And there we have it; the idiotic strawman of the PDA as a private army for a warlord.
Tell me, Steph: how is defense so special that it requires a monopoly? I’m done trying to give you any arguments.
Government is also an objective means of protecting property rights (via registration of ownership). That would be part of how the idyllic picture you paint would come about. Orderly transfer of property from one person to another relies on objective proof of ownership.
Because government services are voluntarily selected, those services people did not see as being of value would not be funded. Government can definitely stand to take some lessons from business in how to behave, and how to achieve efficiencies.
Perhaps eventually, one day in the distant future, there may be very little need for government like in your scenario, ladyattis, at least on a domestic level. But we both know that that’s not the case today,and being realistic it’s not likely to be the case for a long time.
However,even if everyone were conforming in a given region, is everyone on the planet confoming to the NAP?
“Which really makes me wonder if Stephanie’s defense of government is merely a misplacing of who does what and why… shrugs”
Can you clarify this please?
Good luck with THAT.
Forget the State intervening. This is taking the anarcho-capitalist method at face value - I’m asking how do you deal with someone who doesn’t abide by the NAP, and there’s a judgment against him to pay restitution, which he is also ignoring. What happens next in the anarcho-capitalist’s world?
The person is shunned–pushed to the edge of society.
Your “reason” is no different from the theist who wants there to be a god to avenge the wrongs in the world after death.
No government (involuntary) registration (which is regulation) would be compatible with laissez-faire.
Proof of ownership is not required by any objective 3rd party. As long as both parties consent to accept the exchange, it is valid. The premise you are putting forth is that all exchange (economic or otherwise) should be based upon objective standards of exchange, in other words, it is an argument to regulate all activity. Socialism is the premise you are proposing.
It can’t because it doesn’t have market incentives. And you have clearly made the case that government should not be subject to market incentives, so why would you expect it to learn anything from business, when it does not have to behave like a business and compete for market share?
You mean it’s not? Then do tell me how it actually works, this PDA concept of yours. According to Jack Cuylor’s model, apparently anyone who is wronged can either go out and behave just like government, or hire someone to do his bidding for him. How is this different from a warlord? YOU tell me.
FACEPALM.
Your government just grew, again. Now it has officials getting records on ownership and they keep these registrations in a building so you have people going out recording and keeping these records. Hmm, isn’t that somewhat similar to the IRS without tax part. And local townships do this now with deeds. So now this monopoly government will do it not even locally anymore but on a grand scale. This government of yours is almost the same as the current one in size. It’s getting there. I’ll need to show a tally in another post one of this moments.
Same thing that happens now. What makes you think the routine would change? People that desire to be police, judges, and attorney’s just don’t disappear cause the State is gone. If those careers are still being offered, and I would say the people that currently perform these jobs have an interest in these jobs still being here. It’s what they do. It’s their job. Just look around you. People’s desires don’t have to change just cause the State left. You have such an interest in making sure law and order presides. I’m sure others are around just like you. You would make sure everything worked out “objectively” in your area. You’re not asking of anything new. You’re asking for individuals to shape up or ship out. Government is just a status symbol, nothing else. The ideas and desire are in the people themselves. What comes out of the people from their hearts and mind is what makes or breaks anything.
BINGO! If private companies are enforcing judgments, are they going to give up their private status so they can be open to scrutiny? I doubt it. And besides isn’t that the problem NOW??? Government forces business to reveal its secrets to competitors, to share its developments and breakthroughs with other businesses on the misguided view that this is helping competition. It is destroying the private part of private enterprise.
Meanwhile, in the realm of protecting rights, government has all but given up actually doing its job.
The answer isn’t to turn everything on its head, by making private enterprise into government. It will end up with an equally horrific result.
AND “NO” to tax - there is no tax in my scenario. Government is voluntarily funded. It still has to account for how it spends that money.
The “has to” part is because government must be open to scrutiny by the public who is footing the bill for its services. Justice must be observable. All government actions must be objectively verifiable.
Private enterprise needs to be free from government intervention, which means it must be free to BE private.
Well, we could try a private enterprise approach to land registration. Let’s see - there might be 20 or 30 different companies that will leap in to register your land ownership. So you pick one, right? What happens to your registration if that company folds?
Do you understand what it takes to protect rights objectively?
The courts, the police, the armed forces are concerned with protection of rights.
Well, what about passports? You planning to have companies issuing passports? This anarcho-capitalist world sounds perfect for terrorists to get new identities.
They are scrutinzed by their clients. Unhappy clients will use a different private company. After all of this, you don’t understand how private economies work? Wow…
Nope.
What if no one gives your government money to run the army of thugs? Seems like your government would be bankrupt.
All enterprise is private. Having children, building a home, selling marijuana (no need for registration, thank you very much), selling sex, having sex, blocking a punch, driving a car, building a bomb, or treating a disease. All activity is private Steph. Only a socialist would argue otherwise and I think it’s becoming dreadfully apparent, that while you have lofty utopian goals, you are a soft socialist. You want central power, you want to remove the private sector from certain areas of life and you want to limit free choice and free interaction.
You’re not the first to make this mistake with good intentions, and you won’t be the last. But I think it is high time you were honest about the logical implications of the system you are proposing. It does not lead to liberty. It does lead to tyranny.
No, it isn’t. Now if you’re done acting stupid, I suggest you think about how McDonalds and Burger King compete. When you understand how they do, you’ll have your answer of how the PDAs work. If you refuse to think about it–begone.
Tell me, Steph: how is defense so special that it requires a monopoly?
It all comes down to this.
Either initiate force to maintain your monopoly, or accept that it will fall apart. Period.
Anarcho-capitalism, or statism. That’s the choice. No state will exist as the sole authority without the ability to initiate coercion to maintin its monopoly. The notion that this would happen cuts accross the grain of everything that we know about economics. You are ok with private arbitrators, but want to have a government as the final arbiter? You seem to believe that there will only be competition at the lower levels, and one company would maintain some sort of magical natural monopoly over final arbitration.
You’re grasping at straws.
Who is going to make sure that the government ensures that the government does what you state?
This is essentially giving the government access to monopoly power over violence, then asking it to check itself. No matter how you do it, seperation of powers, etc., the fact remains that it is tempting for the watcher to allow more power so that people (like the watcher) in government can use it. Rarely is it easy for a person within to reduce or eliminate that power, since it is so tempting. The checks and balances proposed by the constitution (I wonder why I thought they would work!) were so tempting to believe.
The registration is still in existance. Whether it is accepted or not is another question entirely.
Who would accept passports from a company that allowed people to forge their identity?
And again I ask, what is to stop the government from “running merrily thru the streets, enforcing [its] clients’ wishes & whims”? Your government monopoly already violates the NAP by enforcing its monopoly. You are arguing for a system in which a group of people is allowed to violate the NAP in order to protect others from violations of the NAP. What is to stop those people from deciding that even further violations are necessary to protect others from violations of the NAP? What if they decide to compel witnesses to testify in particularly difficult cases? Why just difficult cases? Why not all cases? Why not demand a (small) flat regular fee from all those they “protect”, even those that don’t wish to pay? If the small flat fee is okay, why not a percentage of each “protected” individual’s income? If we’re going to allow them to violate the NAP in the first place, for the good of those they “protect”, what harm could there be in a few more violations? Who could stop them, anyway? At what point do you draw the line? How many violations of the NAP are too many? Personally, I draw the line at one. One violation of the NAP is too many. Objectively, how many violations are okay with you?
At least in a free market model, there would be competing PDAs to keep each other in check. Sure, these firms could end up fighting each other, and probably would on rare occasions, but it is far more likely that the majority of the time, the firms would work things out peacefully - employee death and property damage are really not that good for business, not to mention public image.
Earlier in this thread, a few people brought up the idea of competing laws, an idea you flatly rejected, as there should only be one law and it should be consistent. I whole-heartedly agree, which is why I so strongly disagree with your government monopoly, as that monopoly, in itself, would be a violation of that law its purpose is to protect. However, even if every firm agreed objectively on what constitutes a violation of the law, there is still a large portion of law that is subjective. Judges/juries/tribunals/etc. must make judgment calls, such as which witness(es) to believe, how much weight to give a particular piece of evidence, and how much defensive and/or retaliatory force is justifiable in a given situation. Penalties/awards/punishments are subjective by nature in almost all cases. Those who are perceived as better at making these decisions and awarding fairly will become more popular, allowing them to command larger fees. That’s what the market is all about – people producing goods and services,in this case services, of varying features, quality and prices - competing.
Multiple firms competing in the market present another benefit impossible with a government monopoly: true division of labor. Different firms would become specialized: firms that specialize in contract law, firms that specialize in medical malpractice, firms that specialize in cases involving domestic violence, high-priced “dream-team” like law firms, inexpensive firms with less experienced employees, etc. etc. etc.
If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire… the A-Team.[:D]
Can I just say the level of patience exhibited by those responding to Steph is mind blowing…
Steph - Market for Liberty written by Randites on the production of private security. I gave you all the links to the free pdf and audiobook at the beginning of this thread.
You didn’t read them did you?
Enjoy ignorance.
Yeah. I read your response to that guy who made those vids where he praised FDR and said we’ve had a free market for the past 30 years. Lol.
Guy: You make video or you no have balls!!!
lol
Do you own your residence? Who did you buy it from? When you go to sell it, how can I, as a buyer, be sure that you are legally entitled to sell it to me?
How about a car? Do you have one? Maybe you’re in the market. There’s this car parked in front of my house. I’ll sell it to you. Hey, I say it’s mine - how do you know it isn’t?
No, you don’t have to register anything if you don’t want to. It just makes transfers of property between two arm’s length people very very easy. You need to re-think your attitude towards government. My kind is not an involuntary one. You can refrain from registering your property. There’s nobody going to force you. You just may have a tough time selling something you say you own.
No it isn’t and you’re being very lame. You aren’t reading all my posts, obviously. Not only that, but you must not be old enough to have transacted business in the real world. You cannot see beyond the idea you have decided is what must be achieved = anarchy.
Voluntary exchange to mutual benefit is the very lynchpin of the free market, indeed of the entire country. That is why even government is a voluntarily funded institution. There is no regulation required. As long as everyone does what they agree to, their transactions will conclude without problems. There is no mandatory registration required. The kinds of transactions that are carried all the way through to the end without problems are not my concern here. Why are they yours? We’re not talking about the free market per se - not talking about regulating the economy - that’s what we have and what we all want to get rid of.
What I’m talking about is government’s role in protecting individual rights in that free market. Rights protection requires objective proof of ownership and objective proof of the contractual terms agreed to - but only when there are problems in concluding the transaction. That is when you need to demonstrate what you think you are entitled to, in order to provide proof that it’s the other party who failed to deliver on his end of the bargain.
Again I’ll ask you to explain how your system deals with transactions that do not conclude as agreed.
Wow. You don’t understand much about how the protection of individual rights actually occurs, do you?
It has the incentive to do as much as it can with the money it can legitimately earn by persuading people to voluntarily use those services. At the moment government has no incentive to be efficient in how it spends its money because it steals that money from the citizens via tax and other ways that should be illegal. When it has to rely solely on voluntary payments, it has to offer value for value just like a business.