Gang Wars

Economics Political Theory
101

Guns do not involve aggression. They involve coercion. It just depends on the context. Breaking a contract to provide a good, like water, or comitting fraud is something libertarians usually agree is aggression.

Regardless of whatever abstract conceptions, my point was that the security market is not fundamentally different from food or water markets. There’s more than one way to threaten a man’s life.

States… perceived legitimacy. But I suppose its possible for an aggressing PDA to be perceived benevolently. Like you, I’m not so interested in semantics though. Territorial monopoly = bad.

Well consent and enforceable contracts are the most important thing. If we disbanded the US government, only to reform it by unanimous contract, it would impose real consumer accountability on our leaders.

Real “States” are differentiated by their aggression. In ur homeland attakin ur farmers etc.

If someone had attacked the previous users of the land and forced them to be his captive consumers, then its still a state. Although functionally it looks more like our current administration of condo/apartment managers… So from this perspective anti-statism is just opposition to thievery and enslavement.

Agreed. Small states have many accountability advantages.

Oh because I’m paying gang members BECAUSE they were being violent? I don’t see how this would incentivize violence anymore than I incentivize laziness by putting idle people to work. The idea is that you prevent those resources from ever being used inefficiently ever again because the person who can maximally use them will be able to outbid other capitalists.

Slave owners basically operate the same way. Don’t abuse your slaves too much or they’ll revolt… give them treats sometimes. Let them have religion. Give them enough food to work and reproduce… its the same basic principle.

Anyway, this doesn’t answer the question of “what is the point” in securing a territorial monopoly on protection. So you can appropriate labor at will? So you can force people to build your projects? Sounds like slavery to me.

Its a little goofy but I think it would work. Its possible that some outside threat be so great that it requires this huge amount of defense spending, which after the war could be used against the PDA’s consumers. So in order to get consumers to go along with this, you impose a constant check on the PDA by allowing consumers to vote-kill the controllers of the PDA.

102

Honestly, I don’t know. It just seems like demand (the number of aspiring power monopolists) has consistently outstripped supply (available territories), and there are hardly any instances where two or more power (force) providers have co-existed and peacefully competed over the same territory.

103

What about private security firms operating inside the USA right now?

Regardless, all the states of industrialized countries are residual from agricultural setups. Most anarchists agree that agricultural societies are particularly vulnerable to states. But no industrialized free peoples have ever fallen to internal or external states. In short, the verdict is still out on industrialized/technologically connected society + state growth.

104

IIRC, we covered this long time ago when you were Snowflake (Btw, was that name from Levin’s “This Perfect Day”? I just finished it the other day and I loved it.)

Those providers are all operating under the umbrella (laws and enforcement) of the ultimate and overwhelmingly more powerful monopoly power (force) provider (the state). The teacher sits in the corner with the big stick, in case the kids get too rowdy.

105

No. I chose it when I didn’t know my participation here would be serious. I thought you just goofed around on the internet. It was my old counterstrike and DoW nick. No one expectes to be fwned by the flake.

That’s not a peaceful coexistance? So you would be denying that security firms are really security providers? Or are really part of the state apparatus? What about before the 1850s when states were law-states and left enforcement up to private means? ERO might have linked you an article on this.

There are also all these extra laws coming out privately needing private enforcement. Most obviously through private courts, but also in the form of private clubs like mises.org (international). You don’t see enforcement gestappo’s running around because its just not necessary to uphold private law. Ostracism works great 99% of the time.

106

You can’t possibly be denying that the existence of the teacher with a big stick would have major behavioral incentives for the kids in the classroom. Or are you saying that there is no power (force) monopoly in the U.S. today?

107

I meant in the sense that the state doesn’t regularly punish enforcement of private law. In many cases, its not even involved.

No offense, but I would prefer it if you addressed more of my points. Quality over quantity. I’m in no rush.

108

This is almost as bad as Retopper continuously claiming that all anarchists are pacifists.

109

What are you talking about ERO

110

I thought it was up to the consumers (and not the monopolist) to decide whether he stays in business or not. At least that’s how things work in the shoe market. How come the power (force) provider has so much say as to whether he survives or not, while the shoe provider doesn’t?

I would say the fact that people only believe what their eyes can see. I don’t think there’s any real difference between the two industries other than that the state disarms the populace when it maintains that it and it alone should provide defence. The state as it is merely has a territorial monopoly. People aren’t ambivalent to the existence of multiple states which exist in anarchy vis-a-vis one another. The next step is to envision a) ones that do not coercively fund themselves and b) allow for maximum secession/decentralisation.

111

Sieben, I am addressing points I find relevant. I’ll cover most lines though I’d like to keep posts as short as possible.

Yes, I meant coercion. Only power (force) involves it, and none of the other goods and services does.

Coercion is far from abstract, and it is what makes power (force) fundamentally different from food and water.

Question begging. If a PDA is perceived benevolently, then it cannot be aggressing. As I said, “crime”/“aggression” is in the eye of the gun-holder, and it is the winning power monopolist that writes/interprets history.

Except when enforced by the owner(s) of said territory, I assume you meant.

I agree that they both preferable to not having them. I guess it is up to the power monopolist to gauge if he could still get away without them.

And any other power (force) monopoly isn’t?

Is there a square inch on this planet that has avoided this fate over the last few thousand years, and isn’t all of Earth’s territory permanently condemned to the state of “state” under this standard?

Surely you’re not implying that people, in general, (or particularly ones that are convinced about the inevitability of power monopolies) are in favor of thievery and enslavement?

Switzerland’s cantons, for example.

Paying for anything, incentivizes it. If Steve saw that you paid Joe for shooting at your window (so he doesn’t shoot again), Steve will shoot at your other window and expect to get paid. Lazy people (or any person, for that matter) don’t want to “be put” to work. It’s not a good analogy. I still don’t see how this social engineering experiment would achieve anything of value.

“Inefficiently” for whom? The power monopolist would beg to differ from your (or other people’s) standard for efficiency.

I agree. Slave owners are a sub-set of all possible power monopolists. I don’t get your point.

It doesn’t make sense. If the threat was that large, the “consumers” would simply go along with it regardless, or else…

Irrelevant. Everyone involved knows what happens if/when things get out of line, which significantly disincentivizes “bad” behavior.

112

I won’t repeat any points you’ve dropped, but a few of them are important. If you feel like going back sometime, feel free to do so.

You misunderstand. You can threaten a man’s life with both guns and water. They can both be used for “power”.

The ocean looks pretty good. I don’t know what this has to do with supporting the inevitability of the state. I already made the point that all industrialized nations have governments residual from agricultural times.

They’re in favor of taxation and intrusive regulation/laws on behaviour. Tomatoe tomatoh.

Well the idea is that you pay people to do something that generates more wealth than they already are, and then take a cut so that you make a profit. So if someone’s shooting out my window I pay them not to do it and to go get a job or something. Repeat offenders only mean more money for me because I’ll just rinse-repeat. They are the ones who are in fact losing money, since if they had realized there was a more economic alternative themselves, then they’d be able to profit more.

Its exactly the same as employers paying lazy people to get jobs. You don’t see people quitting their jobs just so they’ll be rehired right? The entrepreneur who organizes sup optimally located resources gets money.

But in this case, its probably cheaper for me just to get security or something… The topic here is about gangs killing eachother and the idea is that I just buy the turf from both gangs since I can offer them more than they’ll expect to get out of it at present value.

efficiency gauged by profit on a free market.

You were arguing that states and slaveowners weren’t necessarily the same.

No. Because before everyone gets in the same boat and trusts a PDA, various entrepreneurs pitch their plans and promises. The one who can offer the best services with the best accountability will get the contract.

By “get out of line” you mean violent. But there are plenty of examples of violations of private rules where the state has nothing to do with them. Clubs, forums, etc… all use ostracism to enforce their rules. The point is there are modern examples of non-aggressive law that are completely free from state interferance.