|
|
#53
11-18-2010, 08:06 AM
|
|||
|
I. private arbitration/ alternative dispute resolution:
Private arbitration only works because of the threat of the hideously expensive and unpredictable government courts. In law school I spent time with a lawyer who defended insurance companies. I got to sit in on a few private arbitrations, and when the 3 of us (lawyer, me, insurance rep) were talking strategy there was no mention of "the Right thing to do", or what is "Fair." The only discussion was about how to minimize how much the insurance company would be forced to pay. Lawyer: "Based upon extensive statistical analysis, if we go to court we have a loss range of 0 to 50,000, with 30,000 being the predicted median. Win or lose my fees will increase by 10,000 plus or minus 1,000." Rep: "So if we can't get them near 20,000 we should go to trial, and anything under 20,000 is a profit compared to going to trial." Lawyer: "Yep. Initial offer of 10,000 sound good?" And the opposing lawyer does the same calculations (would get 30,000 but lawyer gets paid 10,000), and eventually something near 20,000 is agreed upon. Not because either one thinks the result is fair, but because they know it is probably better and definitely more predictable than what they’d get in a government court (Rep wants to pay 0 to get his yearly bonus; injured person wants the 30,000 he should have gotten w/o any need for legal recourse if he is fair, 1342 billion if he is not fair which he probably isn’t.) Without that threat of a government court option, there is no incentive for defendants to make a deal. It should be noted that the final deal in arbitration is enforced by the government so even this isn't a wholly privatized transaction. So it is only the greater threat of government arbitrariness and inefficiency that pushes defendants to go to the lesser threat of arbitration, and it is only government force that forces both sides to follow through with arbitration deals which they feel are unfair (which is both sides, in almost all arbitrations.) II. private law enforcement M. Bison: “If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it… Let's imagine that citizen z cannot afford to employ a PDAx. PDAx recognizing that citizenZ cannot afford their services but still wanting their business would offer them some sort of "cut rate".” This is why there is 100% health insurance and fire fighting coverage all over the world, right? And why everyone all over has enough food, cuz as long as someone wants something, there is going to be someone who will provide that for any price no matter how low. Corporations have no problem leaving potential customers behind if they are not profitable. About a year or two ago AT&T let go several thousand of the worst complainers who were tying up their customer service lines because it was more profitable to do so than keep them as customers. Are you in middle school? Or were you homeschooled by people who never made it past middle school? You try to argue for an economic theory to be foisted upon the world, yet you have an almost complete lack of knowledge of both economics and the world. M. Bison: "The short answer being, laws and law enforcement is an economic good. In the absence of the state, private law enforcement companies would fill the void." You need to read some history, and get more experience with people who want what you have and are not strictly constrained by enforced rules from trying to get it from you. This isn't secret history, or even that rare. It is the history that informed our Founders when they created our country, and which you should have been exposed to in school (or exposed to by your under-educated parents if my homeschool theory above is correct). George Washington: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." Tolstoy: "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us." Max Weber's definition of government: "The entity with a monopoly on the use of violence." By definition, whoever holds the power of violence _IS_ the government, no matter if you call them private contractors or fuzzy bunnies. You assume that people will step up to provide a public 'good' like law enforcement in order to gain a personal 'good', a profit. And they would. And the next thing they would do is realize that as the monopoly holder on the use of violence, there is no one to stop them from further increasing their personal 'good,’ but now at the expense of the public ‘good.’ They would quickly go from being employees to being your masters. And since they are the only ones with significant ability to do violence, no one can tell them ‘no.’ One of the major factors leading to the Fall of the Roman Empire was privatizing its military. The mercenaries had no loyalty to Rome, only to cash. The more the Empire relied on mercenaries, the more the mercenaries knew they could demand in pay, leading to doubling of pay in short periods of time. Mercenary generals held auctions for who they’d support to be the next Emperor, and eventually decided to skip the pretense and just declared themselves to be Emperor. The people that would provide security in A-C would have all the same motivations as the barbarian mercenaries hired to protect Rome from other barbarians. They would have the same motivations as current corporations that bribe government officials to get unfair advantages at the expense of the tax payer. Making PDAs into the de facto government by giving them a monopoly on violence would cut out the middle man of government, allowing PDAs to directly extort cash from their captive populace with no restraints, much like the barbarian generals who declared themselves Emperor. III. Expanding into national governments As shown above, PDAs would be the de facto rulers of their supposed employers. And there would be nothing to stop them from expanding and becoming the next national government, one that has its origins in profit motive and extortion, rather than freedom through checks and balances like our current government. You claim that people would prevent this by choosing to not patronize the more powerful PDAs. But this ignores both market forces and force itself. Force: You assume PDAs would _LET_ them go. What about lock-in contracts like cell phones? What about the raw exercise of power to keep them as “customers” (subjects). It is ludicrous to talk about a “free” market preventing this when 1 armed group can unilaterally determine what “free” means. Perhaps you think they could hire another PDA to protect them from other PDAs. But this merely replaces 1 PDA with another, and unless they happen to be “The Magnificent 7” or “The 7 Samurai” that would change nothing except increase the level of violence. Market: Furthermore, there must be a reason 1 PDA has become more powerful than its competitors; likely they offer better prices or service. People choosing not to patronize them would be going against their own interests by patronizing a PDA with an inferior and/or more expensive product. PDAs would of course strive to be as competitive as possible; unfortunately for your dreamlike theory the ultimate in competition is to eliminate your competition and establish a monopoly that doesn’t have to waste resources on competing. It is competitive to get bigger, especially when talking of physical force. In Europe there have been strong cultural reasons leading to the breaking up of power blocs, such as partible inheritance and Great Britains’ explicit policy of breaking up Continental powers, yet large agglomerations of power still continued to form. Europe has been nearly consolidated several times (Rome, Charlemagne, Napolean, Hapsburgs, Nazis, EU). Why would the factors which push nations to consolidate through force and deal-making even with countervailing factors, and which push current corporations towards mergers and buy outs even when constrained by regulation, be any different under an A-C regime which lacks even those regulations and countervailing factors? M. Bison: “If at any point in time a criminal agency 'outguns' a individual PDA, that would definitely become a threat to all other PDAs. At which time the 'outgunned' PDA would find itself backed by numerous other PDAs.” I think you should take this to one of the many threads devoted to recreational drug use, because you’d have to be on some pretty heavy shit to believe all the non-sense you are spewing. It would not be a threat to other PDAs, it would be an opportunity. Wait for that PDA to be destroyed/ fired, then make an offer to take on that community as a client. Or better yet, make a deal with the criminal org to leave and target other competitors’ communities, and cutting them in on the profits. Any PDA that didn’t have an ‘evil twin’ to fuck with their competition would be less competitive than those that did. As usual, your assumptions that market forces alone will lead to a good situation unconsciously assumes moral, unselfish behavior of the participants. Which negates your whole argument that market forces are enough. Why assume such a firm distinction between PDAs and criminal organizations? Other than selfless morality, why would a PDA not squeeze all possible profits from a community like a criminal organization when they are the only local group with the power to enforce a definition of what is criminal? Why would a criminal organization, once it pushed out or subverted the current PDA, not set itself up for long-term profits by declaring itself to be the next PDA? Which leads to... IV. War M. Bison: “There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient.” Are you fucking kidding me? Read history you ignoramus. War is one of the most profitable of enterprises when you win. Or when you lose against the USA. Our wars against the Indians gave us the greatest country in the world. The Spanish-American war got us some nice beachfront property. We made out like Dillinger in the Mexican-American war. Soviets were the big winners in WWII, they got Eastern Europe. If Nazi Germany had been smart enough to negotiate a peace before D-Day they would have come out even better: “reparations” payments from Vichy France, lots of land with lots of people and factories, a few billion Swiss francs from Jewish artwork and gold that looks suspiciously like teeth. You honestly don’t think there would be a bunch of hedge fund investors with a high risk-high gain “war portfolio” for particularly aggressive PDAs? Hell, you don’t even understand modern capitalism, much less hypothetical anarcho-capitalism. Remember the stock of Raytheon spiking every time CNN showed a Patriot missile being fired in Gulf War 1? V. Summary of A-C critique Most if not all of the arguments you make in support of A-C make some assumptions that I do not think you are aware of. You claim that A-C will work because of market forces, which is another way of saying people will act in their best interest and that that is synonymous with the best interest of society. But then you make arguments that implicitly rely on people acting morally, against their own best interests. Consumers will refuse to patronize the most efficient PDA. PDA’s won’t expand or buy out other PDAs when it is in their best interests to achieve economies of scale and to maximize physical force to out-compete/ destroy the opposition. You assume people will arbitrate their problems fairly, without trying to maximize their best interests at the expense of the opponent. You assume PDAs won’t abuse their power, that they will choose against their best interests to remain faithful employees rather than domineering overlords with no power to check them. If one PDA is in trouble with a powerful criminal syndicate its competitors will inexplicably leap to their defense. I’d like to lecture a bit about some glaring flaws in your theories of criminal justice, but I’m running out of steam and it is peripheral to the real issues. Sorry for depriving you of more Truth and Total Ultimate Knowledge. Perhaps some other time. Fuck, I hope I don’t go to Hell for agreeing with Hasbinbad. SORRY GOD!! | ||
|
|
|||
|
#54
11-18-2010, 08:08 AM
|
|||||
|
Quote:
Quote:
They weren’t peaceful. They stole it from its previous owners too. The Indians the Pilgrims met had been conquering nearby tribes for a few generations, controlling 30 at the time the Pilgrims arrived. It is thought that the reason they gave the Pilgrims land is that Chief Powhatan thought they’d make good allies in keeping some of his conquered subjects in line. | ||||
|
|
|||||
|
#57
11-18-2010, 09:17 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
__________________
Noah, the Loincloth Hero
Ogre High Jump Champion 2019 | |||
|
|
||||
|
#58
11-18-2010, 11:09 AM
|
|||
|
Omg. Haven't you seen any 80's movie where the government has too much control in private police? Nobody gets help when they need it and everybody dies. Duuuuuuh.
| ||
|
|
|||
|
#59
11-18-2010, 11:59 AM
|
||||
|
Quote:
Yes indeed, like working the year's first 150 days for someone else and the residual 100 for your own sake. (assuming 250 working days in a year with a 60% effective tax rate) Enjoy Sweden | |||
|
|
||||
|
#60
11-18-2010, 01:04 PM
|
|||
|
So, uh, what happens when these "private security companies" (aka mafias) realize that they would make more money by cooperating and extorting their clients (and the entire nation)? In a developed nation, anarcho-capitalism would inevitably lead to military oligarchy and/or an oppressive, exploitative authoritarian government.
A central government will always exist in an ordered society. It's inescapable, precisely due to the driving motivations of capitalism. What's the number one rule of capitalism? Chase the greatest path of profit. Unfortunately for free market enthusiasts, the greatest path of profit is NOT a free market. For the individual corporation, the greatest profit is realized in monopolistic settings, with a closed market. So naturally, as soon as a corporation has the capability of creating a monopoly, it will. And in the case of whatever military corporation -- or amalgamation of military corporations -- controls the greatest fighting force and the most advanced weaponry, monopoly can and would spread over every element of the economy, as the threat of destruction would force cooperation. This kind of theoretical free market system might have been able to work back in the 1700s, when any guy with a gun was the rough equivalent of a trained soldier. Even then, the majority would have ended up tyrannizing the minority, as numbers would have equated to power. | ||
|
|
|||
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
