

It's simple: unlike Somalia, we have white people.

[M.Bison]

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it. In the link i provided you it talks about how litigation would be handled in a third-party, pre-determined court. Ultimately any decision the court makes will involve some sort of monetary reimbursement from those found guilty. (for costs to the court/PDA/persons involved.) Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate"(i use that term loosely) plan, in which they still receive all the benefits that the average customer gets, just at a lower rate. But in the event that any court rules in citizenZ's favor involving monetary reimbursement, PDAx usually only taking 15%, instead gets 60% in exchange for that "cut rate" payment.

Anarcho-Capitalism at its core is just a free market society. There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient. All aspects of society would be handled in a business like method of cost/benefit. Im not saying the models are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, just another way of thinking.

[Hasbinbad]

If at any point in time a criminal agency 'outguns' a individual PDA, that would definitely become a threat to all other PDAs. At which time the 'outgunned' PDA would find itself backed by numerous other PDAs. If some criminal force is undermining PDAx, the public could view this as a direct threat to their protection.(IE. If that criminal organization can outgun and bully PDAx, what is stopping them from doing the same to PDAy and PDAz on down the line?) At which point PDAy, and PDAz, recognizing a threat to their customer base, come in and say ' well you outgun PDAx but do you outgun all 3 of us together?' The affect of all of this is ultimately a scalable organized peacekeeping force. On the surface this might look similar to what we have today, local police, state police, and federal law enforcement. The key difference being that today these state provided services have to provide for the entire public, and are all controlled by the same governing power. Under Friedman's model, individual PDAs would not have the burden of policing everyone, just the protection of its customers. Which is a much easier job in comparison, driving quality and response up, and through competition with numerous other PDA's, driving price down.
Ok, I figured you would say something like this, and can respect the idea, but we're not talking about a rash group of criminal gunslingers out of a 1960's western here. I mean organized crime. Playing the fringes. Taking what's yours in not only small snatch&dash jobs and protection threats, but in highly sophisticated technologically founded operations. Global crime man. We're in a different age now. A truly successful illegitimate organization needs to diversify their crime. You need the FBI against that shit man. The CIA and shit. Honestly I hate trusting them with that much power, but then I think of how bad the world would really be without Interpol. The russians are already paying the nigerians to phish your fucking account man, and dumpster diving hackers can get it if you're "too smart" to enter your information into that popup.. How bad would it be if there was no global effort to get rid of them? Doesn't that require a significant concentration of power in the form of resources, information, and secrecy? Coz lemme tell you dude.. I could, with a friend or four of like mind, set up a pretty decent operation to take what is yours if I didn't think the FBI would have my ass in a sling. ..and I'm really not very educated or even clever as far as being devious goes.

Seriously tho, without some form of "big police," crime would simply take over. ..and if you're going to have the CIA, don't you need checks and balances? Doesn't this lead us back to a large form of government?

Anarcho-Capitalism(AC) is NOT anarchy. An anarchist detests the state, or any form of it. An AC recognizes the dangers of the consolidation of power(the state). While simultaneously recognizing the legitimacy of all the goods and services it provides. In a free market model, all the goods and services the state provides will instead by offered by private businesses. That way no one "state" controls all the healthcare/law enforcement/anything.

#1 why do you bring up the state when you mention a consolidation of power? I know you like corporations, but let's be fucking honest here: the wealthy really have more power than any government in the world. The world is changed by corporations man, and wildly and without thought of the future at that. Just look at pharmacorps.. Even this huge government we have is BARELY enough to constrain them from killing thousands of people with untested drugs (even with what we have, drugs get released and kill people due to lack of government power to enforce longer term testing). If McDonalds wasn't constrained by government, don't you think they would advertise children in candy clouds eating 4 big macs at a sitting? Tobacco would be teaching kids how cool smoking looks and luring them with penis-faced ungulates. You name it, and I bet it would be elementary to show how corporations exert more influence than government.

#2 you skipped the question I asked about your neighbor. Let's say you are a customer of Hasbin Bad's Police Services. Local criminals have tried to rob you before, but 6 squad cars showed up bristling assault rifles and bullhorns before they knew what happened. Your neighbors however, residents of the area for 45 years, are known to be poor monetarily but also known to own many antiques. Are they not an obvious target? If they are not customers of a PDA due to monetary constraints, and they got robbed at gunpoint, they would have nobody to call? No recourse? That doesn't sound like any place I'd like to live.

[Hasbinbad]

Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate"(i use that term loosely) plan, in which they still receive all the benefits that the average customer gets, just at a lower rate. But in the event that any court rules in citizenZ's favor involving monetary reimbursement, PDAx usually only taking 15%, instead gets 60% in exchange for that "cut rate" payment.
Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

[Hasbinbad]

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..

[nalkin]

I'd like to see abacabs take on this thread. IMO everyone but Hasbin, Abacab, and Bison be quiet and let the better writers talk.

[M.Bison]

Bison, if market forces aren't enough to stop businesses in Somalia (where there's essentially no government) from selling expired food to people for greater profits, how do you expect the free market to improve the quality "private defense agencies"?

Simply put, in US we have significantly more options when it comes to food. Smaller countries, like Somalia, arent as lucky in that respect. If someone is trying to sell expired food in the US, you just dont buy it. The country is large enough to support several sources of farm land/livestock.

Free market would improve the quality of PDAs by answering directly to its customers. You pay for the protection law enforcement provides you already. The only difference between Friedman's model and today's standard is that you would get to choose who provides that service for you, as opposed to that money being involuntarily taken out of your paycheck every week. Another way it would improve quality is a PDA would have to provide you with service-provider financial statements. So when you notice that your PDA just spent $100,000 on something you dont feel is necessary to your protection you can drop their service and seek another PDA that fits your needs more accordingly. Extrapolating that, if enough people notice this unnecessary spending from a specific PDA and in turn drop their service. That PDA will be forced to either change its spending habits or face bankruptcy.

[Hasbinbad]

Simply put, in US we have significantly more options when it comes to food. Smaller countries, like Somalia, arent as lucky in that respect. If someone is trying to sell expired food in the US, you just dont buy it. The country is large enough to support several sources of farm land/livestock.

Free market would improve the quality of PDAs by answering directly to its customers. You pay for the protection law enforcement provides you already. The only difference between Friedman's model and today's standard is that you would get to choose who provides that service for you, as opposed to that money being involuntarily taken out of your paycheck every week. Another way it would improve quality is a PDA would have to provide you with service-provider financial statements. So when you notice that your PDA just spent $100,000 on something you dont feel is necessary to your protection you can drop their service and seek another PDA that fits your needs more accordingly. Extrapolating that, if enough people notice this unnecessary spending from a specific PDA and in turn drop their service. That PDA will be forced to either change its spending habits or face bankruptcy.
Don't debate the proles Bison, them pickin's is easy. I'm here for you baby.

So the problem with your idea of quality improvement in PDA's is that people actually suffer in the interim while they sort the details and get shit wrong trying to bust a profit. If YOUR grandmother was raped in her bathroom while the cops were busy responding to a cost-benefit analysis memo, I think you'd be pretty pissed off.

Also, you're talking post-America here dude, so don't bring "american exceptionalism" into this debate please. I know that other dude that posted set you up on your soapbox, but let's keep this debate grounded? Propaganda is for the Weak mind Bison, you're better than that.

[Hasbinbad]

TOPIC:
If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it. In the link i provided you it talks about how litigation would be handled in a third-party, pre-determined court. Ultimately any decision the court makes will involve some sort of monetary reimbursement from those found guilty. (for costs to the court/PDA/persons involved.) Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate"(i use that term loosely) plan, in which they still receive all the benefits that the average customer gets, just at a lower rate. But in the event that any court rules in citizenZ's favor involving monetary reimbursement, PDAx usually only taking 15%, instead gets 60% in exchange for that "cut rate" payment.

Anarcho-Capitalism at its core is just a free market society. There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient. All aspects of society would be handled in a business like method of cost/benefit. Im not saying the models are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, just another way of thinking.

Ok, I figured you would say something like this, and can respect the idea, but we're not talking about a rash group of criminal gunslingers out of a 1960's western here. I mean organized crime. Playing the fringes. Taking what's yours in not only small snatch&dash jobs and protection threats, but in highly sophisticated technologically founded operations. Global crime man. We're in a different age now. A truly successful illegitimate organization needs to diversify their crime. You need the FBI against that shit man. The CIA and shit. Honestly I hate trusting them with that much power, but then I think of how bad the world would really be without Interpol. The russians are already paying the nigerians to phish your fucking account man, and dumpster diving hackers can get it if you're "too smart" to enter your information into that popup.. How bad would it be if there was no global effort to get rid of them? Doesn't that require a significant concentration of power in the form of resources, information, and secrecy? Coz lemme tell you dude.. I could, with a friend or four of like mind, set up a pretty decent operation to take what is yours if I didn't think the FBI would have my ass in a sling. ..and I'm really not very educated or even clever as far as being devious goes.

Seriously tho, without some form of "big police," crime would simply take over. ..and if you're going to have the CIA, don't you need checks and balances? Doesn't this lead us back to a large form of government?



#1 why do you bring up the state when you mention a consolidation of power? I know you like corporations, but let's be fucking honest here: the wealthy really have more power than any government in the world. The world is changed by corporations man, and wildly and without thought of the future at that. Just look at pharmacorps.. Even this huge government we have is BARELY enough to constrain them from killing thousands of people with untested drugs (even with what we have, drugs get released and kill people due to lack of government power to enforce longer term testing). If McDonalds wasn't constrained by government, don't you think they would advertise children in candy clouds eating 4 big macs at a sitting? Tobacco would be teaching kids how cool smoking looks and luring them with penis-faced ungulates. You name it, and I bet it would be elementary to show how corporations exert more influence than government.

#2 you skipped the question I asked about your neighbor. Let's say you are a customer of Hasbin Bad's Police Services. Local criminals have tried to rob you before, but 6 squad cars showed up bristling assault rifles and bullhorns before they knew what happened. Your neighbors however, residents of the area for 45 years, are known to be poor monetarily but also known to own many antiques. Are they not an obvious target? If they are not customers of a PDA due to monetary constraints, and they got robbed at gunpoint, they would have nobody to call? No recourse? That doesn't sound like any place I'd like to live.

Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..
BISON!!!

[Lazortag]

Simply put, in US we have significantly more options when it comes to food. Smaller countries, like Somalia, arent as lucky in that respect. If someone is trying to sell expired food in the US, you just dont buy it. The country is large enough to support several sources of farm land/livestock.



Woah. This is really not an adequate response. Expired food isn't sold in Somalia just because of a scarcity of food (otherwise it would have been bought before it expired, no?). It's sold (a) because people can get away with not labeling food as expired, since there's no government to enforce such standards, and (b) because selling expired food yields more profits for the business selling it. Market forces aren't going to stop a consumer from buying expired food and getting sick because they have no way of directly verifying that the food was expired, and no way of holding businesses accountable when they transgress these standards anyway. Also, since it's Pareto better (in terms of profits) for all of the entities selling food to sell expired food when they can get away with it, no one is going to take advantage of the market by selling non-expired food.

So far you've only given shallow theoretical reasons for why the market solves, but you haven't given any examples in the real world. Somalia is an example in the real world.

[Lazortag]

Don't debate the proles Bison, them pickin's is easy. I'm here for you baby.

...

Also, you're talking post-America here dude, so don't bring "american exceptionalism" into this debate please. I know that other dude that posted set you up on your soapbox, but let's keep this debate grounded? Propaganda is for the Weak mind Bison, you're better than that.

u dumb.

[Nakara]

Somalia is an example in the real world.

Somalia was also in the midst of a full blown civil war.

[Hasbinbad]

u dumb.
u mad.

[Lazortag]

u mad.

;)

[Nakara]

Well they still are

[Lazortag]

Somalia was also in the midst of a full blown civil war.

Well they still are

This explains why they have no government (no monopoly on force etc.) but not why they have a free market that doesn't solve. The cause of why they have no functional government is neither here nor there. I'm just not sure how your post engages with mine but maybe I just misunderstand what you're getting at..?

[Hasbinbad]

Topic damnit.
If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it. In the link i provided you it talks about how litigation would be handled in a third-party, pre-determined court. Ultimately any decision the court makes will involve some sort of monetary reimbursement from those found guilty. (for costs to the court/PDA/persons involved.) Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate"(i use that term loosely) plan, in which they still receive all the benefits that the average customer gets, just at a lower rate. But in the event that any court rules in citizenZ's favor involving monetary reimbursement, PDAx usually only taking 15%, instead gets 60% in exchange for that "cut rate" payment.

Anarcho-Capitalism at its core is just a free market society. There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient. All aspects of society would be handled in a business like method of cost/benefit. Im not saying the models are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, just another way of thinking.

Ok, I figured you would say something like this, and can respect the idea, but we're not talking about a rash group of criminal gunslingers out of a 1960's western here. I mean organized crime. Playing the fringes. Taking what's yours in not only small snatch&dash jobs and protection threats, but in highly sophisticated technologically founded operations. Global crime man. We're in a different age now. A truly successful illegitimate organization needs to diversify their crime. You need the FBI against that shit man. The CIA and shit. Honestly I hate trusting them with that much power, but then I think of how bad the world would really be without Interpol. The russians are already paying the nigerians to phish your fucking account man, and dumpster diving hackers can get it if you're "too smart" to enter your information into that popup.. How bad would it be if there was no global effort to get rid of them? Doesn't that require a significant concentration of power in the form of resources, information, and secrecy? Coz lemme tell you dude.. I could, with a friend or four of like mind, set up a pretty decent operation to take what is yours if I didn't think the FBI would have my ass in a sling. ..and I'm really not very educated or even clever as far as being devious goes.

Seriously tho, without some form of "big police," crime would simply take over. ..and if you're going to have the CIA, don't you need checks and balances? Doesn't this lead us back to a large form of government?



#1 why do you bring up the state when you mention a consolidation of power? I know you like corporations, but let's be fucking honest here: the wealthy really have more power than any government in the world. The world is changed by corporations man, and wildly and without thought of the future at that. Just look at pharmacorps.. Even this huge government we have is BARELY enough to constrain them from killing thousands of people with untested drugs (even with what we have, drugs get released and kill people due to lack of government power to enforce longer term testing). If McDonalds wasn't constrained by government, don't you think they would advertise children in candy clouds eating 4 big macs at a sitting? Tobacco would be teaching kids how cool smoking looks and luring them with penis-faced ungulates. You name it, and I bet it would be elementary to show how corporations exert more influence than government.

#2 you skipped the question I asked about your neighbor. Let's say you are a customer of Hasbin Bad's Police Services. Local criminals have tried to rob you before, but 6 squad cars showed up bristling assault rifles and bullhorns before they knew what happened. Your neighbors however, residents of the area for 45 years, are known to be poor monetarily but also known to own many antiques. Are they not an obvious target? If they are not customers of a PDA due to monetary constraints, and they got robbed at gunpoint, they would have nobody to call? No recourse? That doesn't sound like any place I'd like to live.

Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..

[Nakara]

This explains why they have no government (no monopoly on force etc.) but not why they have a free market that doesn't solve. The cause of why they have no functional government is neither here nor there. I'm just not sure how your post engages with mine but maybe I just misunderstand what you're getting at..?

Uhh what? There is no free market in Somalia was the point.

[Hasbinbad]

@ Lazortag & Nakara:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/showthread.php?t=21540

[Nakara]

no thanks

[M.Bison]

Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..

Both valid and good points, I think what youre getting at here is 'How will this model provide services for those that are unable to contribute for these services?' The fact that youre voicing these concerns is proof-positive that there is a demand for such services, and just like any other free market model demand will provide supply.
I dont think Friedman's model addresses issues exactly like this, but if I had to theorize based on other aspects of AC it would go something like this.

FamilyA is poor, so poor in fact they can barely afford running water and electricity on a month to month basis. FamilyB is middle class, paying each months bills with relative ease, while still saving a small portion of money. FamilyB employs PDAx for all their personal protection needs. FamilyA does not have a PDA effectively putting a target on their head for any criminals in the area. PDAx recognizes that FamilyA does not employ a PDA and sees potential revenue from this. PDAx proposes to its customer base(including familyB) that they can pay an extra 5% on each months bill, and in exchange any 3rd party, predetermined court ruling in their favor will net them 95%(as opposed to the 75% the would receive if they do not pay the 5%) of the money allotted by the court. This 5% from the collective customer base would go towards funding a PDA policy for FamilyA. While FamilyA would get protection services, they would only be able to keep 25% of any money allotted in a court decision. This is a sound business venture for the PDA because the 5% added to every bill from every family that elects to outweighs the possible 25% they would get in the event of a favorable court ruling. While at the same time, PDA gets to advertise that they have that many more customers choosing their services, (IE better advertising.) Ultimately FamilyA gets protection, while at the same time FamilyB(or any other family electing the payment option) gets the added benefit of less money being shaved off the top of their court allotment by the PDA. All sides benefit.

Most of these numbers were off the top of my head, but the general scheme is there.
In any case or situation you can think of, Im certain there is a sound business decision that can benefit all parties involved. All parties may not benefit the same, but you can bet benefit will be proportional to funds invested.

[Lazortag]

Uhh what? There is no free market in Somalia was the point.

I might make this my new signature.

Done.

[M.Bison]

Don't debate the proles Bison, them pickin's is easy. I'm here for you baby.

So the problem with your idea of quality improvement in PDA's is that people actually suffer in the interim while they sort the details and get shit wrong trying to bust a profit. If YOUR grandmother was raped in her bathroom while the cops were busy responding to a cost-benefit analysis memo, I think you'd be pretty pissed off.

Also, you're talking post-America here dude, so don't bring "american exceptionalism" into this debate please. I know that other dude that posted set you up on your soapbox, but let's keep this debate grounded? Propaganda is for the Weak mind Bison, you're better than that.

Agreed.

I also agree with you on the fact that any shift to an AC model would cause complete chaos until all the hiccups were hammered out. To me personally (and im sure not all of you) i would view this as a temporary necessary evil if it meant no 'one'(or one group) had a monopoly on a so-called "legal" use of violence.

Once again, just my personal views.

[Nakara]

I might make this my new signature.

Done.

lol ignorance is bliss

[Hasbinbad]

Agreed.

I also agree with you on the fact that any shift to an AC model would cause complete chaos until all the hiccups were hammered out. To me personally (and im sure not all of you) i would view this as a temporary necessary evil if it meant no 'one'(or one group) had a monopoly on a so-called "legal" use of violence.

Once again, just my personal views.
Well if you can stand up and say that your grandmother being raped by a large group of thugs with AIDs is a necessary evil, then I can't really debate you. For me, some things are unacceptable.

You paint a picture of a nightmare world. The wild west + global criminalization, and the ready availability of weapons of mass destruction. Would there be any humanity left when the hiccups were hammered out?

You never did answer about global criminals. Would there be some kind of international union of PDA's which shared information, resources, and boundries? Resources are obviously assets, but so is information and land right? If they all share, isn't that socialism (lol)?

One last nitpick about your free market police system. CitizenA (rich) would have to have a reasonable expectation that CitizenB (poor) will eventually win some form of monetary damages. Since petty and violent criminals are presumably more often motivated by economic, rather than other factors, wouldn't it stand to reason that those individuals who would owe damages are also those least likely to be able to pay them? Why would CitizenA plop down 5% for his neighbor if he didn't think CitizenB would ever actually see the check which theoretically exists? Wouldn't that be economically unsound, or is that part of an "economic good?" At what point does it quit becoming an economic good? At your counties border? At the end of the state? The country? What about the people in the in-betweens? Fuck em? That seems to be OK with you..

*shiver*

Scary that people who actually have a lot of the views you've espoused here are coming into some modicum of power in the US Govt. right now.

SCARY SHIT MAN

Personally, I like roads being public. I like public school. I like not having to pay my firemen to protect my home. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life) I like the police when they aren't being cunts. I like knowing that some areas of the place where I live have been set aside for wildlife. I like the fact that the things that I eat and take for headaches are mostly safe. Do I like the way the US Govt. is right now? Fucking no, but I sure like those things. I think we could learn a lot from other governments who are doing quite well with socialist democracies. I think we could learn a lot from ourselves in the late 1940's and the 1950's. The greatest period of innovation and progress in this nation was during the era of some of the highest mean tax percentages this country has ever known. Sure, a very few people were able to make that ALL ABOUT THEM with their corporations and their dividends, but tell me, did we go to the moon because of dividends? Did we build the freeway system because of dividends? Well, yes we did, but it's because Uncle Sam got his fucking cut. Uncle Sam gives you a Constitution, a Bill of fucking Rights, fresh cross country blacktop so you can cruise your big block, the best military force the world has ever known by far, a fresh gallon of milk for around $2.50, and you cut him out of the fucking deal? Are you kidding me?

My folks had a better deal.

Rednecks are ruining this fucking country.

[rachel]

I am sure I am off topic of the thread, but I am for equality to all humans. I don't think the rothschilds should have 300trillion dollars while millions of people suffer in poverty and sickness. Capitalist view: If you work hard you will earn the things you need and more and more extra money if you are really good at it or inherit the money. That's capitalism. I agree with it to a point. If you make over 200,000 a year you are just greedy and a terrible person if you don't help a lot of people with that money. Does capitalism give disabled people a fair shot ? a person with downsyndrom or other mental issues? No they are lucky just to survive. There has to be a point where you can't allow people to gain so much money that their fellow humans suffer, because of your great wealth and lifestyle.

America ???? america is not ours. We took it , by killing the people that were here first. Our country is founded on Stealing and Murder. You think hitler was bad , our ancestors did the same thing.

If everyone was honest we'd move back to our countries of origins and give back the native americans THEIR LAND.

Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.

[Hasbinbad]

I am sure I am off topic of the thread, but I am for equality to all humans. I don't think the rothschilds should have 300trillion dollars while millions of people suffer in poverty and sickness. Capitalist view: If you work hard you will earn the things you need and more and more extra money if you are really good at it or inherit the money. That's capitalism. I agree with it to a point. If you make over 200,000 a year you are just greedy and a terrible person if you don't help a lot of people with that money. Does capitalism give disabled people a fair shot ? a person with downsyndrom or other mental issues? No they are lucky just to survive. There has to be a point where you can't allow people to gain so much money that their fellow humans suffer, because of your great wealth and lifestyle.

America ???? america is not ours. We took it , by killing the people that were here first. Our country is founded on Stealing and Murder. You think hitler was bad , our ancestors did the same thing.

If everyone was honest we'd move back to our countries of origins and give back the native americans THEIR LAND.

Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.
rachel, you're a dirty hippie. I have some great brown blotter, wanna go drop at the festival? I just got some hand-me-down Birkenstocks, and I need a new tie die.

[Trademaster]

Re: Your link regarding the Firefighters for hire story Hasinbad.

The location of "victim's" home is outside of any fire protection district. That means the rednecks in that area voted at some point in time to not have their property taxes increased to get a fire station set up complete with fire trucks and fire fighters. A neighboring fire protection district offered to expand their territory, but only if the residents paid an annual $75.00 fee. In essence an annual "tax" if you will, to provide fire protection services for the residents in the area.

The ex home-owner states that he forgot to pay the annual fee, and therefore was not covered within the fire department's district as per the contract.

I guess the guy should look on the bright side, in that he didn't forget to pay his homeowner's insurance, even if he wasn't adequately covered. Because if you think the fire department was mean for not covering the gent who was ten months late in paying his fire department insurance, imagine what it would be like if he was 10 months late in paying his homeowner's insurance. (even though he was under insured, as your article states.)

The difference between this guy and homeowners within fire protection districts is that this homeowner
a) knew exactly how much it would cost to have fire protection for his home
b) had a choice as to weather or not to pay the fee.

I don't have the choice as to weather or not to pay for my fire protection, my fire protection fees are rolled up in my property taxes.

I also pay for public schools, and I don't have the option to not pay for them. I don't have any children, I am not going to have any children, and at my age, I am not going to enrolling in any public schools. Yet I still pay my portion of of the cost to educate my neighbors' kids.

The news article shows this poor redneck's situation as a travesty because tragedy sells and the slant they used fit the political slant of the web site. Another source might cover this tidbit differently, instead of portraying the homeowner as just some poor sap that just got chewed up by a wholly unethical and corrupt system, but rather portraying him as a tightwad looking for some way to job the system.

[Hasbinbad]

Re: Your link regarding the Firefighters for hire story Hasinbad.

The location of "victim's" home is outside of any fire protection district. That means the rednecks in that area voted at some point in time to not have their property taxes increased to get a fire station set up complete with fire trucks and fire fighters. A neighboring fire protection district offered to expand their territory, but only if the residents paid an annual $75.00 fee. In essence an annual "tax" if you will, to provide fire protection services for the residents in the area.

The ex home-owner states that he forgot to pay the annual fee, and therefore was not covered within the fire department's district as per the contract.

I guess the guy should look on the bright side, in that he didn't forget to pay his homeowner's insurance, even if he wasn't adequately covered. Because if you think the fire department was mean for not covering the gent who was ten months late in paying his fire department insurance, imagine what it would be like if he was 10 months late in paying his homeowner's insurance. (even though he was under insured, as your article states.)

The difference between this guy and homeowners within fire protection districts is that this homeowner
a) knew exactly how much it would cost to have fire protection for his home
b) had a choice as to weather or not to pay the fee.

I don't have the choice as to weather or not to pay for my fire protection, my fire protection fees are rolled up in my property taxes.

I also pay for public schools, and I don't have the option to not pay for them. I don't have any children, I am not going to have any children, and at my age, I am not going to enrolling in any public schools. Yet I still pay my portion of of the cost to educate my neighbors' kids.

The news article shows this poor redneck's situation as a travesty because tragedy sells and the slant they used fit the political slant of the web site. Another source might cover this tidbit differently, instead of portraying the homeowner as just some poor sap that just got chewed up by a wholly unethical and corrupt system, but rather portraying him as a tightwad looking for some way to job the system.
You're a dick.

[purist]

And this Everquest nerd decreed; let us rise against the tyranny of America's socialist fire departments! How dare they keep America safe at the taxpayer's expense! Nay! *pushes glasses up to bridge of nose* Let the fire departments watch homes all over the nation burn to a cinder over $75 fees!

[Trademaster]

But see I paid my $75.00 (or in my case a bit more) annual fee.

I bet the other homeowners here did too.

[Trademaster]

Oh and I even voted in favor of an increase in the mil levy thereby increasing the annual fee I pay to make sure the fire department can get to my house in a timely manner.

I must be some terrible socialistic fascist commie totalitarian plutocratic scum or something.

[purist]

Cool opinion bro

[Abacab niggah]

http://images1.memegenerator.net/this-is-fire-please-go-die-in-it/ImageMacro/3723634/Trees-didnt-pay-are-they-insured.jpg

[Bojangles]

I. private arbitration/ alternative dispute resolution:

Private arbitration only works because of the threat of the hideously expensive and unpredictable government courts. In law school I spent time with a lawyer who defended insurance companies. I got to sit in on a few private arbitrations, and when the 3 of us (lawyer, me, insurance rep) were talking strategy there was no mention of "the Right thing to do", or what is "Fair." The only discussion was about how to minimize how much the insurance company would be forced to pay.

Lawyer: "Based upon extensive statistical analysis, if we go to court we have a loss range of 0 to 50,000, with 30,000 being the predicted median. Win or lose my fees will increase by 10,000 plus or minus 1,000."

Rep: "So if we can't get them near 20,000 we should go to trial, and anything under 20,000 is a profit compared to going to trial."

Lawyer: "Yep. Initial offer of 10,000 sound good?"

And the opposing lawyer does the same calculations (would get 30,000 but lawyer gets paid 10,000), and eventually something near 20,000 is agreed upon. Not because either one thinks the result is fair, but because they know it is probably better and definitely more predictable than what they’d get in a government court (Rep wants to pay 0 to get his yearly bonus; injured person wants the 30,000 he should have gotten w/o any need for legal recourse if he is fair, 1342 billion if he is not fair which he probably isn’t.) Without that threat of a government court option, there is no incentive for defendants to make a deal.

It should be noted that the final deal in arbitration is enforced by the government so even this isn't a wholly privatized transaction. So it is only the greater threat of government arbitrariness and inefficiency that pushes defendants to go to the lesser threat of arbitration, and it is only government force that forces both sides to follow through with arbitration deals which they feel are unfair (which is both sides, in almost all arbitrations.)


II. private law enforcement

M. Bison:
“If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it… Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate".”

This is why there is 100% health insurance and fire fighting coverage all over the world, right? And why everyone all over has enough food, cuz as long as someone wants something, there is going to be someone who will provide that for any price no matter how low.

Corporations have no problem leaving potential customers behind if they are not profitable. About a year or two ago AT&T let go several thousand of the worst complainers who were tying up their customer service lines because it was more profitable to do so than keep them as customers.

Are you in middle school? Or were you homeschooled by people who never made it past middle school? You try to argue for an economic theory to be foisted upon the world, yet you have an almost complete lack of knowledge of both economics and the world.

M. Bison:
"The short answer being, laws and law enforcement is an economic good. In the absence of the state, private law enforcement companies would fill the void."

You need to read some history, and get more experience with people who want what you have and are not strictly constrained by enforced rules from trying to get it from you. This isn't secret history, or even that rare. It is the history that informed our Founders when they created our country, and which you should have been exposed to in school (or exposed to by your under-educated parents if my homeschool theory above is correct).

George Washington:
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."

Tolstoy:
"Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."

Max Weber's definition of government:
"The entity with a monopoly on the use of violence."

By definition, whoever holds the power of violence _IS_ the government, no matter if you call them private contractors or fuzzy bunnies. You assume that people will step up to provide a public 'good' like law enforcement in order to gain a personal 'good', a profit. And they would. And the next thing they would do is realize that as the monopoly holder on the use of violence, there is no one to stop them from further increasing their personal 'good,’ but now at the expense of the public ‘good.’ They would quickly go from being employees to being your masters. And since they are the only ones with significant ability to do violence, no one can tell them ‘no.’

One of the major factors leading to the Fall of the Roman Empire was privatizing its military. The mercenaries had no loyalty to Rome, only to cash. The more the Empire relied on mercenaries, the more the mercenaries knew they could demand in pay, leading to doubling of pay in short periods of time. Mercenary generals held auctions for who they’d support to be the next Emperor, and eventually decided to skip the pretense and just declared themselves to be Emperor.

The people that would provide security in A-C would have all the same motivations as the barbarian mercenaries hired to protect Rome from other barbarians. They would have the same motivations as current corporations that bribe government officials to get unfair advantages at the expense of the tax payer. Making PDAs into the de facto government by giving them a monopoly on violence would cut out the middle man of government, allowing PDAs to directly extort cash from their captive populace with no restraints, much like the barbarian generals who declared themselves Emperor.


III. Expanding into national governments

As shown above, PDAs would be the de facto rulers of their supposed employers. And there would be nothing to stop them from expanding and becoming the next national government, one that has its origins in profit motive and extortion, rather than freedom through checks and balances like our current government. You claim that people would prevent this by choosing to not patronize the more powerful PDAs. But this ignores both market forces and force itself.

Force:
You assume PDAs would _LET_ them go. What about lock-in contracts like cell phones? What about the raw exercise of power to keep them as “customers” (subjects). It is ludicrous to talk about a “free” market preventing this when 1 armed group can unilaterally determine what “free” means. Perhaps you think they could hire another PDA to protect them from other PDAs. But this merely replaces 1 PDA with another, and unless they happen to be “The Magnificent 7” or “The 7 Samurai” that would change nothing except increase the level of violence.

Market:
Furthermore, there must be a reason 1 PDA has become more powerful than its competitors; likely they offer better prices or service. People choosing not to patronize them would be going against their own interests by patronizing a PDA with an inferior and/or more expensive product.

PDAs would of course strive to be as competitive as possible; unfortunately for your dreamlike theory the ultimate in competition is to eliminate your competition and establish a monopoly that doesn’t have to waste resources on competing.

It is competitive to get bigger, especially when talking of physical force. In Europe there have been strong cultural reasons leading to the breaking up of power blocs, such as partible inheritance and Great Britains’ explicit policy of breaking up Continental powers, yet large agglomerations of power still continued to form. Europe has been nearly consolidated several times (Rome, Charlemagne, Napolean, Hapsburgs, Nazis, EU).

Why would the factors which push nations to consolidate through force and deal-making even with countervailing factors, and which push current corporations towards mergers and buy outs even when constrained by regulation, be any different under an A-C regime which lacks even those regulations and countervailing factors?

M. Bison:
“If at any point in time a criminal agency 'outguns' a individual PDA, that would definitely become a threat to all other PDAs. At which time the 'outgunned' PDA would find itself backed by numerous other PDAs.”

I think you should take this to one of the many threads devoted to recreational drug use, because you’d have to be on some pretty heavy shit to believe all the non-sense you are spewing. It would not be a threat to other PDAs, it would be an opportunity. Wait for that PDA to be destroyed/ fired, then make an offer to take on that community as a client. Or better yet, make a deal with the criminal org to leave and target other competitors’ communities, and cutting them in on the profits. Any PDA that didn’t have an ‘evil twin’ to fuck with their competition would be less competitive than those that did. As usual, your assumptions that market forces alone will lead to a good situation unconsciously assumes moral, unselfish behavior of the participants. Which negates your whole argument that market forces are enough.

Why assume such a firm distinction between PDAs and criminal organizations? Other than selfless morality, why would a PDA not squeeze all possible profits from a community like a criminal organization when they are the only local group with the power to enforce a definition of what is criminal? Why would a criminal organization, once it pushed out or subverted the current PDA, not set itself up for long-term profits by declaring itself to be the next PDA? Which leads to...


IV. War

M. Bison:
“There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient.”

Are you fucking kidding me? Read history you ignoramus. War is one of the most profitable of enterprises when you win. Or when you lose against the USA. Our wars against the Indians gave us the greatest country in the world. The Spanish-American war got us some nice beachfront property. We made out like Dillinger in the Mexican-American war. Soviets were the big winners in WWII, they got Eastern Europe. If Nazi Germany had been smart enough to negotiate a peace before D-Day they would have come out even better: “reparations” payments from Vichy France, lots of land with lots of people and factories, a few billion Swiss francs from Jewish artwork and gold that looks suspiciously like teeth.

You honestly don’t think there would be a bunch of hedge fund investors with a high risk-high gain “war portfolio” for particularly aggressive PDAs? Hell, you don’t even understand modern capitalism, much less hypothetical anarcho-capitalism. Remember the stock of Raytheon spiking every time CNN showed a Patriot missile being fired in Gulf War 1?


V. Summary of A-C critique

Most if not all of the arguments you make in support of A-C make some assumptions that I do not think you are aware of. You claim that A-C will work because of market forces, which is another way of saying people will act in their best interest and that that is synonymous with the best interest of society.

But then you make arguments that implicitly rely on people acting morally, against their own best interests. Consumers will refuse to patronize the most efficient PDA. PDA’s won’t expand or buy out other PDAs when it is in their best interests to achieve economies of scale and to maximize physical force to out-compete/ destroy the opposition. You assume people will arbitrate their problems fairly, without trying to maximize their best interests at the expense of the opponent. You assume PDAs won’t abuse their power, that they will choose against their best interests to remain faithful employees rather than domineering overlords with no power to check them. If one PDA is in trouble with a powerful criminal syndicate its competitors will inexplicably leap to their defense.

I’d like to lecture a bit about some glaring flaws in your theories of criminal justice, but I’m running out of steam and it is peripheral to the real issues. Sorry for depriving you of more Truth and Total Ultimate Knowledge. Perhaps some other time.










Fuck, I hope I don’t go to Hell for agreeing with Hasbinbad. SORRY GOD!!

[Bojangles]

It's simple: unlike Somalia, we have white people.

Unfortunately whites are a shrinking majority, with the minorities largely not assimilating to our superior culture due to the liberal gibberish known as "multiculturalism." Instead they cling to their own backwards culture that fucked up whatever society they fled from. When Europeans fled Europe to start America they said "we are fleeing Europe cuz Europe sucks. So we will build a country that corrects those mistakes." Dirty ass brown people came here saying "we are fleeing our country because it sucks. So we will try to force this country to make all the same mistakes we made that fucked up our previous country ALLALALALAL ALLALAHALLAH MUKTABA ****ABOOK!"





Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.


They weren’t peaceful. They stole it from its previous owners too. The Indians the Pilgrims met had been conquering nearby tribes for a few generations, controlling 30 at the time the Pilgrims arrived. It is thought that the reason they gave the Pilgrims land is that Chief Powhatan thought they’d make good allies in keeping some of his conquered subjects in line.

[karsten]

hasbinbad makin' a scary amount of sense in this thread

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

You guys are getting trolled again...lol. :) JK.

[karsten]

I am sure I am off topic of the thread, but I am for equality to all humans. I don't think the rothschilds should have 300trillion dollars while millions of people suffer in poverty and sickness. Capitalist view: If you work hard you will earn the things you need and more and more extra money if you are really good at it or inherit the money. That's capitalism. I agree with it to a point. If you make over 200,000 a year you are just greedy and a terrible person if you don't help a lot of people with that money. Does capitalism give disabled people a fair shot ? a person with downsyndrom or other mental issues? No they are lucky just to survive. There has to be a point where you can't allow people to gain so much money that their fellow humans suffer, because of your great wealth and lifestyle.

America ???? america is not ours. We took it , by killing the people that were here first. Our country is founded on Stealing and Murder. You think hitler was bad , our ancestors did the same thing.

If everyone was honest we'd move back to our countries of origins and give back the native americans THEIR LAND.

Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.

I wanted to highlight this post as it is by far my favorite in RnF in the past little while

[OngorDrakan]

Omg. Haven't you seen any 80's movie where the government has too much control in private police? Nobody gets help when they need it and everybody dies. Duuuuuuh.

[Snigel]

I think we could learn a lot from other governments who are doing quite well with socialist democracies.


Yes indeed, like working the year's first 150 days for someone else and the residual 100 for your own sake. (assuming 250 working days in a year with a 60% effective tax rate)


Enjoy Sweden

[Daldolma]

So, uh, what happens when these "private security companies" (aka mafias) realize that they would make more money by cooperating and extorting their clients (and the entire nation)? In a developed nation, anarcho-capitalism would inevitably lead to military oligarchy and/or an oppressive, exploitative authoritarian government.

A central government will always exist in an ordered society. It's inescapable, precisely due to the driving motivations of capitalism. What's the number one rule of capitalism? Chase the greatest path of profit. Unfortunately for free market enthusiasts, the greatest path of profit is NOT a free market. For the individual corporation, the greatest profit is realized in monopolistic settings, with a closed market. So naturally, as soon as a corporation has the capability of creating a monopoly, it will. And in the case of whatever military corporation -- or amalgamation of military corporations -- controls the greatest fighting force and the most advanced weaponry, monopoly can and would spread over every element of the economy, as the threat of destruction would force cooperation.

This kind of theoretical free market system might have been able to work back in the 1700s, when any guy with a gun was the rough equivalent of a trained soldier. Even then, the majority would have ended up tyrannizing the minority, as numbers would have equated to power.

[Asher]

Yes indeed, like working the year's first 150 days for someone else and the residual 100 for your own sake. (assuming 250 working days in a year with a 60% effective tax rate)


Enjoy Sweden

oddly enough they are happier and healthier. I think I would enjoy Sweden.

Yitro - 47 Wizard

[Hasbinbad]

I wanted to highlight this post as it is by far my favorite in RnF in the past little while
Her + LSD = Snogfest

[Snigel]

oddly enough they are happier and healthier. I think I would enjoy Sweden.

Yitro - 47 Wizard

Healthier than who, americans? There are lots of countries where you can achieve that without having to support lazy red necks, hippies, immigrants and general slackers.

[rachel]

Her + LSD = Snogfest

Hasbinbad + any words in any order = Sex

over half the things Hasbinbad says in game or sexual in nature...

You are sexually depressed.



...

You know how people hunt animals to keep populations down?

Why don't we do that with people ? Our population is out of control. ;)

[Abacab niggah]

Y'all are crazy with this Socialist Democracy bullshit.

I suppose I would be for it if I wanted a group to make all my individual decisions for me, but big Abacab here doesn't roll that way. I don't want a government much less majority society tell me what property I can buy, what my taxes are going for, if I can eat this, if I can put this in my body etc.

The problem with most European socialist democracies is the lack of individual freedom, for example Germany is cool and lets me drink alcohol way before the USA ever would, but if I protested that the holocaust never happened I'm getting raped in German prison, and I find that troublesome because I do not have this Marquis De Sade level of libertine exposure.

So it's easy to look at all these economic upturns for healthcare and general wellness of a society by bloating the tax scale up so much, but you'll never have complete freedom in a semi-socialist society because the government is making the decisions for you.

Vote no on socialism, vote yes on narcissism y'all

[Abacab niggah]

I would rather have a fat, lazy, cancer ridden, morally bankrupt society over a healthy, productive, energetic, and righteous society if the former meant I could do as I wish.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

I would rather have a fat, lazy, cancer ridden, morally bankrupt society over a healthy, productive, energetic, and righteous society if the former meant I could do as I wish.

If people could do as they wished, you would create that former society you were talking about. We have rules and laws so that later society can flourish. If you assume that people are capable of making the correct decision for themselves, then you haven't been outside for a long, long time. If you allowed people to do something such as pay taxes voluntarily, it would be up to the morally righteous to do so...the others would not. Therefore, in order to have the type of people that would enable the former society to grow, you would have to have law and rules in order to produce them. Catch 22.

[Trademaster]

Capitalize my name when you tag me Bitches!

[purist]

Y'all are crazy with this Socialist Democracy bullshit.

I suppose I would be for it if I wanted a group to make all my individual decisions for me, but big Abacab here doesn't roll that way. I don't want a government much less majority society tell me what property I can buy, what my taxes are going for, if I can eat this, if I can put this in my body etc.

The problem with most European socialist democracies is the lack of individual freedom, for example Germany is cool and lets me drink alcohol way before the USA ever would, but if I protested that the holocaust never happened I'm getting raped in German prison, and I find that troublesome because I do not have this Marquis De Sade level of libertine exposure.

So it's easy to look at all these economic upturns for healthcare and general wellness of a society by bloating the tax scale up so much, but you'll never have complete freedom in a semi-socialist society because the government is making the decisions for you.

Vote no on socialism, vote yes on narcissism y'all

*facepalm*

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

If people could do as they wished, you would create that former society you were talking about. We have rules and laws so that later society can flourish. If you assume that people are capable of making the correct decision for themselves, then you haven't been outside for a long, long time. If you allowed people to do something such as pay taxes voluntarily, it would be up to the morally righteous to do so...the others would not. Therefore, in order to have the type of people that would enable the former society to grow, you would have to have law and rules in order to produce them. Catch 22.

I hate quoting myself, but I wanted to let you all know I am not for Socialism and I am not a democrat. However, I am not an Anarchist or Libertarian either. We need government whether we lie it or not. The only other option would lead to chaos such as in Somalia; where the closest thing to anarchy exist.

[Hasbinbad]

I would rather have a fat, lazy, cancer ridden, morally bankrupt society over a healthy, productive, energetic, and righteous society if the former meant I could do as I wish.
I would too man, I would too.

Unfortunately, that means that OTHER PEOPLE get to do as THEY wish too, and therein, dear Abacab, lies the rub.

[Hasbinbad]

Hasbinbad + any words in any order = Sex
Soooooo sig'd.

[Abacab niggah]

I hate quoting myself, but I wanted to let you all know I am not for Socialism and I am not a democrat. However, I am not an Anarchist or Libertarian either. We need government whether we lie it or not. The only other option would lead to chaos such as in Somalia; where the closest thing to anarchy exist.

Somalia is a warlord state, hardly anarchy.

There any many places people describe as "anarchic" but in reality it's just whoever owns the most guns, the most drugs, the biggest posse, owns the country.

[Lazortag]

Somalia is a warlord state, hardly anarchy.

There any many places people describe as "anarchic" but in reality it's just whoever owns the most guns, the most drugs, the biggest posse, owns the country.

I'm amazed by how little people on this forum know about international affairs.

[Nakara]

I'm amazed by how little people on this forum know about international affairs.

Such as yourself

[Lazortag]

Such as yourself

ZING!

[Abacab niggah]

Lol @ lazortag not knowing what a warlord state is....

Yo we've been fighting one in the war on drugs since the 70's, and here's a bigger hint it's got a lot of cocaine

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Somalia is a warlord state, hardly anarchy.

There any many places people describe as "anarchic" but in reality it's just whoever owns the most guns, the most drugs, the biggest posse, owns the country.

And that my friend is what happens as a result of anarchy. After the Somali government fell in 1991, it degenerated into an anarchist state: Anarchy: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." It was the lawless warlords that each claimed control of the state.

[Abacab niggah]

And that my friend is what happens as a result of anarchy. After the Somali government fell in 1991, it degenerated into an anarchist state: Anarchy: "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder." It was the lawless warlords that each claimed control of the state.

Pure anarchy is perpetual just like wartime communism is perpetual, the grab for power by several junta was no different than the colonists in 1776 ousting the government and installing their own shit.

By that definition Washington was a lawless warlord to the British

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Pure anarchy is perpetual just like wartime communism is perpetual, the grab for power by several junta was no different than the colonists in 1776 ousting the government and installing their own shit.

By that definition Washington was a lawless warlord to the British

I am not sure how that works...lol. G. Washington was leading the colonial army and organized militia. It was not lawless. There was a government within the colonies at the time of British control based on the Rights of Englishmen. The British may have taxed them, but the colonies had their own governmental structures in place. How is that remotely like warlords that hire drudged out kids to defend a small area of a town? They have no organized government...hence Anarchy. The colonies of the U.S. were not an Anarchy. Try again.

[Nakara]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'

[Hasbinbad]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'
rofflecopters.

[Boggwin Bramblefoot]

Incoming a couple more terribly uneducated Boggwin posts after which he will then try to convince everyone he was 'trolling'

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

[Estolcles]

It's simple: unlike Somalia, we have white people.

Until I take over Somalia.... then there'll be white peeps...

My militia.

But there'll be some blacks and Koreans and Gingers in my militia too...

[Japan]

Gingers are nonwhite

OKAY YOU KNOW HOW TO TROLL ME NOW

[Nakara]

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

no thanks

[Ihealyou]

Please point out how you disagree. By merely stating that my post are uneducated does not make them so. I know it is easier to say so than to actually retort. Nice try.

MY POST ARE UNEDUCATED

[Humerox]

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

The debate between ya'll is fascinating...I thought I'd throw in something about this particular comment tho...

Back in the late 90's, a large unincorporated area near me attempted to purchase security service from an armed security agency I worked with, because approximately 14,000 people in an urban setting were covered by a single deputy sheriff. One.

We knew that not everyone could afford the protection, so we designated a "base" figure that we needed in order to provide private police services to the entire area, and set about securing individual guarantees from homeowners and businesses. We had some trouble...not from the state or other expected sources, but from INSURANCE companies...so the idea eventually fell through. It would have worked; the security agreements had already been signed, a majority of both individuals and businesses had agreed to "blanket" protection.

Point is, both state and private agencies can co-exist in providing police protection to the general public. Not only that, it's always been my personal opinion that a PPS could provide better overall protection because there are fewer restrictions -at least in my state - on private police agencies/security agencies - than there are on regular police forces. With good business model you're gold.

Please continue...

[Hasbinbad]

The debate between ya'll is fascinating...I thought I'd throw in something about this particular comment tho...

Back in the late 90's, a large unincorporated area near me attempted to purchase security service from an armed security agency I worked with, because approximately 14,000 people in an urban setting were covered by a single deputy sheriff. One.

We knew that not everyone could afford the protection, so we designated a "base" figure that we needed in order to provide private police services to the entire area, and set about securing individual guarantees from homeowners and businesses. We had some trouble...not from the state or other expected sources, but from INSURANCE companies...so the idea eventually fell through. It would have worked; the security agreements had already been signed, a majority of both individuals and businesses had agreed to "blanket" protection.

Point is, both state and private agencies can co-exist in providing police protection to the general public. Not only that, it's always been my personal opinion that a PPS could provide better overall protection because there are fewer restrictions -at least in my state - on private police agencies/security agencies - than there are on regular police forces. With good business model you're gold.

Please continue...
The problem, as I see it, is with you actually paying the peacekeeper's salary.

I mean: actually paying it.

When the government takes your money in taxes, it's actually no longer yours. You don't actually own a ~350,000,000th of the country.

Conflict of interest anyone??

If you actually had monetary control over the authorities?

Noooooo..

[Humerox]

The problem, as I see it, is with you actually paying the peacekeeper's salary.

I mean: actually paying it.

When the government takes your money in taxes, it's actually no longer yours. You don't actually own a ~350,000,000th of the country.

Conflict of interest anyone??

If you actually had monetary control over the authorities?

Noooooo..


Understandable and valid point, but in our case it was all about how the agreement was written. Services were basically pre-paid and no single person or entity had control over the coverage.

Now if a single entity owned it's own PPS and wanted to go warlord style...yah, problems.

[Hasbinbad]

Understandable and valid point, but in our case it was all about how the agreement was written. Services were basically pre-paid and no single person or entity had control over the coverage.

Now if a single entity owned it's own PPS and wanted to go warlord style...yah, problems.
Even if they were independent, how are the rules set up? do they enforce law or preference? what wiggle room would there be between law and preference for individual communities? It isn't so hard for me to imagine them getting a contract or a raise based on the idea that certain things will slide.. Sounds like conflict of interest and a recipe for corruption to me.

[Humerox]

This may differ from area to area, so I can only speak for what our particular enforcement action encompassed under local law.

We would have had the ability to enforce existing law in relation to crime, to the extent of detention and arrest until regular authorities could take action. For example, if we arrested someone for whatever...we could hold the individual until the regular police could place him under proper arrest. The beauty of it was that because we weren't regular police, Miranda didn't apply, although habeas corpus did, but was a gray area because of the differences in civil and criminal law, and the definition of power given to us by the state.

Each state basically has a definition of power the PPS, security agencies, et al. have to operate under. So what works in one area may not be the same as another.

We would have had the power to regulate anything a regular police officer did...but were also more subject to lawsuits, which is where our insurance problems came in. They didn't want to issue liability because the legitimate power issue was so gray...so that blew it for us.

Any level of police effort is subject to regulation by another authority...city police are subject to state police, both subject to the US Marshal's Office...etc.

As far as corruption goes...if I had a nickel for every corrupt police force there is in this country...

[mimixownzall]

I am sure I am off topic of the thread, but I am for equality to all humans. I don't think the rothschilds should have 300trillion dollars while millions of people suffer in poverty and sickness. Capitalist view: If you work hard you will earn the things you need and more and more extra money if you are really good at it or inherit the money. That's capitalism. I agree with it to a point. If you make over 200,000 a year you are just greedy and a terrible person if you don't help a lot of people with that money. Does capitalism give disabled people a fair shot ? a person with downsyndrom or other mental issues? No they are lucky just to survive. There has to be a point where you can't allow people to gain so much money that their fellow humans suffer, because of your great wealth and lifestyle.

America ???? america is not ours. We took it , by killing the people that were here first. Our country is founded on Stealing and Murder. You think hitler was bad , our ancestors did the same thing.

If everyone was honest we'd move back to our countries of origins and give back the native americans THEIR LAND.

Defend our freedoms! Defend our lands! People say this all the time. When it is just hypocritical. We Stole this land from peaceful tribes of nature loving people.


And this is why women should stay at home and raise children.

If you want to give your money to some dumbshit who is too lazy/stupid to maintain a job, go ahead. There are too many hard working people around to worry about the people who won't/can't provide for themselves.

Disabled people have just as much opportunity as anyone else. With today's technology (thanks to capitolism) handicap people can prosper.

Oh, and those people who have so much money and own to many businesses? Guess what.. they are the people who provide jobs.

Oh, and that mongoloid there drooling in the corner? Do you really think he/she really aware how poor/rich his parents are? No.

Oh, and Indians (native americans) being 'peaceful tribes of nature?' HAHAHAHAHAHA you are fucking retarded. They were constantly at war with eachother.

Hate to break it to you, but every country in the world was established through some means of this 'stealing and murder.' You would know that if you had been awake in school instead of blowing the football team.

[purist]

http://images1.memegenerator.net/capitolism/ImageMacro/3745057/capitolism-thanks-to-it.jpg

[Hasbinbad]

With today's technology (thanks to capitolism) handicap people can prosper.
http://i445.photobucket.com/albums/qq174/Cloudstrife2422/idiocracy4.jpg

[warrioman]

Congratz guys, you won!

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:U9LgcHkiQAOLgM:http://pixhost.ws/avaxhome/9c/1c/000c1c9c_medium.jpeg&t=1

[Hoggen]

If you pay a "private police force" to enforce laws (wtf did they come from? The private law making company?), they ARE the government. Simple definition of government= a monopoly on force. In areas where there is no police force, or military, the mob is the government. Anarchism is not a system of government: it is a transitional period between governments. It is necessarily the shortest and most chaotic period in a society as the void left by the previous government is filled by the new.

As to Purist's post back on page 1, the Declaration of Independence is not written in modern phrasology. If you only read the Federalist and the Constitution, it should already be obvious that "welfare" and "union" are not even remotely defined as you attempted to define them.

The union is referring to the states: there can be no mistake if you read the Federalist. The purpose of the "union" is defended in the Federalist and spelled out in minute detail: to protect against foreign or domestic enemies, to aid in commerce, and to allow for uniformity of law. The primary purpose of the Constitution is to severely limit the powers of the Federal government, and this was cemented by the addition of the Bill of Rights. In this respect, Libertarians have it right: the government is doing much more than it was ever intended to do.

"Welfare," as quoted in Article 1 of the Constitution, refers to the security of the country itself, and has nothing to do with individuals, i.e. nothing to do with making sure each individual is happy/well-fed/clothed, whatever. The modern definition of "welfare" is a purely socialist concept and not connected with the original intent of the founders. The use of the word in Federalist 1 clearly is meant to apply to individuals, but you need look no further than Federalist 5 than to see that personal liberty, religion, and property were to be secured by the federal government: not restricted, abolished, and confiscated, respectively.

[Zagtor]

Personally, I like roads being public. I like public school. I like not having to pay my firemen to protect my home. (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39516346/ns/us_news-life) .


Hasbinbad
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Vallejo, CA


Fat pensions spell doom for many cities June 3, 2008 (http://money.cnn.com/2008/06/02/pf/retirement/vallejo.moneymag/index.htm)


But the real nail in Vallejo's coffin was the city's labor costs. Under the current labor agreement, the average police officer walking the beat in Vallejo will be paid $122,000 this year before overtime, according to city documents. An average sergeant will make $151,000; a captain, $231,000. The average firefighter, meanwhile, will bring in $130,000 before overtime.

That's just the salaries, though. The final budget-crusher was the city's pension plan. Thanks to retroactive benefit enhancements approved by the city council in 2000, police officers and firefighters can now retire at age 50 and receive an annual pension equal to 90% of their final pay (assuming 30 years on the job), an amount that gets increased every year to help keep pace with inflation. The old plan had given the workers a pension equal to 60% of their final pay at age 50.

So a Vallejo police sergeant making $150,000 a year can now retire at age 50 and receive an annual pension of $135,000, increased each year for inflation. To put that amount in context, you would need to amass a retirement nest egg equal to about $3.5 million to produce a similar retirement income on your own.


I applaud your dedication to not paying your firemen to protect your home.