On minarchism

[idol]

@Malachi

other people with guns, the calculation problem, the fact that its actually less efficient to make war than to trade, the list goes on. Whats the profit in “using their weapons on people to extort money from them” when youre already getting paid willingly by them to, you know, protect them from tyrants?

You could fairly trade in one region and extort in another. You don’t necessarily extort from your customers.

how is that at all justified? John James is right, you made almost the exact same assumption as the one you reject.

It’s justified because force suppliers could have a monopoly on force over a given region, making them unaccountable.

how is that different from a “company” that works for its “customers” who pay them voluntarily? Are they all mushy about it and dont have an explicit contract? What exactly are you describing? Be specific.

I think my response to the next segment answers this; if not I will try to clarify.

ok so how come this is going to happen with your “government” but the exact opposite would supposedly happen with things that arent governments, like companies?

Sure. A common action problem occurs when a group of people must cooperate (in the US for example this is hundreds of politicians in Congress) in order to accomplish a task where there are large incentives to defect and not cooperate. To keep their jobs politicians must secure votes; a tyrannical politician would quickly lose his job. This does not occur in a company because there is no incentive to defect. If, say, a member of the executive board of a company decides to defect, they would simply be fired. Also, government does not build up capital the way companies do.

protection from aggression, i.e. defense, is a private good. If youre being finger-raped on the side of the road in texas by a law enforcement officer, its not really any better or worse than being finger-raped by a biker in a bar. it would be a value, not a fact. But the aggression is a fact.

No, the police and especially the military are not private goods. When the police arrest a criminal, the entire neighborhood is safer, it’s not just the individual who was directly affected by the crime. This is more obvious with the military, which obviously cannot protect specific members of society while denying that protection to others in the event of foreign invasion.

Your neighbors get invaded. The invaders are extremely careful not to even give the appearance of aggression towards you or your property. They even liason with your private defense agency, so your pda actually already has a hostage, one of their guys, and radio communication, so that if one of their guys even mistakenly appears aggressive towards your property, they can call him on the radio and chew his ass. Then the aggressors leave with your neighbors valuables. Satisfied?

I was thinking in terms of a foreign invasion of a city, so I should have said that specifically.

[idol]

Feel free to view the links I provided.

I’ll read and respond to them when I have some more time on my hands; hopefully that means tomorrow.

[Malachi]

You could fairly trade in one region and extort in another. You don’t necessarily extort from your customers.

Thats what happens with a monopoly, they play favorites. With competition in protection services the ones subject to extortion could hire another protection agency. Those wars are costly, that being the reason they wouldnt happen often.

It’s justified because force suppliers could have a monopoly on force over a given region, making them unaccountable.

yah, minarchism. Competition in protection services isnt a monpoly.

Sure. A common action problem occurs when a group of people must cooperate (in the US for example this is hundreds of politicians in Congress) in order to accomplish a task where there are large incentives to defect and not cooperate. To keep their jobs politicians must secure votes; a tyrannical politician would quickly lose his job.

why why and why? We have lots of evidence that this doesnt happen. If it was a minarchist state why would you even need a congress and legislature? Theres nothing to legislate! Youre employing miraculous thinking.

This does not occur in a company because there is no incentive to defect. If, say, a member of the executive board of a company decides to defect, they would simply be fired. Also, government does not build up capital the way companies do.

there is plenty of reason to defect if your company orders you to commit a crime. But getting finger raped by someone with a legal monopoly on force isnt a “crime” even though I hope we can agree thats unfortunate.

No, the police and especially the military are not private goods.

I didnt say they were.

When the police arrest a criminal, the entire neighborhood is safer, it’s not just the individual who was directly affected by the crime.

Positive externalities arent a license to rob people. I’m sure at this point you’ll default to a govt funded by donations so in that case it all depends on what you mean with a govt funded voluntarily. If it maintains a forceful monopoly it is a criminal aggressor. If it forbids me from contracting for protection services with anyone I wish, then it means to be a slaveowner. If it does none of the above criminal acts and merely “looks out” for any sort of harm, I could say they are a good neighbor but without some sort of contractual relationship, even verbal, it cannot act on my behalf. Those ruffians bearing arms that you shot were my friends. That sort of thing.

This is more obvious with the military, which obviously cannot protect specific members of society while denying that protection to others in the event of foreign invasion.

sure it can. I believe the paragraph I already typed answers this.

I was thinking in terms of a foreign invasion of a city, so I should have said that specifically.

again, I’m pretty sure I already answered this. If the incipient invasion of the “city” threatens one customer, the private defense agency will protect…that one custo er to the best of their ability. If that means assassinating the hostile general, or negotiating with him, or destroying the whole army, or with the (quite necessarily, and always) permission of the customer, a temporary relocation to a safer locale, thats what it means. And, the chance that if a bunch of your neighbors are a customer of a pda, that the pda will destroy the invading army, is a positive externality that reduces the cost of living, increasing prosperity.