What is Your Political Philosophy?

[crunker]

Most people that are interested in firearms or other weapons seem to be on the right side of politics, although there are a few notable pro-gun lefties out there.

As far as me goes, I used to be a libertarian, but these days I'm pretty much an anarcho-capitalist. I got about a 91% anarchist on the C4SS philosophy quiz (which is really a well-rounded and worthwhile thing to take, IMO), so I'm not the kind of lolnarchist that simply wants rigid socialism or conformity.

What about you? Republican, Democrat, or some fringe-weirdo like me?

[thank mr skeltal]

I believe in personal liberties and think a government shouldn't prevent you from doing anything as long as it does not infringe on the rights of others. I guess that makes me a fringe-weirdo like you.

[SaGeN]

I couldn't agree more with Rick. I am a complete supporter of individual sovereignty. As long as it does not harm someone else or violate their rights, I don't see a problem with it. I am rather socially liberal, but fiscally conservative. However, I try and look at the issues, and think logically and critically, then make my decision. I certainly don't vote a straight Republican or Democrat ticket, I make up my own mind and vote accordingly.

I think that the best way to make an informed decision is to educate yourself as best as possible on both sides and make the best judgment that you can on your own. If you are easily influenced and have no capability of standing your ground then politics just aren't for you.

To fringe-weirdos, here here!

[Anonymous D]

fuck da police

[smith357]

The Few. The Proud. The Marines.

[crunker]

We anarcho-capitalists don't believe that there should be no police, we just believe that there shouldn't be a single law enforcement hierarchy for a given geographical region.

[Atmosfear]

We anarcho-capitalists don't believe that there should be no police, we just believe that there shouldn't be a single law enforcement hierarchy for a given geographical region.

If you create more than one "law enforcement hierarchy for a given geographical region" then you're expanding the government's role in direct violation of the "anarcho-" part of anarcho-capitalist.

The justice system is, by definition, reactive. If your fuckin' yee-haw, shoot-from-the-hip "justice" system were in effect, with no independent audit function, it would create a horribly powerful incentive to run around lawlessly. We'd be plunged into the wild west, with even better weapons.

The strength of the modern justice system is exactly the reason our economy was able to diversify and expand--a society cannot be productive if it cannot delegate a specialized group to maintain the function of justice. A society cannot be productive if it cannot rely on the sanctity of its contracts, or if market participants cannot trust in the delivery of goods or payments. In fact, the one and only statistically significant indicator of advanced economic growth throughout the entire history of man has been the relative strength of a society's justice system. Essentially, the less time and resources you need to spend physically protecting yourself and your assets, the more time and resources you have available to dedicate to commerce. When a society has more time and resources available for commerce than its peers, it is obviously more capable of growth.

But yeah, keep dreaming of your fortified castle filled with guns where any asshole off the street can end it all for you with little threat of repercussion. That seems healthy.

[sponge]

there is an direct relationship between how uncommon your political views are and douchiness

that is what I think of when I read "anarcho-capitalist"

[sponge]

I on the other hand am a pretty much pure leftist who likes to shoot guns on occasion so basically I am just like every other non-pussy leftest in oklahoma

[sponge]

non-pussy, also hipster

[coqauvin]

sponge are you telling me you're a gun-toting hipster oklahomo?

[sponge]

sponge are you telling me you're a gun-toting hipster oklahomo?

oh no that came off wrong I meant non-pussy and non-hipster in my defense I was really hung over this morning

[Atmosfear]

sponge why are you a leftist though

[crunker]

If you create more than one "law enforcement hierarchy for a given geographical region" then you're expanding the government's role in direct violation of the "anarcho-" part of anarcho-capitalist.

The justice system is, by definition, reactive. If your fuckin' yee-haw, shoot-from-the-hip "justice" system were in effect, with no independent audit function, it would create a horribly powerful incentive to run around lawlessly. We'd be plunged into the wild west, with even better weapons.

The strength of the modern justice system is exactly the reason our economy was able to diversify and expand--a society cannot be productive if it cannot delegate a specialized group to maintain the function of justice. A society cannot be productive if it cannot rely on the sanctity of its contracts, or if market participants cannot trust in the delivery of goods or payments. In fact, the one and only statistically significant indicator of advanced economic growth throughout the entire history of man has been the relative strength of a society's justice system. Essentially, the less time and resources you need to spend physically protecting yourself and your assets, the more time and resources you have available to dedicate to commerce. When a society has more time and resources available for commerce than its peers, it is obviously more capable of growth.

But yeah, keep dreaming of your fortified castle filled with guns where any asshole off the street can end it all for you with little threat of repercussion. That seems healthy.

I neither said nor implied that any or all given law enforcement groups operating in a given area would be "official" or state operated, or authorized by any powers apart from their subscribers. There's nothing statist about having a free market for defensive and even retributive force.

I imagine in a society that had several different law enforcement groups operating at the same time, in the same area, there would also be watchdogs of all sorts. Furthermore, at the end of the day, if a sufficient number of individuals are dissatisfied with anything about the law enforcement agency that they subscribe to, they could end it in a minute by ending their subscriptions and switching to other, better law enforcement groups. From where does the incentive to run around lawlessly come?

You're quite correct insofar that only a relatively small fraction of the population can devote serious time and effort to the maintenance of a justice system. I believe that in an anarcho-capitalist system--a system without a state monopoly on justice--most people would subscribe to law enforcement agencies, militias, armies, and bodyguards as necessary. Most people would not take defend themselves without a larger group to rely on, much less seek justice without a larger group to rely on.

I don't own any guns, and I don't believe that I'll ever amass anything similar to an arsenal, much less a "fortified castle" filled with arms. I don't particularly want to, either. In an anarcho-capitalist society, I would simply look around for the best law enforcement agency for me in the same manner that one looks for home owner's insurance, or life insurance, or what have you. Rather than paying taxes in order to fund a monopolistic law enforcement group, I'd prefer to have a choice in who I rely on for defense without moving to some other geographical location.

In the world as it stands, if one does not like the state law enforcement system one lives under, one can move to another state (or hire bodyguards for extra fees under special circumstances). The anarcho-capitalist view is simply that one should not have to move to another part of the globe--one should simply cease to purchase a law enforcement group's services and switch to another group. We believe, like mainstream libertarians, that no one has a right to another person's wealth in order to purchase a given good--except we, unlike mainstream libertarians, do not make an exception for justice or defense.

Here is a pretty good explanation of my viewpoints: http://jim.com/anarchy/

[coqauvin]

man with the shitstorm involving healthcare insurance, i can't imagine how incredibly good security insurance would be

[coqauvin]

as an added cost

[coqauvin]

security for the rich! fuck the <middle-class in yet another orifice!

[crunker]

Cops are security insurance. At present, however, one police group has an almost complete monopoly on enforcement of the law.

[Atmosfear]

Are you fucking stupid? They don't have a complete monopoly there is a judicial, legislative, and executive branch closely defining their rights, policies, and procedures, protecting the individual citizen from the very security hegemony you claim exists.

Your "system" is just a capital-infused might-makes-right policy, where the rich pay profiteers to ensure their brand of "justice" and the poor are systemically oppressed. In your model, where the checks and balances are intentionally absent, you create incentive not only for people to simply steal rather than produce, but a method for financing the fucking thing.

[crunker]

The existence of checks and balances does not make police forces less monopolistic. The fact is that if you don't like the police forces operating where you live, you can move--and that's about it. You can't switch to another police agency at will, which is what anarcho-capitalists want.

Checks and balances are not at all absent in an anarcho-capitalist system. As I already pointed out, people who don't like the policing agency they subscribe to can end their subscriptions in a moment's notice. I'm not really seeing how rich people would oppress poor people in different manners that they currently do. Courts and law enforcement agencies have a strong stake in being fair, otherwise no one will buy their services. Why wouldn't there be checks and balances on policing agencies? People clearly have an interest in obtaining efficient, fair, and non-aggressive services (a police agency that goes around getting involved in fights it doesn't have to would see a spike in its liabilities without any corresponding spike in profits)--so is it really so hard to believe that they'd form consumer reporting and watchdog agencies for police forces? As it is, right now, you can act as a police watchdog, and while you might get videos on YouTube and stuff, you can't really force the police to change their policies. It's enough of a nightmare to try to get a cop fired--whereas in an an-cap system, all you have to do is to convince other folks to walk out on that agency and seek defense elsewhere.

Let's suppose that one rich person tries to oppress poor people living around him, by paying police forces to go after drug users, just for example. Will, firstly, he'd be blowing tons of money doing so, because no police agency would think about doing something like that, simply because it would be too dangerous. Drug users would defend themselves on their own, or collectively, with violence, and the risks of using force against drug use would rise. I think it's pretty silly to believe that all of the rich people in the world are going to gang up on all of the poor people in the world. Rich people don't necessarily get along with one another, and they're certainly competing with one another half the time.

From where does the incentive to steal instead of produce come? People clearly have an incentive to not steal, as they might get caught, or injured in the process. Career robbers would have an extremely difficult time purchasing legal much less actual defensive services, as everyone would be shooting at them or attempting to seek legal vengeance on them. Do most people in the US today steal rather than produce? Certainly not, but we fund a massive global empire, don't we?

[coqauvin]

The existence of checks and balances does not make police forces less monopolistic. The fact is that if you don't like the police forces operating where you live, you can move--and that's about it. You can't switch to another police agency at will, which is what anarcho-capitalists want.

do you really think that there's a difference in a monopoly of one provider vs. a few number of indistinguishable providers? Look at the telecom industry in Canada.

Checks and balances are not at all absent in an anarcho-capitalist system. As I already pointed out, people who don't like the policing agency they subscribe to can end their subscriptions in a moment's notice. I'm not really seeing how rich people would oppress poor people in different manners that they currently do. Courts and law enforcement agencies have a strong stake in being fair, otherwise no one will buy their services.

No they don't, they have a strong stake in ensuring continued profits. You're assuming that this insurance is like the service industry (which itself doesn't inherently rely on being the best at service, but that is where a fair proportion of earned money comes from). It's not. Thi will set up a system of patronage, where the richest around can afford to fund the specific groups thy want, capable of leaning on them at will. The money involved is not as cost-prohibitive for services rendered as you're claiming it is. As long as a specific company is making money, they can do whatever they want, including undercutting opposition and creating their own monopoly in a smaller area. It's like robber barons all over again.

At this point, I should mention that quantity of customers are not as much of a balance as quality of customers/patrons. Look at the current insurance systems in place, identify their problems then apply them to security. In Ontario, for example, car insurance is the highest in the country and also mandatory. The difference between insurance providers has nothing to do with the quality of the product they offer so much as the rate at which they provide it. The actual consumer has no power over these unwieldly behemoths, except saving hundreds of dollars switching between them. If anyone who is experienced with the health insurance industry in America wants to throw something in here (as the difference between a provincially/state mandated insurance vs. elective insurance), I know this idea will look even worse.

Why wouldn't there be checks and balances on policing agencies? People clearly have an interest in obtaining efficient, fair, and non-aggressive services (a police agency that goes around getting involved in fights it doesn't have to would see a spike in its liabilities without any corresponding spike in profits)--so is it really so hard to believe that they'd form consumer reporting and watchdog agencies for police forces?

To be conspiracy theorist about this, if a wealthy enuogh group of people, or a local company (who would have even more of a stake in security and more money to throw around than individual consumers such as yourself), want to buy out the watchdog agency, it wouldn't be impossible. There's enough difficulties in regulating businesses that are currently operating - look at the track record of the FDA, as an example. Citing idealism over profiteering as the driving force behind any business (which is what you'd turn policing into) is fucking absurd. What happens, then, when the few, wealthy organizations with huge monetary backing start making rules that the other groups cannot enforce?

As it is, right now, you can act as a police watchdog, and while you might get videos on YouTube and stuff, you can't really force the police to change their policies. It's enough of a nightmare to try to get a cop fired--whereas in an an-cap system, all you have to do is to convince other folks to walk out on that agency and seek defense elsewhere.

What policies are you talking about that need to be changed? Most of the problems that stem from this are people who are going against current regulations and setting up their own system of law under the name of policing. The youtube videos that get posted aren't against the institution, they're against specfic wrongdoers who operate against the policies involved, but under the name of the institution. To top it off, there is even less incentive in a supposed free-market policing to be 'fair' and 'just' (let's not forget, for example, what people are trying to pull in Wisconsin - redefining what is 'public interest') than there is in the current sustem. Switching systems won't work because there's only going to be the few who are deep in the pockets of their benefactors keeping charge, not the wealth of mom-and-pop policing systems that you can switch between at will

Let's suppose that one rich person tries to oppress poor people living around him, by paying police forces to go after drug users, just for example.

this is a stupid example. 1) it would not be a single rich person, it would be an organization of people with money. Second, they wouldn't target people like drug dealers, they would target people who threaten the power they've already established and they would go after budding competition before it can threaten the power they can already establish. What fucking motivation would one rich person have to go against drug dealers?

Will, firstly, he'd be blowing tons of money doing so, because no police agency would think about doing something like that, simply because it would be too dangerous.

which is why security agencies like blackwater have nobody doing work for them.

Drug users would defend themselves on their own, or collectively, with violence, and the risks of using force against drug use would rise.

the question is one that would pit the effective value of the assets of one group against the other one. A cartel or corporation will have a broader range of people to hire and far more money to hire them than a smaller group of drug dealers in an isolated area, which is what you're making this example sound like.

I think it's pretty silly to believe that all of the rich people in the world are going to gang up on all of the poor people in the world.

did you completely ignore history in school or what?

Rich people don't necessarily get along with one another, and they're certainly competing with one another half the time.

From where does the incentive to steal instead of produce come?

It's the incentive to acquire as much as possible for as little effort/cost as possible. Stealing is almost always has the best cost-benefit ratio, so it becomes a risk-reward question instead. If there's little risk of them being caught (especially because they own one or more companies in a given area), what's to stop them?

People clearly have an incentive to not steal, as they might get caught, or injured in the process.

no. You're applying your own morals and values to a broad spectrum of people who clearly do not have the same, and so view the whole risk/reward in a completely different light. It doesn't matter so much what the actual risk/reward of a scenario is so much as what groups of people think it is.

Career robbers would have an extremely difficult time purchasing legal mch less actual defensive services, as everyone would be shooting at them or attempting to seek legal vengeance on them.

you're talking about making massive institutional changes to see a small effect on a group of people that have little real influence on the world. We're not talking about small-time robbers and the occasional gang, we're talking about institutional corruption at a national level that would provide a significantly worse service than the current standard already in place. you really need to consider implications and consequences beyond your own back yard when you're talking about making changes like this.

Do most people in the US today steal rather than produce? Certainly not, but we fund a massive global empire, don't we?

Do most people need to steal in order to cause problems? Or just the ones who have all the money, a la Behr-Stearns, Lehman Brothers etc.?

[crunker]

do you really think that there's a difference in a monopoly of one provider vs. a few number of indistinguishable providers? Look at the telecom industry in Canada.

There's certainly a difference. If a number of a different providers become essentially indistinguishable from one another, it is because they're all making their subscribers happy. For example, are there differences between Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, PNC, and Capital One? Sort of, but not really--but that's because they're all doing a good job. If Bank of America, for example, becomes an entity that's no longer as good as its competitors, it will go out of business.

No they don't, they have a strong stake in ensuring continued profits. You're assuming that this insurance is like the service industry (which itself doesn't inherently rely on being the best at service, but that is where a fair proportion of earned money comes from). It's not. Thi will set up a system of patronage, where the richest around can afford to fund the specific groups thy want, capable of leaning on them at will. The money involved is not as cost-prohibitive for services rendered as you're claiming it is. As long as a specific company is making money, they can do whatever they want, including undercutting opposition and creating their own monopoly in a smaller area. It's like robber barons all over again.

Defense organizations pursue profit by being fair, because if they are unfair, no one will buy from them. So do courts--the more biased, unethical, or unwise a given court becomes, the less respect it gets. In that manner, it will also receive less business.

Are you really trying to suggest that there's not a great deal of corporatism (or soft fascism as some call it) in most nations today? At least in a system without coerced monopoly, people have a chance to change services. The richest around already can afford to lean on regulatory agencies, and yes, law enforcement and justice agencies as well.

At this point, I should mention that quantity of customers are not as much of a balance as quality of customers/patrons. Look at the current insurance systems in place, identify their problems then apply them to security. In Ontario, for example, car insurance is the highest in the country and also mandatory. The difference between insurance providers has nothing to do with the quality of the product they offer so much as the rate at which they provide it. The actual consumer has no power over these unwieldly behemoths, except saving hundreds of dollars switching between them. If anyone who is experienced with the health insurance industry in America wants to throw something in here (as the difference between a provincially/state mandated insurance vs. elective insurance), I know this idea will look even worse.

I don't think we can compare a theoretical free market defense industry with current insurance industries in the US and Canada. Both are heavily regulated by the state, and there are mandates on the individual to purchase insurance as well.

I don't think I ever implied that defensive services would cost the same, or even be cheap the world over--they wouldn't be. For example, I imagine I'd have to pay a lot more to get someone to protect me if I do dangerous things, or go around with dangerous people. I also imagine that I'd have to pay more for defensive services if I decide to live in a dangerous part of the world.

Consumers have plenty of power over insurance agencies. Insurance agencies gain and lose money as well as customers all the time. They exist only because they please their customers. You have plenty of power over an insurance agency, because you can threaten or actually switch services, thereby removing an asset from them.

To be conspiracy theorist about this, if a wealthy enuogh group of people, or a local company (who would have even more of a stake in security and more money to throw around than individual consumers such as yourself), want to buy out the watchdog agency, it wouldn't be impossible. There's enough difficulties in regulating businesses that are currently operating - look at the track record of the FDA, as an example. Citing idealism over profiteering as the driving force behind any business (which is what you'd turn policing into) is fucking absurd. What happens, then, when the few, wealthy organizations with huge monetary backing start making rules that the other groups cannot enforce?

A watchdog agency that loses respect loses profit. It's certainly possible, and even likely that a given group will attempt to buy out those keeping track of them. Profit motive, however, will entice watchdog agencies to be honest. Dishonest agencies will drive their subscribers away, whereas in the current system, we can't really force the FDA into bankruptcy.

I'm not sure I understand your final question. If a few wealthy organizations attempt to make rules that other groups won't enforce, then they have to find a way to work around the lack of a given rule set or else go out of business.

What policies are you talking about that need to be changed? Most of the problems that stem from this are people who are going against current regulations and setting up their own system of law under the name of policing. The youtube videos that get posted aren't against the institution, they're against specfic wrongdoers who operate against the policies involved, but under the name of the institution. To top it off, there is even less incentive in a supposed free-market policing to be 'fair' and 'just' (let's not forget, for example, what people are trying to pull in Wisconsin - redefining what is 'public interest') than there is in the current sustem. Switching systems won't work because there's only going to be the few who are deep in the pockets of their benefactors keeping charge, not the wealth of mom-and-pop policing systems that you can switch between at will

In a free market defense system, defense agencies will have a very strong motive to boot out bad employees. Bad employee = bad business decision. Whereas in a monopolistic law enforcement system, there's a motive to retain aggressive, violent employees, because it increases the perceived power of the police and because it also desensitizes the populace to the idea of being increasingly policed, thereby solidifying the monopoly.

There's a very strong motive for a given police agent in an an-cap system to be fair. Being unfair increases the chances of him being fired (or shot).

It might well be that just a few policing agencies end up surviving in a free market system, but that's alright if they're making their customers happy. The moment they cease to make their customers happy, their customers will switch, and if there's cronyism going on, someone will start some new defense agency. Whereas the state owns you, and no matter how pissed off you get at the actions of the military or police, they can fund themselves and force you to foot the bill.

this is a stupid example. 1) it would not be a single rich person, it would be an organization of people with money. Second, they wouldn't target people like drug dealers, they would target people who threaten the power they've already established and they would go after budding competition before it can threaten the power they can already establish. What fucking motivation would one rich person have to go against drug dealers?

Replace person with organization, then, and my example stands. Wealthy groups apparently do have a motive to go after drug dealers--look at the status of the world today. The federal government is the wealthiest group in the US by far, and if at some point it lost its economic clout it could simply tax every individual and business in the country to regain lost power. Furthermore, the federal government also leans heavily on other governments to ban drugs as well.

Let's assume that a given agricultural company manages to set itself up at the top and begins to--let's be extreme here--hire assassins to go after competitors. Well, first off, they'd have to pay through the nose to do so, they'd have to take serious risks by trusting such unsavory individuals, and they'd have to avoid detection or face a great deal of violence on the part of their intended targets, and any pro-competition bystanders, so to speak. I don't see how this near-conspiratorial scenario is precluded by the existence of a state, though--could you explain that? At least in an an-cap system, those that want to wage war have to bear the costs, instead of taxing other people to do so.

which is why security agencies like blackwater have nobody doing work for them.

Despite the stigma, "Blackwater" contracts out bodyguard services, and not much else. I don't even see what you're trying to say here. Why on Earth would a military organization in an an-cap system go after drug dealers (or competing farmers, or what have you)? Only if it is both paid handsomely, and it doesn't have an ethical sense. This means that quickly, a military organization enforcing a monopoly or oligopoly would de facto or actually become a fully-owned subsidiary of the monopolistic or oligopolistic entities. They'd have very, very risky positions, and again, I don't see how this doomsday scenario is precluded by the existence of the state. If the state were eliminate enforcers of monopoly, it would doubtlessly enjoy great popular support. I don't see why the state is necessary to facilitate a war of this nature. Let willing soldiers or police find causes and leaders as they see fit.

the question is one that would pit the effective value of the assets of one group against the other one. A cartel or corporation will have a broader range of people to hire and far more money to hire them than a smaller group of drug dealers in an isolated area, which is what you're making this example sound like.

I am certain some collectives would end up selling crack, heroine, and all sorts of other things if the state didn't make drugs illegal. Collectives seeking to use violence to end the sale of drugs would have to justify the war to their shareholders and employees, which makes me think that they'd have a very, very very uphill battle to fight before even starting a war!

It's the incentive to acquire as much as possible for as little effort/cost as possible. Stealing is almost always has the best cost-benefit ratio, so it becomes a risk-reward question instead. If there's little risk of them being caught (especially because they own one or more companies in a given area), what's to stop them?

If there's little risk of being caught, there's only morality that prevents an individual or collective from stealing.

This is true in a monopolistic law enforcement system as well...

no. You're applying your own morals and values to a broad spectrum of people who clearly do not have the same, and so view the whole risk/reward in a completely different light. It doesn't matter so much what the actual risk/reward of a scenario is so much as what groups of people think it is.

I suppose if anarcho-capitalists successfully end the state and a free market defense industry is created rather than a monopolistic one, there are going to be a few people who think that no government means that they can steal without worry. They'll quickly end up punished, either by their victims, or the defense/justice systems representing their victims.

It's possible that a few communities dedicated to stealing might pop up, but they'd have to keep to themselves or risk all-out invasion by several other communities. Peaceful communities and individuals have a clear stake in eliminating theft, even with violence.

you're talking about making massive institutional changes to see a small effect on a group of people that have little real influence on the world. We're not talking about small-time robbers and the occasional gang, we're talking about institutional corruption at a national level that would provide a significantly worse service than the current standard already in place. you really need to consider implications and consequences beyond your own back yard when you're talking about making changes like this.

First off, there would be no "national level" by definition, as the nation itself would cease to exist. Your point stands, however, so I'll address it.

Institutional corruption and poor service, even when it comes to the most important of things, already exist in the US. In an anarcho-capitalist system, no one would be locked into a given institution or be forced to fund it or suffer its poor services.

If you're talking about top-down theft--that is, a monolithic entity sending men with guns to take money from individuals and poorer businesses--well, then your doomsday scenario is already realized. In fact, all of your doomsday scenarios are already realized or not precluded by the existence of a state!

Do most people need to steal in order to cause problems? Or just the ones who have all the money, a la Behr-Stearns, Lehman Brothers etc.?

Large entities that steal money are propped up by the state. An-cap system = no state.

[Think]

21% Economic Leftist (Economic Leftist / Economic Rightist)
13% Statist (Anarchist / Statist)
36% Anti-Militarist (Anti-Militarist / Militarist)
11% Socio-Cultural Conservative (Socio-Cultural Liberal / Socio-Cultural Conservative)
17% Civil Libertarian (Civil Libertarian / Civil Authoritarian)

Big surprise there

[coqauvin]

There's certainly a difference. If a number of a different providers become essentially indistinguishable from one another, it is because they're all making their subscribers happy. For example, are there differences between Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Citibank, PNC, and Capital One? Sort of, but not really--but that's because they're all doing a good job. If Bank of America, for example, becomes an entity that's no longer as good as its competitors, it will go out of business.

There's no causal link between a company still running and whether or not the subscribers are happy. You're trying to tie in customer satisfaction, but the bottom line is still profit. In Ontario, the telecom industry is basically a choice between Roger's, Bell and Telus. There is no real discernable difference in product provided (they all do the same thing), and not a significant difference in pricing between each company. These telecom giants, few in number, have an effective monopoly and are currently pulling some weight lobbying for questionable legistlature to continue their stranglehold. The question with them, providing a necessary service, is not whether or not their customers are happy - it's whether or not they're pulling in enough cash to continue to do what they're doing. My point is that, given a similar circumstance with this retarded security insurance, the same sort of thing will happen. There's no incentive to provide a good product vs. maintaining proper income (through patronage, which will likely happen as security is something that has a little more import and power than phone service). "Doing a good job" is irrelevant and vague.

If Bank of American goes out of business, it's not because it's not as good as its competitors at providing a service, it's because it's not as good as its competitors at maintaining cash flow through whatever business deals it's engaged in.

Defense organizations pursue profit by being fair, because if they are unfair, no one will buy from them. So do courts--the more biased, unethical, or unwise a given court becomes, the less respect it gets. In that manner, it will also receive less business.

They don't pursue profit by being fair. They pursue profits. How they do so could be by being fair and providing a good service, but it's naive to assume that will be the only way they acquire money. In terms of maintaining face, these companies just have to avoid public scandal. Smaller injustices will be smoothed over and ignored completely, especially because there will be no effective oversight of the companies you're talking about.

Are you really trying to suggest that there's not a great deal of corporatism (or soft fascism as some call it) in most nations today? At least in a system without coerced monopoly, people have a chance to change services. The richest around already can afford to lean on regulatory agencies, and yes, law enforcement and justice agencies as well.

Ok. And if you make a series of smaller organizations to offer the same services, what's stopping these richest from doing the exact same thing to smaller, easier to manipulate groups?

I don't think we can compare a theoretical free market defense industry with current insurance industries in the US and Canada. Both are heavily regulated by the state, and there are mandates on the individual to purchase insurance as well.

What you're talking about with security is insurance. It doesn't matter how you dress it up, it's an insurance setup. The comparisons to be made will have relevance.

Consumers have plenty of power over insurance agencies. Insurance agencies gain and lose money as well as customers all the time. They exist only because they please their customers. You have plenty of power over an insurance agency, because you can threaten or actually switch services, thereby removing an asset from them.

This is what I mean about quality of insurance. Well-off people will have plenty of assets they want protected and enough means to pay the extra to have all of these insured. Because income is more importance than customer satisfaction, high paying customers will be wooed and small time people will get screwed, precisely because they are not as valuable to the insuring company as richer people are. 1 person with 2 houses, 6 cars and a boat insured is worth as much as 2 average customers. Extemely wealthy people will have far more say as a customer than individuals such as yourself. You are deluding yourself if you think otherwise.

A watchdog agency that loses respect loses profit. It's certainly possible, and even likely that a given group will attempt to buy out those keeping track of them. Profit motive, however, will entice watchdog agencies to be honest. Dishonest agencies will drive their subscribers away, whereas in the current system, we can't really force the FDA into bankruptcy.

There is no way that market forces alone will keep watchdog agencies honest. a good PR account will maintain the minimum amount of respect required to stay in business and after that point, it is just a matter of following wealthy customers. let's be real here - respect alone will not ensure business. There is a minimum to be maintained, but having more than that will have diminishing monetary returns and so will not be as heavily invested in. Let's not forget that there will be a relative level of respect, and so long as most companies stay away from the bottom, they won't need to be as well respected as the so called best in a watchdog industry.

In a free market defense system, defense agencies will have a very strong motive to boot out bad employees. Bad employee = bad business decision. Whereas in a monopolistic law enforcement system, there's a motive to retain aggressive, violent employees, because it increases the perceived power of the police and because it also desensitizes the populace to the idea of being increasingly policed, thereby solidifying the monopoly.

There's a need to fill slots on a payroll, and a lack of proper individuals to fill them. Also, without having an appearance of power, even with aggressive dickwads who shouldn't be cops, who will respect the laws or police in the first place. Who else would be drawn to be employees in such an insurance structure anyways?

There's a very strong motive for a given police agent in an an-cap system to be fair. Being unfair increases the chances of him being fired (or shot).

ah, yes. Frontier justice. That solves everything and certainly had no corruption.

It might well be that just a few policing agencies end up surviving in a free market system, but that's alright if they're making their customers happy. The moment they cease to make their customers happy, their customers will switch, and if there's cronyism going on, someone will start some new defense agency. Whereas the state owns you, and no matter how pissed off you get at the actions of the military or police, they can fund themselves and force you to foot the bill.

Are you talking about the actions of individual police officers? Those people will get punished for breaching policies they have to work by, sooner or later. Your system only works when there's a large number of companies providing services so they can compete against each other. Sooner or later, a few will gain control and once there's only a handful, you have a monopoly of a few companies (a la telecom in Ontario) rather than monopoly of one company that's heavily regulated by several branches of government. There are only really superficial differences between them.

Replace person with organization, then, and my example stands. Wealthy groups apparently do have a motive to go after drug dealers--look at the status of the world today. The federal government is the wealthiest group in the US by far, and if at some point it lost its economic clout it could simply tax every individual and business in the country to regain lost power. Furthermore, the federal government also leans heavily on other governments to ban drugs as well.

The federal government is not the wealthiest group in US. Are you talking about total assets after the fact? Several international industries are more profitable than the government. The government's real value is that it legislates laws that regulate industries where companies operate.

Regardless, wealthy business groups have as much reason to go after drug dealers as they do going against other businesses in fields where neither compete.

Let's assume that a given agricultural company manages to set itself up at the top and begins to--let's be extreme here--hire assassins to go after competitors. Well, first off, they'd have to pay through the nose to do so, they'd have to take serious risks by trusting such unsavory individuals, and they'd have to avoid detection or face a great deal of violence on the part of their intended targets, and any pro-competition bystanders, so to speak. I don't see how this near-conspiratorial scenario is precluded by the existence of a state, though--could you explain that? At least in an an-cap system, those that want to wage war have to bear the costs, instead of taxing other people to do so.

What are you talking about? Are these police groups also mercenaries for hire? That's even dumber than what we've been internet armchair intellectualizing over already.

Despite the stigma, "Blackwater" contracts out bodyguard services, and not much else. I don't even see what you're trying to say here. Why on Earth would a military organization in an an-cap system go after drug dealers (or competing farmers, or what have you)? Only if it is both paid handsomely, and it doesn't have an ethical sense. This means that quickly, a military organization enforcing a monopoly or oligopoly would de facto or actually become a fully-owned subsidiary of the monopolistic or oligopolistic entities. They'd have very, very risky positions, and again, I don't see how this doomsday scenario is precluded by the existence of the state. If the state were eliminate enforcers of monopoly, it would doubtlessly enjoy great popular support. I don't see why the state is necessary to facilitate a war of this nature. Let willing soldiers or police find causes and leaders as they see fit.

What do these security people do? Is it just policing? Because you're talking about waging war etc. and I'm asking what kind of agencies will do this kind of work and, last I checked, Blackwater has soldiers for hire. This whole tangent is retarded and getting confused - policing on a local level (what you're talking about) has nothing to do with 'waging war' and tying the two together is pointless.

I am certain some collectives would end up selling crack, heroine, and all sorts of other things if the state didn't make drugs illegal. Collectives seeking to use violence to end the sale of drugs would have to justify the war to their shareholders and employees, which makes me think that they'd have a very, very very uphill battle to fight before even starting a war!

this has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. You're getting caught up in the specifics and ignoring the driving forces behind them. What do collectives selling drugs have to do with comparing effective paramilitary assets between two different groups.

If there's little risk of being caught, there's only morality that prevents an individual or collective from stealing.

This is true in a monopolistic law enforcement system as well...

so the only difference here is your personal preference. Certainly a great reason to change.

I suppose if anarcho-capitalists successfully end the state and a free market defense industry is created rather than a monopolistic one, there are going to be a few people who think that no government means that they can steal without worry. They'll quickly end up punished, either by their victims, or the defense/justice systems representing their victims.

It's possible that a few communities dedicated to stealing might pop up, but they'd have to keep to themselves or risk all-out invasion by several other communities. Peaceful communities and individuals have a clear stake in eliminating theft, even with violence.

I don't think you understand how organized crime works. Empowering civilians to fight back with vigilante justice (allowed by a security system that only works for the well off) is just as questionably moral as stealing in the first place (you're still allowed self-defense and protection of property in our current system, so that's not even an issue). What you will be doing is increasing casualties and empowering criminals by having a weaker legal system.

First off, there would be no "national level" by definition, as the nation itself would cease to exist. Your point stands, however, so I'll address it.

Institutional corruption and poor service, even when it comes to the most important of things, already exist in the US. In an anarcho-capitalist system, no one would be locked into a given institution or be forced to fund it or suffer its poor services.

My point is that there's no guarantee that the alternatives will be any better, and watering down a justice system to a point where it's only enforcable on a significantly smaller regional basis allows larger level criminals far more liberties in their business dealings.

If you're talking about top-down theft--that is, a monolithic entity sending men with guns to take money from individuals and poorer businesses--well, then your doomsday scenario is already realized. In fact, all of your doomsday scenarios are already realized or not precluded by the existence of a state!

Why you're right! Except I have a voice in who runs my province/state/country. Under your system, the only voice I'm allowed is switch which cock I'll have to inhale to make sure my shit doesn't get stolen and I don't get killed. That's a much better alternative, isn't it?

Large entities that steal money are propped up by the state. An-cap system = no state.

Large entities that steal money exist independant on the existence of a state. It's part of how people organize on a primal level. An-cap system does not solve this problem.