Liberals, Corporations Can Do Nothing to You Without Government

Miscellaneous General
21

“Except for 6 and 7, most of these initiatives are being openly and more seriously discussed then the sentiment a decade ago.”

That didn’t pass and most of which at least half of the population would oppose and much of the other half is not ready for the real consequences that this would bring about. It would take a massive shift in the ideas of society to get to that point. How many people were complaining about government spending pre-recession when it took up about a third of GDP? How many people are really ready for the amount of civil or economic liberties minarchists want? I can tell you from experience, not very many. You can make an argument for moderate libertarianism being fairly popular, but not the extent of what you just proposed.

22

Every step towards the decentralization of power is a step in the right direction.

23

If it is ‘uneconomic’ to exploit someone – then why have a corporate military agency in the first place ?

On a mass scale, it’s not very economic. If someone shouted from the rooftops that they have the right to rob you and tried, this person would be rounded up and punished, state or no state, because people realize it as organized theft and have an aversion to theft. Obviously people will cheat the system because some people think it is worth it and think they can get away with it. But in most cases, it is easier to cooperate peacefully.

It doesnt appear to be to difficult to force you and everyone else on this site to pay taxes, why would it be hard for a territorial monopoly of armed force in a private-property society ?

I mentioned this earlier in my post. Taxation has support. As evidence to see how easily states can crumble, look at the Arab world. The downside is, of course, is that the revolution is being run by statists who will just implement another state because, “that’s the way it has to be.” People don’t support theft, but they support taxation. Why is this? Well, most people don’t think of taxation as theft because they are never challenged on the issue until they run into a libertarian. When challenged, they will abandon the moral stance against theft and say, “well how will X get done?” If you prove to them that X can be provided, they may still have qualms or “gut feelings” about anarchy and then will just dismiss you and happily want to force everyone else to pay taxes. That’s how the state still exists.

24

“liberal democracies”

you keep saying liberal democracies, what is your example of a liberal democracy?

25

Whatever suits his argument at the given time.

26

you keep saying liberal democracies, what is your example of a liberal democracy? – limitgov

Contrary to the always present jabs and ad hominems from the large number of trolls on this site. I do have a standard for identifying a liberal democracy. It is Freedom House, they are not the only NGO that develops lists of this type but they have been doing it for longer than most:

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay

Slightly less free liberal democracies include the following nations:

Belize
Croatia
Ghana
Greece
Grenada
Israel
Italy

Japan
Latvia
Monaco
Panama
St. Vincent and the Grenadines
South Korea
Taiwan

27

“liberal democracies are inherently peaceful to each other”

But they are certainly not peaceful. The United States and many western nations are the opposite of peaceful nations. They sure do make alot of war. Matter of fact, it seems to be nonstop war.

28

But they are certainly not peaceful. The United States and many western nations are the opposite of peaceful nations. They sure do make alot of war. Matter of fact, it seems to be nonstop war. – limitgov

Your absolutely correct.

In fact, I would bet that there would be less conflict if the world was populated by only autocratic regimes.

However, would that make it a better place to live ?

29

I don’t agree. In a free market corporation could use violence against you. However, absent government, it would have to pay all costs associated with such action and its consequences.

30

False. Another human being could use violence against you.

31

"In fact, I would bet that there would be less conflict if the world was populated by only autocratic regimes.

However, would that make it a better place to live ?"

Would liberal democracies, slowly replacing all non-liberal democracies, be a good alternative in your view?

Back to your original idea of a group of armed thugs taking over a free society. How would they take over and maintain a monopoly on armed forces, if all the people in the town are free to be armed themselves?

How do a group of 5-10 dudes, or even 20-30 dudes take over a town of perhaps 1000-500,000 maybe even 1,000,000 armed citizens?

32

Would liberal democracies, slowly replacing all non-liberal democracies, be a good alternative in your view? – limitgov

They have demonstrated that they are utterly peaceful toward one another within a geopolitical environment with some dangerous autocratic states present. I guess that logic and empirical evidence suggests that they would still be peaceful in a geopolitical environment without autocratic states, although I would never presume that they would be utterly peaceful for an indefinite period.

Some states would revert back to autocracy (statists never quit) and the likelihood of war would again increase. Also, there are cultural, religious and other differences that might cause some friction that would result in war.

Back to your original idea of a group of armed thugs taking over a free society. How would they take over and maintain a monopoly on armed forces, if all the people in the town are free to be armed themselves? – limitgov

Not armed thugs, but highly efficient, professional and technologically armed Corporate Military Agencies (CMA) would naturally form geographic monopolies of armed force. It is uneconomical to pay for and expect a high level of security when proximity is not considered – in plain terms you got to be there to defend there. Hence, disatisfied customers would have little recourse but to become refugees, fight the existing power arrangement, or accept it. This is the same scenario that has played out in society for ions.

How do a group of 5-10 dudes, or even 20-30 dudes take over a town of perhaps 1000-500,000 maybe even 1,000,000 armed citizens? – limitgov

The same way a small group of dudes dominates market share in any industry, through specialization of labor and economies of scale. Moreover, these economic tenets are even more pronounced within the military industry since the skill set required to wield modern weaponry requires a very high level of experience and training to be effective.

Eventually a profit motivated CMA will establish regional dominance by forming cartels on armed force thereby lowering costs to the consumer by reduced conflict. Note that the more centralized and powerful the elements of armed force within a region – the less conflict.

Hegemon peace.

Also, the short lived anarcho-capitalist society would neither defend a neighbor being brutalized (it isn’t my business argument or it is too costly argument) – moreover, nobody is going to defend an anarcho-capitalist society because these societies are only self-interested, hence why defend someone who wont defend you when the time comes ?

33

Is it too simplistic of me to look at this argument as “We have to make sure there is some violence(have a state) or else there might be violence”?

34

“They have demonstrated that they are utterly peaceful toward one another within a geopolitical environment with some dangerous autocratic states present.”

They have not proven to be peaceful. They have proven to be the opposite of peaceful.

"Not armed thugs, but highly efficient, professional and technologically armed Corporate Military Agencies (CMA) would naturally form geographic monopolies of armed force.

And peaceful armed citizens couldn’t hire or maintain highly efficient armed security?

35

“Is it too simplistic of me to look at this argument as “We have to make sure there is some violence(have a state) or else there might be violence”?”

Good observation. Unfortauntely, that is not what I wanted this thread to be about. I was merely trying to point out, that all the bad things corporations do to people (violations against their rights) are done by government and can only be done by government.

36

They have not proven to be peaceful. They have proven to be the opposite of peaceful. --limitgov

I will challenge you to a friendly free market wager of $1000.00. If any of the following higher order liberal democracies engage in war against each other in the next 10 years, you keep the pot of $2000.00 plus the interest – if they do not engage in war over the next ten years I keep the $2000.00 pot plus interest.

There are probably numerous firms that can manage this transaction, I will allow you to find one that we can mutually agree upon.

Andorra
Australia
Austria
Bahamas
Barbados
Belgium
Canada
Cape Verde
Chile
Costa Rica
Cyprus
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominica
Estonia
Finland
France
Germany
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Kiribati
Liechtenstein
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Malta
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Nauru
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Palau
Poland
Portugal
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
San Marino
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Sweden
Switzerland
Tuvalu
United Kingdom
United States
Uruguay

And peaceful armed citizens couldn’t hire or maintain highly efficient armed security? – limitgov

Your statement is illogical and bias. The firms that were the most efficient would be those that were motivated by monetary profit – not peaceful outcomes.

Firms and investors that were motivated by primarily peaceful outcomes would quickly see their investment capital and market share decline relative to more profit motivated firms.

Your implication that peace should be the goal of free market actors in the security industry instead of economic profit is similar to the economic calculation problem associated with the Marxist goal of egalitarianism.

Basing CMA outcomes on non-economic goals like peace and egalitarianism results in failure that doesn’t take into account self-interest and economic realities.

37

Good observation. Unfortauntely, that is not what I wanted this thread to be about. I was merely trying to point out, that all the bad things corporations do to people (violations against their rights) are done by government and can only be done by government. – limitgov

If a corporate military agency had the opportunity to seize the Panama Canal at a cost considerably less than the expected economic gain from annexing this resource by force — wouldn’t it be irrational for a profit driven firm to decline to take this resource by force ?

And is it a ‘bad thing’ for a profit driven CMA to take a misused resource by force thereby releasing resources to the marketplace that previously were denied due to bad management ?

Lets say a mismanaged island like Cuba or North Korea were liberated to the free market. Doesn’t that result in a net gain for society and the marketplace by releasing previously mismanaged resources ?

The only difference is the means used to free up these resources – coercion. Provided that the transaction costs were less than the expected and realized gains from freeing up the labor and resources of a mismanaged resource or region.