Minyin Bison

[Hasbinbad]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

u dumb.

u mad.

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

u mad.

[You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

[Nakara]

Well they still are

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Nakara [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Somalia was also in the midst of a full blown civil war.

Well they still are

This explains why they have no government (no monopoly on force etc.) but not why they have a free market that doesn't solve. The cause of why they have no functional government is neither here nor there. I'm just not sure how your post engages with mine but maybe I just misunderstand what you're getting at..?

[Hasbinbad]

Topic damnit.

Originally Posted by M.Bison [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

If there is patronage to be had, i can promise you that some business is going to want it. In the link i provided you it talks about how litigation would be handled in a third-party, pre-determined court. Ultimately any decision the court makes will involve some sort of monetary reimbursement from those found guilty. (for costs to the court/PDA/persons involved.) 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"(i use that term loosely) plan, in which they still receive all the benefits that the average customer gets, just at a lower rate. But in the event that any court rules in citizenZ's favor involving monetary reimbursement, PDAx usually only taking 15%, instead gets 60% in exchange for that "cut rate" payment.

Anarcho-Capitalism at its core is just a free market society. There wouldnt be war and mayhem as some people might want you to believe, simply because war and mayhem are not cost efficient. All aspects of society would be handled in a business like method of cost/benefit. Im not saying the models are perfect by any stretch of the imagination, just another way of thinking.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Ok, I figured you would say something like this, and can respect the idea, but we're not talking about a rash group of criminal gunslingers out of a 1960's western here. I mean organized crime. Playing the fringes. Taking what's yours in not only small snatch&dash jobs and protection threats, but in highly sophisticated technologically founded operations. Global crime man. We're in a different age now. A truly successful illegitimate organization needs to diversify their crime. You need the FBI against that shit man. The CIA and shit. Honestly I hate trusting them with that much power, but then I think of how bad the world would really be without Interpol. The russians are already paying the nigerians to phish your fucking account man, and dumpster diving hackers can get it if you're "too smart" to enter your information into that popup.. How bad would it be if there was no global effort to get rid of them? Doesn't that require a significant concentration of power in the form of resources, information, and secrecy? Coz lemme tell you dude.. I could, with a friend or four of like mind, set up a pretty decent operation to take what is yours if I didn't think the FBI would have my ass in a sling. ..and I'm really not very educated or even clever as far as being devious goes.

Seriously tho, without some form of "big police," crime would simply take over. ..and if you're going to have the CIA, don't you need checks and balances? Doesn't this lead us back to a large form of government?



#1 why do you bring up the state when you mention a consolidation of power? I know you like corporations, but let's be fucking honest here: the wealthy really have more power than any government in the world. The world is changed by corporations man, and wildly and without thought of the future at that. Just look at pharmacorps.. Even this huge government we have is BARELY enough to constrain them from killing thousands of people with untested drugs (even with what we have, drugs get released and kill people due to lack of government power to enforce longer term testing). If McDonalds wasn't constrained by government, don't you think they would advertise children in candy clouds eating 4 big macs at a sitting? Tobacco would be teaching kids how cool smoking looks and luring them with penis-faced ungulates. You name it, and I bet it would be elementary to show how corporations exert more influence than government.

#2 you skipped the question I asked about your neighbor. Let's say you are a customer of Hasbin Bad's Police Services. Local criminals have tried to rob you before, but 6 squad cars showed up bristling assault rifles and bullhorns before they knew what happened. Your neighbors however, residents of the area for 45 years, are known to be poor monetarily but also known to own many antiques. Are they not an obvious target? If they are not customers of a PDA due to monetary constraints, and they got robbed at gunpoint, they would have nobody to call? No recourse? That doesn't sound like any place I'd like to live.

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..

[Nakara]

Originally Posted by Lazortag [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

This explains why they have no government (no monopoly on force etc.) but not why they have a free market that doesn't solve. The cause of why they have no functional government is neither here nor there. I'm just not sure how your post engages with mine but maybe I just misunderstand what you're getting at..?

Uhh what? There is no free market in Somalia was the point.

[Hasbinbad]

@ Lazortag & Nakara:

http://www.project1999.org/forums/sh...ad.php?t=21540

[Nakara]

no thanks

[M.Bison]

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Man I'm talking dirt shit retired without benefits poor. Old people and shit. You expect them to pay for police? What if they can't even afford the cut rate?

Originally Posted by Hasbinbad [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

What about the younger guy who's mom goes to the hospital.. He makes good money but he is stuck paying his mom's hospital bill (hospitals are for-profit in your world right?). Now he can't even afford a cellphone much less police insurance..

Both valid and good points, I think what youre getting at here is 'How will this model provide services for those that are unable to contribute for these services?' The fact that youre voicing these concerns is proof-positive that there is a demand for such services, and just like any other free market model demand will provide supply.
I dont think Friedman's model addresses issues exactly like this, but if I had to theorize based on other aspects of AC it would go something like this.

FamilyA is poor, so poor in fact they can barely afford running water and electricity on a month to month basis. FamilyB is middle class, paying each months bills with relative ease, while still saving a small portion of money. FamilyB employs PDAx for all their personal protection needs. FamilyA does not have a PDA effectively putting a target on their head for any criminals in the area. PDAx recognizes that FamilyA does not employ a PDA and sees potential revenue from this. PDAx proposes to its customer base(including familyB) that they can pay an extra 5% on each months bill, and in exchange any 3rd party, predetermined court ruling in their favor will net them 95%(as opposed to the 75% the would receive if they do not pay the 5%) of the money allotted by the court. This 5% from the collective customer base would go towards funding a PDA policy for FamilyA. While FamilyA would get protection services, they would only be able to keep 25% of any money allotted in a court decision. This is a sound business venture for the PDA because the 5% added to every bill from every family that elects to outweighs the possible 25% they would get in the event of a favorable court ruling. While at the same time, PDA gets to advertise that they have that many more customers choosing their services, (IE better advertising.) Ultimately FamilyA gets protection, while at the same time FamilyB(or any other family electing the payment option) gets the added benefit of less money being shaved off the top of their court allotment by the PDA. All sides benefit.

Most of these numbers were off the top of my head, but the general scheme is there.
In any case or situation you can think of, Im certain there is a sound business decision that can benefit all parties involved. All parties may not benefit the same, but you can bet benefit will be proportional to funds invested.

[Lazortag]

Originally Posted by Nakara [You must be logged in to view images. Log in or Register.]

Uhh what? There is no free market in Somalia was the point.

I might make this my new signature.

Done.