^Again, operating under the premise that slavery is profitable
^Staying alive trumps profitability. Also, “slavery” and “voluntary” are in the eye of the gun-holder as power influences everyone’s subjective preferences. You really shouldn’t refuse a deal you can’t refuse.
This is a very good point and one worth noting. Maybe upon further discussion we can come to some sort of revelation on this issue.
Another problem that might be inherent NOT having the monopoly if the use of force within a given territory is infighting between the various security forces which will hinder the territories ability to repel the invasion. With so much profits being tied to glory, we may have the exact opposite of your problem whereby individuals within the security forces may decide to take rash actions to incur greater benefits of fame as well. This is a persistant problem amongst drug lords who hire gangs out to protect their territorial monopoly for their goods.
Through a monopoly of force, these problems will be limited and easily rectifiable by the government who can have a more consistant stream of resources in times of emergency.
Although I must say that I disagree with your premise on the issue that companies will have to merge in the face of a stronger force, thus forming into a monopoly. If a group of companies feel threatened by another company or group of companies, they can merge into an alliance to repel the enemy, at least on a temporal basis. A temporary pact may indeed ensue much like the how alliances were formed in the fuedal era whereby they can retain their soveriegnty but still cooperate in difficult military operations. Just because the companies decide to cooperate to repel invasion does not mean they have to give up thier soveriegnty as a company. If states can do it, I don’t see why companies can’t.
This doesn’t contradict my proposition that territorial power (force) monopolies are inevitable, semantics (PDAs, gangs, states, mercenaries, etc.) notwithstanding. A “no poison” preference is not a solution to a “choose your poison” problem.
Z.
Wouldn’t it be possible for police services to pay criminals to cause crime in order to increase their own demand?
Staying alive is profit. See psychic profits…
Whatever definitions of slavery and voluntary depend on your theory of property rights. There are good, utilitarian and moral theories about property rights.
Regardless, you still have yet to put out an argument that slavery is profitable for self-funded slaveowners. If it isn’t the most profitable thing, as I argue, then there won’t be any incentives to choose it over alternatives.
Too complicated. Once your power (force) monopoly is established you can just send your agent to knock on every door and offer your fabulous “protection” package deal. Every “No thanks” would be answered by “Oh ok, we’ll see.” and a couple of bricks to their windows the following night. Then send the smiling sales agent again tomorrow. Such is the beauty of a power (force) monopoly, and it is why it has been in such high demand through mankind’s history and all across the planet.
Z.
The idea is that people purchase insurance against theft/injury, otherwise you run into collective action problems. Insurance companies aren’t going to hire security companies that make things dangerous, since that would raise insurance premiums and open the market for more competitors.
I know monopolies are lame. We’re saying one could never be established in the way you’re talking about.
Moreover, what do you think the solution to this monopoly problem is? Is there any reason we can’t tackle a monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs?
Its also kind of funny that you think they could just throw bricks through my window. I mean if people weren’t expecting it they might be caught off guard, but there’d be no reason my apartment complex or neighborhood association couldn’t purchase their own security. The big bad PDA might be able to trump our security but it would by a pyrrhic victory.
Fine. What’s stopping you now?
Btw, when and where has a “tackled monopoly with a bunch of our own PDAs” not been replaced with another power (force) monopoly? This time will be different, once again?
The state is not a monopolist PDA. Unlike the PDA, it does not pay its own costs. People believe it is necessary and therefore reduce its overhead substantially. Conversely, whenever people don’t think states are legitimate, like in America’s stupid wars, even the US government has a difficult time maintaining presence. And they certainly don’t do it at a net profit…
Again with the empricism… look it would be fine if we were in the 1300’s and everyone was doing agriculture and barbarians could come in any second and trump the farming community. But the world is completely different now. We’ve only had 150 years of post industrial society, and really only maybe 30-40 where people can really talk to eachother at next to no cost. The state relies on ignorance and isolation of populations to conquer them… things are rapidly changing.
A monopolist PDA also doesn’t pay its own costs. Its “customers” do. Your inability to see that state = monopolist PDA = power (force) monopolist is but one example of my proposition that power (force) affects subjective preferences and valuations. You are attaching significance to trivial semantics.
They most certainly do it at a net profit for themselves. Just like every other power (force) monopoly known to mankind. Thus, the consistently high demand for it.
Have they ever stopped doing so?
There is a difference between an organization that has to go door to door forcing people at gunpoint to pay them, and an organization that enjoys superficially low operating costs because people think it is legitimate. Public perception is everything.
Yeah America is actually earning more than 1 trillion dollars/year in Iraq…
They might not stop changing for a while. But 1350 → 1450 is practically the same compared to 1900 → 2000. The differences really make a big difference 
I’m confused. Which witch is which?
I’m glad we agree.
Semantics games again. Your “America” above contains both the monopolists and their customers. Ask yourself who pays for the 1 trillion and you’ll discover how the power monopolist always ends up with a net profit.
What doesn’t seem to change is the young humans’ conviction that their time is the time of most change ever.
Modern governments enjoy perceived legitimacy. A monopolist PDA is like organized crime… it does not have perceived legitimacy.
Which is why a monopolist PDA, if it ever got established, would not find it advantageous to attack and extort people.
Yes the military industrial complex comes out ahead, but this is only because they can externalize costs onto citizens who believe the government is legitimate. The whole point of this example was that private PDAs can’t wage profitable wars.
Duh. Anything is profitable if you can convince someone else to shell out for it.
This is not a real argument. Don’t patronize me to save face. The differences in modern society really are significant, and I never said change would come in my lifetime. It might take several generations for Austrians and revisionist historians to make a large enough dent. I do not know what the critical mass will have to be, etc etc.
The uncertainty in estimating low probability events is astronomical.
Didn’t mean to sound patronizing. I’m not that old myself. I don’t care much for my face, either. I’ve enjoyed our exchanges and I thank you for the ‘thought food’ you’ve so generously provided me.
Z.
Okay. Sorry to have been so defensive… I’m sure you know some people on these forums are more interested in preserving their ego than having a real discussion. Glad we’re both interested in education and progress.
A cut in staffing of specialist “security forces” doesn’t equate to a weaking of security: people can defend themselves (and the former security people are still there, too, right?). And if “the area” in the above is smaller than the entire world (or solar system, or wherever there are people), help can be hired from outside, too.
It’s more than that…it’s also assuming the employees of the rogue security firm will go along with it. Why would they? I’d expect an internal revolt under the current statism (at least in free-ish countries); moreso among those brought up in a free society.