Private Security Firm Altenative (Split from Taxes are Immoral)

[toth8]

Then you would be a pariah in that society. No one would want to contract with you, if you refused to accept judgements or were untrustworthy.

[Nitrousoxide]

Then you would be a pariah in that society. No one would want to contract with you, if you refused to accept judgements or were untrustworthy.

And how, pray tell, would you prevent compulsive murderers from continuing their murder sprees?

Are you going to shun them too?

[Autonemesis]

Then you would be a pariah in that society. No one would want to contract with you, if you refused to accept judgements or were untrustworthy.

What's to prevent that guy from buying newspaper and television ads and smearing your reputation instead? If you can't afford to respond in kind, wtf are you gonna do about it?

[toth8]

Then you would be a pariah in that society. No one would want to contract with you, if you refused to accept judgements or were untrustworthy.

What's to prevent that guy from buying newspaper and television ads and smearing your reputation instead? If you can't afford to respond in kind, wtf are you gonna do about it?

Because in a free society, it would diminish their ratings with protection agencies.

[toth8]

Then you would be a pariah in that society. No one would want to contract with you, if you refused to accept judgements or were untrustworthy.

And how, pray tell, would you prevent compulsive murderers from continuing their murder sprees?

Are you going to shun them too?

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.

[Nitrousoxide]

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.

And then you do what? Shun them when you find them out?

Oh yeah, that'll stop his murders.

[dancer_rnb]

And how, pray tell, would you prevent compulsive murderers from continuing their murder sprees?

Are you going to shun them too?

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.

How will you prevent private protection firms from becoming
your new master?

[laughing dog]

How will you prevent private protection firms from becoming
your new master?
Hire private anti-protection firms. :D

[toth8]

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.

How will you prevent private protection firms from becoming
your new master?

A competitive free market would enable healthy competition.

Monopolies exist because of government.

[toth8]

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.

And then you do what? Shun them when you find them out?

Oh yeah, that'll stop his murders.

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.

[Canard DuJour]

And then you do what? Shun them when you find them out?

Oh yeah, that'll stop his murders.

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.

Not if he's hired a protection agency.

[Preno]

And how, pray tell, would you prevent compulsive murderers from continuing their murder sprees?

Are you going to shun them too?

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.Uh, right. So let's say your child or some other relative gets killed. If you don't have enough money, you're apparently not worthy enough to have the crime investigated and the perpetrator punished. Awesome, really.
Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.What if one "agency" says he's guilty and the other that he's innocent? (And if you reply that a crime can only be investigated by one agency, who determines which one agency will that be?)

[Bonniedundee]

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.He would not be incarcerated in any anarchy.

And it doesn't have to be an agency in the ancap way it could just as easily be a voluntary militia or an armed populace.

[Metaphor]

And then you do what? Shun them when you find them out?

Oh yeah, that'll stop his murders.

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.

Who would pay for this incarceration?

[toth8]

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.

Not if he's hired a protection agency.

Who would aid in his capture.

[toth8]

Supply and demand. Private protection firms would investigate murders because the demand for it exists.Uh, right. So let's say your child or some other relative gets killed. If you don't have enough money, you're apparently not worthy enough to have the crime investigated and the perpetrator punished. Awesome, really.
Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.What if one "agency" says he's guilty and the other that he's innocent? (And if you reply that a crime can only be investigated by one agency, who determines which one agency will that be?)

Competition would lead to lower prices.

And the agency who the victim was a member of would investigate.

[toth8]

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.

Who would pay for this incarceration?

The members of the protection agency.

But unlike the government we have now, it would be voluntary.

[coloradoatheist]

Who would pay for this incarceration?

The members of the protection agency.

But unlike the government we have now, it would be voluntary.


And how is this different than the warlords of Somalia?


Mike

[Metaphor]

Who would pay for this incarceration?

The members of the protection agency.

But unlike the government we have now, it would be voluntary.

What 'members'? The people who pay for protection services from them? Who makes the laws? Who gets to decide that the protection agency is enforcing them correctly?

You do realise this is nothing but gang warfare?

[Metaphor]

Uh, right. So let's say your child or some other relative gets killed. If you don't have enough money, you're apparently not worthy enough to have the crime investigated and the perpetrator punished. Awesome, really.
What if one "agency" says he's guilty and the other that he's innocent? (And if you reply that a crime can only be investigated by one agency, who determines which one agency will that be?)

Competition would lead to lower prices.

And the agency who the victim was a member of would investigate.

So children who are getting abused at home have no recourse, because there is no police. Not that abuse of any kind counts as a crime, since if you don't have any money, you have no rights.

[toth8]

Social ostracism would work against people who abused children.

[Metaphor]

Social ostracism would work against people who abused children.

Look, I will admit I don't know if you are being facetious here.

If you're not, I will say this: the society you propose would be one of the worst I could imagine.

[Preno]

Competition would lead to lower prices.Lower prices than what? There are bound to be people who can't afford it. What to do with them?
And the agency who the victim was a member of would investigate.What if the agency whose member the suspect is disagrees? What if there are several victims, and their respectives agencies disagree?

[Canard DuJour]

Anyone who is a threat to the person and property of another would be dealt with by protection agencies. When he is caught, he would be incarcerated.



Not if he's hired a protection agency.

Who would aid in his capture.

Not if he's hired them.

[laughing dog]

Social ostracism would work against people who abused children. Right. Social ostracism and current law enforcement certainly is surely working well now. :rolleyes:

[Hawkeye]

Not if he's hired a protection agency.

Who would aid in his capture.

Why would they aid in his capture if he paid them? :huh: That would be contraproductive for the security agency.

[Hawkeye]

Another question:

What incentives would a security agency have in investigating a murder of, say, a poor man. I mean, his relatives wouldn't be able to afford an investigation.

Further, unless we're talking about some homicidal maniac on a killing spree who present a clear danger to everyone, you couldn't really argue that this particular murderer threatens other people or their property. At least, not enough for a company to take on the case for free. Seriously, the vast majority of people (or companies!) are not really affected by the vast majority of murders committed.

[toth8]

Social ostracism would work against people who abused children.

Look, I will admit I don't know if you are being facetious here.

If you're not, I will say this: the society you propose would be one of the worst I could imagine.

Why should I be facetious? If people love children so much, then it would be to the detriment of people who harmed them.

[Loren Pechtel]

Who would pay for this incarceration?

The same magic that takes care of all the other bits of unpleasant reality their system doesn't address.

[Metaphor]

Look, I will admit I don't know if you are being facetious here.

If you're not, I will say this: the society you propose would be one of the worst I could imagine.

Why should I be facetious? If people love children so much, then it would be to the detriment of people who harmed them.

Why should you be facetious? Because the society you propose is morally outrageous and is indistinguishable from gang rule.

[Nice Squirrel]

I do have to agree that a land where crimes were solved by private security would look much like a land ruled by thugs and organized crime. I cannot see anyway a civil society can be based upon such an arrangement.

[FatherMithras]

People guilty of crimes could just buy the protection of another agency, and if richer, would be fine. and than they could use connections to start subverting the whole system.

I´m a quasi libertarian, but come on.

[Autonemesis]

What's to prevent that guy from buying newspaper and television ads and smearing your reputation instead? If you can't afford to respond in kind, wtf are you gonna do about it?

Because in a free society, it would diminish their ratings with protection agencies.

FUCK NO! NOT THAT!!! ANYTHING BUT THAT!!!

[Gamera]

How will you prevent private protection firms from becoming
your new master?

A competitive free market would enable healthy competition.

Monopolies exist because of government.

That's an historical falsehood. The monopolies of the late 19th century existed due to lack of government regulation. They were broken up by anti-trust legislation.

[Gamera]

What's to prevent that guy from buying newspaper and television ads and smearing your reputation instead? If you can't afford to respond in kind, wtf are you gonna do about it?

Because in a free society, it would diminish their ratings with protection agencies.

You're assuming a "perfect" market (whatever that is). The literature on market imperfections is well documented and researched. Information disparities and transaction cost would make the unregulated system you propose incredibly costly and unfeasible. Basically, everybody would have to spend all their time scouring the market for information about the agencies, and suing them in common law when they screwed up.

We tried that system in the late 19th century. It failed miserably. That's why we insituted a regime of regulation of industry and public agencies.

You are making the mistake of many libertarians in that you seem to be blaming traffic on traffic lights.

[Loren Pechtel]

I do have to agree that a land where crimes were solved by private security would look much like a land ruled by thugs and organized crime. I cannot see anyway a civil society can be based upon such an arrangement.

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

[Loren Pechtel]

People guilty of crimes could just buy the protection of another agency, and if richer, would be fine. and than they could use connections to start subverting the whole system.

I´m a quasi libertarian, but come on.

You would have to have caps on the size of insurance companies.

Say, no more than 10% or 5,000 people per county, whichever is greater. (We have some counties around here with <1,000 people. Having a bunch of different cop firms there would be utterly wasteful.) There would be a specific exemption to the normal pre-existing conditions when it came to crimes committed by your cop company.

[Metaphor]

I do have to agree that a land where crimes were solved by private security would look much like a land ruled by thugs and organized crime. I cannot see anyway a civil society can be based upon such an arrangement.

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

Accountability to whom? To the people who pay them?

Who makes the law of the land and who ensures private police are enforcing them?

As far as I could see, the whole notion of laws would be ludicrous. What is legal is whatever you can get away with, if you hire the most ruthless private protection agency.

[Nice Squirrel]

I do have to agree that a land where crimes were solved by private security would look much like a land ruled by thugs and organized crime. I cannot see anyway a civil society can be based upon such an arrangement.

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

But why would they? As an insurance company, it might be more profitable to only investigate to a certan point and not make an arrest calling the case "unsolvable" and then charging the policy holder a premium for being at risk. For the big cases you could just hire mobsters and have them goes "State Farm" on the proper profiled individual's arses publically (leave body outside of Murdoch Info Bldg).

[dancer_rnb]

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

Accountability to whom? To the people who pay them?

Who makes the law of the land and who ensures private police are enforcing them?

As far as I could see, the whole notion of laws would be ludicrous. What is legal is whatever you can get away with, if you hire the most ruthless private protection agency.

Phone rings....

La Cosa Nostra Protection Agency calling....

Hey,nice kids you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.
Why not sign a contract with us today?

[Loren Pechtel]

Accountability to whom? To the people who pay them?

Who makes the law of the land and who ensures private police are enforcing them?

As far as I could see, the whole notion of laws would be ludicrous. What is legal is whatever you can get away with, if you hire the most ruthless private protection agency.

Phone rings....

La Cosa Nostra Protection Agency calling....

Hey,nice kids you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.
Why not sign a contract with us today?

And you turn around and call the company you are signed up with.

[Loren Pechtel]

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

But why would they? As an insurance company, it might be more profitable to only investigate to a certan point and not make an arrest calling the case "unsolvable" and then charging the policy holder a premium for being at risk. For the big cases you could just hire mobsters and have them goes "State Farm" on the proper profiled individual's arses publically (leave body outside of Murdoch Info Bldg).

But the insurance company that doesn't investigate crimes adequately will find their cases-solved percentage in the trashcan and their customers leaving in droves.

[Gamera]

But why would they? As an insurance company, it might be more profitable to only investigate to a certan point and not make an arrest calling the case "unsolvable" and then charging the policy holder a premium for being at risk. For the big cases you could just hire mobsters and have them goes "State Farm" on the proper profiled individual's arses publically (leave body outside of Murdoch Info Bldg).

But the insurance company that doesn't investigate crimes adequately will find their cases-solved percentage in the trashcan and their customers leaving in droves.



Assuming their customers have the information to make the comparison. Who will compile the information and at what cost to consumers? Who will verify the information and how? What if the companies lie and report remarkable success? How would an auditor without governmental regulatory power be able to get the real information.

Transaction costs and information defects -- the reason why market fundamentalism is a vast intellectual and practical failure.

[Gamera]

I do have to agree that a land where crimes were solved by private security would look much like a land ruled by thugs and organized crime. I cannot see anyway a civil society can be based upon such an arrangement.

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

And what if the companies lie and keep false books? Who regulates that and pays for it?

Oh, yeah, the government -- without charging taxes of course. It'll do it for free.

[Metaphor]

Phone rings....

La Cosa Nostra Protection Agency calling....

Hey,nice kids you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.
Why not sign a contract with us today?

And you turn around and call the company you are signed up with.

And what if La Cosa Nostra has more money and more resources than other protection agencies, and no-one will touch your case?

More to the point, who says threatening to harm children is a crime, or even actually harming children?

[Metaphor]

But why would they? As an insurance company, it might be more profitable to only investigate to a certan point and not make an arrest calling the case "unsolvable" and then charging the policy holder a premium for being at risk. For the big cases you could just hire mobsters and have them goes "State Farm" on the proper profiled individual's arses publically (leave body outside of Murdoch Info Bldg).

But the insurance company that doesn't investigate crimes adequately will find their cases-solved percentage in the trashcan and their customers leaving in droves.

So you are expecting people - -corporations - to be honest when there are no penalties against them to be dishonest?

Protection agencies could lie in many ways - up their "percentage solved" for real by simply rejecting tough cases before they take them on (actuaries will tell you exactly which cases they are), but they wouldn't even need to do that. They can simply lie about everything.

[Metaphor]

It's not *CURRENTLY* viable due to the need for patrol cops. It's not inherently impossible, though. Police could be a form of insurance. If you're the victim of a crime your insurance company makes a reasonable effort to bring the perpetrators to justice. The accountability would come from them having to report on the percentage of crimes solved.

And what if the companies lie and keep false books? Who regulates that and pays for it?

Oh, yeah, the government -- without charging taxes of course. It'll do it for free.

No, the government will be long dead in this gang warfare paradise. Companies won't have to labour under Sarbanes-Oxley - they can simply make up whatever statistic they want with impunity.

[Bonniedundee]

I don't see how these agencies as well as voluntary militias would be any worse than a state.

All states are founded on conquest, all of them are simply, as Marx said, the executive committee of the ruling classes and all of them exist mainly to exploit and dominate the workers. All states as Oppenheimer wrote are class states.

Those of you for coercion over free agreement need to solve this dilemma first, how can an organisation who's sole purpose is to exploit and dominate be better than people freely organising and associating?

[Nitrousoxide]

Your system here would evolve into one of vassalage like that of the middle ages in Europe. Basically the same private system for protection was initialized back then and look what it got them? Peasants being ruled by nobles and then kings.

Turning defense over solely to the private sector will just result in a bunch of small companies basically owning their little sections of the country and warring with each other for influence over more people.

[Bonniedundee]

Your system here would evolve into one of vassalage like that of the middle ages in Europe. Basically the same private system for protection was initialized back then and look what it got them? Peasants being ruled by nobles and then kings.This system wasn't iniated then, the nobles conquered people and then pretended they were protecting them. Look at the make up of the nobles, the French nobility were Franks ruling over celtic gauls, the English nobility were Normans ruling over Saxons etc etc.

Turning defense over solely to the private sector will just result in a bunch of small companies basically owning their little sections of the country and warring with each other for influence over more people.Nice assertion. And what is a coercive, exploitative body ging to do better?

[Nitrousoxide]

This system wasn't iniated then, the nobles conquered people and then pretended they were protecting them. Look at the make up of the nobles, the French nobility were Franks ruling over celtic gauls, the English nobility were Normans ruling over Saxons etc etc.

They only conquered people once they had a set of peasents to support their military base. Where did those peasents come from in the first place? They came from people nearby who wanted protection from bandits and raiders. They pledged their loyality and a portion of their earnings to the lord in exchange for protection.

These private companies can do the exact same thing, and there's no reason why they wouldn't. In fact, it would be in their best interest to do what they can to keep their "customers" from switching "providers" even if that means using force.

I don't know why you think it's in a companies best interest to let the people paying it stop when it has the power to force them to continue without a more powerful military body coming along and punishing them.


Nice assertion. And what is a coercive, exploitative body ging to do better?

The point is that your system will result in at least the same problems that you think our current system is rife with. At the very least, you should admit that your system does nothing to improve the situation.

[Bonniedundee]

They only conquered people once they had a set of peasents to support their military base. Where did those peasents come from in the first place? They were already there and were conquered. The people working the land of England when the Normans arrived had been there for milennia, they didn't need nor want these new "protectors" and certainly didn't ask for them.

They came from people nearby who wanted protection from bandits and raiders. They pledged their loyality and a portion of their earnings to the lord in exchange for protection.This isn't how it happened at all. Take England, William I just granted huge chunks of land to his men and they ruled over the peasants without any say from the peasants.
You need to study European history.
These private companies can do the exact same thing, and there's no reason why they wouldn't. In fact, it would be in their best interest to do what they can to keep their "customers" from switching "providers" even if that means using force.I don't just believe in private companies, I believe in voluntary militias and an armed populace as well.

If a firm tried to take over it would have to fight others and the people, and wars are very costly.

I don't know why you think it's in a companies best interest to let the people paying it stop when it has the power to force them to continue without a more powerful military body coming along and punishing them.Because other firms and bodies could be payed put it down.

And what stops the state now from doing what it likes? If your argument did happen we'd just be where we are now.
The point is that your system will result in at least the same problems that you think our current system is rife with. At the very least, you should admit that your system does nothing to improve the situation.This is just an assertion not proof. And you haven't dealt with the nature of the modern state.

[Nitrousoxide]

This isn't how it happened at all. Take England, William I just granted huge chunks of land to his men and they ruled over the peasants without any say from the peasants.
You need to study European history.

Straw man. I'm not talking about how already existing nobles extended their power, I'm talking about how they sprang up in the first place. There was a time when there was no vassel system at all in Europe and then later, there were lords and their peasents. At some point, a normal person had to become a lord with power over people, and how did he do this? By promising protection in exchange for compensation.


I don't just believe in private companies, I believe in voluntary militias and an armed populace as well.

And you think these protection agencies with the desire to rule over tracts of land will simply allow people to hang on to their guns or to gather in public if public opinion is against them? They needn't act as if they were democratic governments. They can act as authoritarian as they wish, after all, there are no laws governing their actions.


Because other firms and bodies could be payed put it down.

And what's to stop this next firm from doing the same thing? Surely they won't allow other smaller defense firms to spring up within their territory. The number of firms will get smaller and smaller as they kill each other off until it becomes more and more difficult to kill off your competition. Eventually either there will be only one dominant security agency in the area which the opponents cannot challenge.


This is just an assertion not proof. And you haven't dealt with the nature of the modern state.

Look to any anarchy today and you'll find the natural progression of warlords. They start out as a bunch of small ones with control of very small areas. Over time, warlords kill off their competition and eliminate nearby opponents until only they reign surpreme over their territory.

But the point needn't be made that our current system is just wonderful couldn't be improved. What I'm trying to show is that your system does nothing AT ALL to improve or fix what you seem to think are problems. Exactly the same thing would result from your system as you seem to think exists today, so clearly, your system is at best, not preferable to our own.

[Loren Pechtel]

And you turn around and call the company you are signed up with.

And what if La Cosa Nostra has more money and more resources than other protection agencies, and no-one will touch your case?

That's why you have to restrict any one company from having too big a percentage of the market. That way if one goes bad the others will come after him.

As it stands now, what if the FBI goes bad? What recourse do we have? Basically none.

More to the point, who says threatening to harm children is a crime, or even actually harming children?

This is why you can't have an anarchist society--you have to have some central authority defining what the law is. While law *ENFORCEMENT* could be private, lawmaking can't be.

[Bonniedundee]

Straw man. I'm not talking about how already existing nobles extended their power, I'm talking about how they sprang up in the first place. There was a time when there was no vassel system at all in Europe and then later, there were lords and their peasents. At some point, a normal person had to become a lord with power over people, and how did he do this? By promising protection in exchange for compensation.Wrong, in general they were different groups, as I said, the Franks conquered the Gauls and Franks became the nobles and the Gauls the peasants, the Normans conquered the Saxons and the Normans became the nobles and the Saxons the peasants.

Earlier it was usually that one group or tribe of Germans or celts conquered another and one became nobles and the other peasants.

It is quite unusual to see nobility springing up internally.

And you think these protection agencies with the desire to rule over tracts of land will simply allow people to hang on to their guns or to gather in public if public opinion is against them? They needn't act as if they were democratic governments. They can act as authoritarian as they wish, after all, there are no laws governing their actions.
Then people would fight them, they'd loose their income and be faced with a costly battle.

And what's to stop this next firm from doing the same thing? Surely they won't allow other smaller defense firms to spring up within their territory. The number of firms will get smaller and smaller as they kill each other off until it becomes more and more difficult to kill off your competition. Eventually either there will be only one dominant security agency in the area which the opponents cannot challenge. But they'd loose funding long before this, and then be attacked by other firms. Few firms would have the power to take on an armed, freedom loving populace and also fight an unfunded war with other agencies.
Look to any anarchy today and you'll find the natural progression of warlords. They start out as a bunch of small ones with control of very small areas. Over time, warlords kill off their competition and eliminate nearby opponents until only they reign surpreme over their territory. This isn't anarchy, anarchy the political theory, as opposed to just chaos and disorder, means voluntaryism and free agreements, something no warlord has.

But the point needn't be made that our current system is just wonderful couldn't be improved. What I'm trying to show is that your system does nothing AT ALL to improve or fix what you seem to think are problems. Exactly the same thing would result from your system as you seem to think exists today, so clearly, your system is at best, not preferable to our own.You don't think I've heard these same unsupported assertions a hundred times, you needn't waste your time showing me them unless you have anything fresh, original and actually at all compelling.

[Bonniedundee]

This is why you can't have an anarchist society--you have to have some central authority defining what the law is. While law *ENFORCEMENT* could be private, lawmaking can't be.The law is that you are allowed to engage in any non-invasive behaviour within the property rights system set down by the local community or local common law.

You are right in a way, there would have to be a minimal input from the local community through either common law or direct democracy.

[Loren Pechtel]

This is why you can't have an anarchist society--you have to have some central authority defining what the law is. While law *ENFORCEMENT* could be private, lawmaking can't be.The law is that you are allowed to engage in any non-invasive behaviour within the property rights system set down by the local community or local common law.

You are right in a way, there would have to be a minimal input from the local community through either common law or direct democracy.

You still need some mechanism by which the law can be agreed to.

You can't just say "non-invasive behavior" because that's not realistic. There will be a certain amount of invasiveness to behavior. You need some sort of binding system to determine where to balance when two people's positions come into conflict.

[Metaphor]

That's why you have to restrict any one company from having too big a percentage of the market. That way if one goes bad the others will come after him.


And what magical system ensures this happens? The government? The very government that is supposed to be gone?

[Bonniedundee]

You can't just say "non-invasive behavior" because that's not realistic. There will be a certain amount of invasiveness to behavior. You need some sort of binding system to determine where to balance when two people's positions come into conflict.Basically it will worked out in arbitration the two companies or militias representing each party would choose a jury or arbitration firm, probably pre-arranged between them for all such cases, and they would argue the case with the public jury deciding on the matter, probably refering to local precedent etc etc

It would be much like juries were originally set up for, to decide on the valdity of the law as much as simply judge according to it.

[Bonniedundee]

And what magical system ensures this happens? The government? The very government that is supposed to be gone?Loren is not arguing for this, he is no libertarian or voluntaryist.

[Loren Pechtel]

That's why you have to restrict any one company from having too big a percentage of the market. That way if one goes bad the others will come after him.


And what magical system ensures this happens? The government? The very government that is supposed to be gone?

While I favor a small government I fully realize some government is necessary.

[Canard DuJour]

Phone rings....

La Cosa Nostra Protection Agency calling....

Hey,nice kids you have there. Be a shame if something happened to them.
Why not sign a contract with us today?

And you turn around and call the company you are signed up with.

At which point law and order has already broken down.

[Canard DuJour]

Basically it will worked out in arbitration the two companies or militias representing each party would choose a jury or arbitration firm,

Bollocks they would. The biggest, most violent "private protection agency" will prevail along with whoever can afford to hire them. Market forces will see to that. Get real.

[Metaphor]

Basically it will worked out in arbitration the two companies or militias representing each party would choose a jury or arbitration firm,

Bollocks they would. The biggest, most violent "private protection agency" will prevail along with whoever can afford to hire them. Market forces will see to that. Get real.

What is scary is that this idea has even gotten to first base to be debated.

I mean, I can't be the only person who thinks private protection agencies with no government, or even limited government, must be one of the most insane, amoral, unworkable suggestions ever conceived??

[Canard DuJour]

What is scary is that this idea has even gotten to first base to be debated.

I mean, I can't be the only person who thinks private protection agencies with no government, or even limited government, must be one of the most insane, amoral, unworkable suggestions ever conceived??

I know. It's as if the internet is some kind of portal to an alternate reality.

Or maybe one day they'll come clean that it's all been a monumental wind-up :huh:

[Gamera]

I don't see how these agencies as well as voluntary militias would be any worse than a state.

All states are founded on conquest, all of them are simply, as Marx said, the executive committee of the ruling classes and all of them exist mainly to exploit and dominate the workers. All states as Oppenheimer wrote are class states.

Those of you for coercion over free agreement need to solve this dilemma first, how can an organisation who's sole purpose is to exploit and dominate be better than people freely organising and associating?

I see a big difference between armed thugs who administer justice through the barrel of a gun, and democratic institutions, which, while not perfect, act as nodes of countervailing power to the wealthy and criminally minded.