Thread: What is Your Political Philosophy?

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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!

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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...

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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!

Originally Posted by coqauvin

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.