A while back i read Gil Guillory’s articles on subscription-based patrol and restitution. I definietly recommend reading it if you havnt already done so. I would just like contribute to this line of thought in that really you need to “sell” it to the masses; people who arnt well versed in Economics and politics, but can still understand simple, basic concepts. People dont understand the nature of PDAs and any attempt to explain it to them will just result in them likening it to Mafia type protection where you are trying to replace the police. HOWEVER people dont have a problem with the concept with bodyguards in fact most people are quite happy that bodyguards can work in tandem with police for better protection, which personally i find odd because PDAs and bodyguards are more or less the same thing. Most people also know that bodyguards are expensive and that this sort of service is reserved for the rich, famous, and the powerful. Now if you were to offer an affordable bodyguard service that everyone can afford, with the only difference being that the bodyguards will be patrolling in order to guard many people and thus enabling the price for a service to be brought down considerably, i think people will be able to understand that concept a lot more and it will be a lot more accepting of it.
Bodyguards for the Masses, essentially.
Thoughts please, thanks.
The bodyguards are kept in check by the police, a much greater power. PDAs are not. The police in return is not a for-profit operation. The PDAs are.
Who keeps the police in check? The fact that state monopoly removes the incentive to offer better services is exactly why we favor private police.
The police is checked by public opinion and current laws. Whether PDAs or the police has better incentives is precisely the debate.
The police is checked by public opinion and current laws.
Would there still be public opinion without government? Someone said that in another thread just now and it is probably the stupidest thing I heard all day.
Legislation breeds uncertainty. Anyone who is actually interested (I know, I’m not expecting a coherent response from you) can read this for why. There’s millions of instances of judicial, military and police abuses due to the monopoly status.
Whether PDAs or the police has better incentives is precisely the debate.
So, your position can be nothing other than that competition is a bad thing.
Only if you straw man. The question is there would be competition in what? It is not good if it is in bads.
It’s no strawman. We’re talking about competition in provision of services. You do not support competition in this area. You support territorial monopolies.
Well you support such competition. How do you ensure that this state of affairs will remain intact once established or achieved?
Read this if you really want to know. I’ll save myself some time and waste yours if you insist on giving another obtuse response.
The whole chapter analyzes a market economy, the existence of which is under dispute. Hilarious!
You’re sitting near a computer arguing on the internet and think that this state of affairs is due to anything other than a market economy, division of labor, competition, etc. It’s equally hilarious!
Ah I am perfectly aware of that. I also know that those contracts and all that shit are enforced by a government.
Because if the state farms didn’t produce food in huge nationalised farms we would all starve !
What you will not prove, in this thread or ever, is that the provision of justice and security must be provided by government for order to be maintained. History already disproves that thesis. What it boils down to is that you like arguing for bad science.
.Because if the state farms didn’t produce food in huge nationalised farms we would all starve !
You have yet to show I supported food industry nationaliation.
Medieval Iceland and primitive Ireland, they surely refute all the rest of human history!
You have yet to show I supported food industry nationaliation.
You must support it to be consistent, since you can’t qualify that the provision of security and justice is any different than any other good or service.
Medieval Iceland and primitive Ireland, they surely refute all the rest of human history!
Appeal to tradition. By this logic, we would continue to support the idea that the sun revolves around the Earth.
that was weird, must have hit edit instead of reply.
I apologise scineram… I could re-edit the post for you if you could provide the material.
I’m afraid I don’t recall the second statement you made (feel free to repost) , but the first was this
You have yet to show I supported food industry nationaliation.
To which I would say, ok, before we get into this can we agree that you support protection and justice industry nationalisation?
I quoted his full post, split into two.
before we get into this can we agree that you support protection and justice industry nationalisation?
It seems like he is denying his own position, because he knows how untenable it is.
Its actually only very recently that states have underatken mass provision of law and security. All common law/Anglo Saxon law is based on non-state tradition. Britain didn’t have public police till the 1850s, and I’m sure you’ve heard about the not so wild west.
If you trust democracy and public opinion to check the state, why do you not trust consumer sovereignty?
ERO quoted what I said, but don’t bother.
Let’s just say I’m not convinced such radical changes are viable, hence desirable. But if there are compelling arguments for specific, usually gradual, changes, go for it!