But these aggressive agencies will come into conflict with NAP ones. If the NAP ones win like you assume, then they’re depriving consumers of the ability to chose aggressive agencies.
No, the agencies dont prevent people from entering the market. They protect consumers from aggression. Obviously the other consumer already purchased the aggression services, in order for there to be an aggressive act for the defense agency to attempt to prevent. Even then, the conflict isnt necessarily terminal for the assassin. Youre making a bunch of assumptions in order to consteuct a ridiculous scenario, just so you can say “in anarchy people wont be able to employ or be employed as assassins! This is discrimination against assassins, their families and loved ones, and their customers!” if this is the worst criticism you have, let it stand.
We need bumperstickers “Anarchopolis, where our hitmen are amateurs!”
They may not completely prevent them from entering the market, but neither does any monopoly.
If the conflict is terminal for the assassin, then he is no longer able to compete in the marketplace due to the anticompetitive behavior of the NAP agency.
its not about completenes or whatever. They dont prevent people from contracting to perform aggression, they simply cant. Quit insisting on ridiculous things.
if the conflict is terminal for the assassin, he is no lomger able to compete because he is dead. theres nothing anticompetitive about it, he had the first move, he had time to plan and prepare, everything. I dont think that the observation that physical life ends in death is a criticism of anarchy. When I said “troll harder,” that was encouraging you to step up your game, this aint it.
This doesn’t just apply to the assassination market. Aggressive defense agencies will conflict with non-aggression principle defense agencies, and the winner will have eliminated a competing business model. Although they will be able to start up and form, aggressive agencies will not develop in significant numbers in this setting to provide a viable choice of their product to consumers.
As I observed above, conflict is not necessarily terminal, and terminal conflict is not necessarily bad. Essentially, youre taking a feature and trying to express it in language that would suggest that it is a bug. No, it is not a bug. It is a feature.
The problem is that, if this one type of anticompetitive behavior is expected, what prevents other types of anticompetitive behavior? Why won’t the strongest agencies, and alliances of agencies, prey upon, pillage, and exploit the weak ones?
Because we just proved that they wouldnt be allowed. Youre like “uhhhh, youre saying I wouldnt be able to hire the mafia.” me: “thats right.” you: “but what about…THE MAFIA DUN DUN DUN huh? Whaddayado?” stares
Where? Not allowed by who? Why won’t the agency doing the “allowing” start pillaging as well?
Not at all, I only want to make it possible for people who DO agree to join together and exclude those whom do not agree. Those ‘not agree’ers’ can then find those THEY agree with and form a community with them. The pre-requisite for this is the abandoning of democracy and the idea that anyone should be able to force laws on you.
In such a society, if you don’t agree with what others are doing, you start your own thing. And if you do agree with someone else’s ideals, you join their society, if they will have you.
Rather that creating political battles, such a society gives an outlet to disagreement in the form of political action that does not create conflicts–the mechanism being the free entry of jurisdictions. Anyone can start a jurisdiction. Anyone can leave any jurisdiction at will. Jurisdictions allow the person who sets them up to set them up with certain rules, and any who do not agree to those rules can either not join or not come into that territory. Since the jurisdiction is made up of private property, exclusion is not an issue and there is no tragedy of the commons. There is simply no commons.
So in case of conflict, whatever group considers itself the legitimate originators of the community expel the conflicting groups?
What? Where the people are. Not allowed by the people, who are there. Because if they extort their customers then soon they wont have any customers.
They won’t need them if they’re extorting the cash. We’ve talked about that.
That’s like saying restricting rape is a limit on human freedom.
No, it’s a limit on human aggression. Aggression is immoral and instituting aggression in the form of an aggressive legal system is even more evil.
I dont follow. How do they not need customers if they steal a little bit? Theft isnt productive, it expends resources. Soon people run out of stuff to steal, if they dont get tired of your shit and off you. Catallacty actually produces wealth, extortion and pillage consume it.
You didn’t win that one, mustang19. Literally none of your arguments held any water.
I don’t have any problem saying you can’t choose an aggressive agency. Just like I have no problem saying you cannot rape.
In my proposed mincap society, the highest rule of law would be the assumption of voluntaryism, this is the highest law of the land, and no jurisdiction would be allowed to create any laws or any legal order that violated voluntaryism.
You could still setup a socialist regime, but it would have to be voluntarily submitted to by its voluntarily-joined members. And they would have to be able to leave at will.
You never explained why warlordism has historically been a viable business model if, as you claim, it isn’t financially sustainable.
Not if they continue creating wealth as the theft progresses. Otherwise, how could states exist?
Yes I did.