Minyin Bison

[Nakara]

Although you are obviously not serious dumb people will still believe what you said

[Nakara]

So stop posting ironically because people here won't get it

[Nakara]

Including me for 30 seconds

[purist]

*spits on Nakara*

[Hasbinbad]

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

Anytime anyone says anything promoting libertarianism, spit on them. Libertarians are by definition enemies of the state: they are against promoting American citizens’ general welfare and against policies that create a perfect union.

Ever read the preamble to the Constitution? There’s nothing about private property there and self-interest. Nothing at all about that. It’s a contract whose purpose is clearly spelled out, and it’s a purpose that’s the very opposite of the purpose driving the libertarian ideology. This country, by contract, was founded in order to strive for a “more Perfect Union”—that’s “union,” as in the pairing of the words “perfect” and “union”—not sovereign, not states, not local, not selfish, but “union.”

And that other purpose at the end of the Constitution’s contractual obligations: promote the “General Welfare.” That means “welfare.” Not “everyone for himself” but “General Welfare.” That’s what it is to be American: to strive to form the most perfect union with each other, and to promote everyone’s general betterment. That’s it.

The definition of an American patriot is anyone promoting the General Welfare of every single American, and anyone helping to form the most perfect Union. That’s “union”, repeat, “Union” you dumb fucks. Now, our problem is that there are a lot of people in this country who have dedicated their entire lives to subverting the stated purpose of this country.

We must be prepared to identify those who disrupt and sabotage our national purpose of creating this “more perfect union” identifying those who sabotage our national goal of “promoting the General Welfare”—and calling them by their name: traitors, and then spitting on them.

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

[Hasbinbad]

You people quit shitting up the thread.

Topic:

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

A government isnt a bad thing. A government that is localized and has consolidated all power on the other hand can be very dangerous. Under Friedman's model, no one PDA(private defense agency) would have any more power than the other. And if one agency did find themselves with more power, then people would stop patronizing it. Effectively putting them out of business. The free market would govern itself.

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

Ill agree with you that Friedman's model tends to relate to a small business driven market. But consider this, in the model, there are no state provided law enforcement. There would be a demand for a service(or "goods") that provided protection. Im sure I dont have to tell you that in any free market system(or black market), once there is a demand, supply will follow. If any one agency was guided purely by dividends rather than the service they provided, its customers would simply cease to use said agency, and it would decay. Conversely if an agency was driven to provide the best service it can, at the lowest possible cost, it would flourish.

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

So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

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

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

I await your response, BISON.

[M.Bison]

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

So if localized "PDAs" are constrained by some outside mechanism (people not patronizing them, w/e), what happens when my criminal organization outguns an individual force? Do they cooperate? Under what rules? Do innocent citizens get financially and perhaps literally burned as the trial and error sorts itself?

I can poke massive holes in your man's theory honestly, but I reject it outright. The only solution to organized crime is a scalable organized peacekeeping force. This is self-evident.

..but I thought you were against a state..?

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. If some criminal force is undermining PDAx, the public could view this as a direct threat to their protection.(IE. If that criminal organization can outgun and bully PDAx, what is stopping them from doing the same to PDAy and PDAz on down the line?) At which point PDAy, and PDAz, recognizing a threat to their customer base, come in and say ' well you outgun PDAx but do you outgun all 3 of us together?' The affect of all of this is ultimately a scalable organized peacekeeping force. On the surface this might look similar to what we have today, local police, state police, and federal law enforcement. The key difference being that today these state provided services have to provide for the entire public, and are all controlled by the same governing power. Under Friedman's model, individual PDAs would not have the burden of policing everyone, just the protection of its customers. Which is a much easier job in comparison, driving quality and response up, and through competition with numerous other PDA's, driving price down.


Anarcho-Capitalism(AC) is NOT anarchy. An anarchist detests the state, or any form of it. An AC recognizes the dangers of the consolidation of power(the state). While simultaneously recognizing the legitimacy of all the goods and services it provides. In a free market model, all the goods and services the state provides will instead by offered by private businesses. That way no one "state" controls all the healthcare/law enforcement/anything.

[Lazortag]

Bison, if market forces aren't enough to stop businesses in Somalia (where there's essentially no government) from selling expired food to people for greater profits, how do you expect the free market to improve the quality "private defense agencies"?

[Japan]

It's simple: unlike Somalia, we have white people.

[M.Bison]

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

So you think people should buy "police insurance" ?
What about your neighbors that can't afford it? "Fuck them!" ..or what?

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.