Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?
Private security apparently, given previous posts
And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
Okay. And so let's assume anarchy, no government, no police, no judges and no laws. Naturally we still have criminals attacking people and stealing from people. I assume you don't like that, because you seem very opposed to theft. What's your plan for protecting our personal freedoms?
Private security apparently, given previous posts
And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
Whoever pays them and try and hire a bigger better armed security firm are the only answers we have managed to get out of MTGTCG nd have been repeated ad infinitum. Its almost as if he believes the arguements against his positions will magically go away if he sticks his head in the sand long enough.
Only problem is I don't think it is Sand that he has got his head stuck in.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
Whoever pays them and try and hire a bigger better armed security firm are the only answers we have managed to get out of MTGTCG nd have been repeated ad infinitum.
Honestly, that's not a bad plan. How about we gather together and pool our money to pay for a shared private security force for all citizens? But of course, people won't want to pay if they don't have to... So let's agree to impose a mandatory fee on everyone to pay for this security force. That way we can ensure it's the biggest one around, and can't be out-muscled by competing private companies. After all, we're the ones paying them. We can make the decisions about what they do.
The reason I'm doing this is because I want to help spread the message of liberty.
Here is my argument: taxation is theft(no government isn't somekind of contractual entity because in order for a contract to be legitimate, all people involved in the contract must agree to the terms of the contract and I haven't agreed to any such contract, such a contract hasn't even been proposed to me. Also just move somewhere else isnt a valid argument, if I told you that I would stop stealing from you if you moved away, that wouldn't justify me continuing to steal from you if you didnt move away).
When you purchase land, while you live at the United State's will, you have accepted that contract. You have already been told that there is in fact an escape clause if you don't accept this contract.
We aren't debating the creators of these videos, we are debating you.
But, from the little I did watch (might watch the rest on my break), it falls into the same trap most "perfect" market theories run into: All social interactions are perfect. In a perfect market society, the 13th amendment would never be needed, nor any laws protecting social rights. Why? Because in a perfect market, no baker would ever deny a customer based on skin tone, because money is money. Gender Gap Title IX would never exist either because you would never discriminate wages like they did, and even if it DID exist, it would mean women would dominate the labor force because it's basically cheaper labor. Why hire a male, apart from jobs that may require a stronger physique.
But to take a point from the video, why would any company invest in poor people for healthcare? They barely make any money on the poor account because surprise surprise, they pick the cheaper plan than people with more wealth and between wealthy and poor, who do you think likely gets sicker more often?
We aren't debating the creators of these videos, we are debating you.
... I still have an issue here that should be mentioned. This theoretical system encourages people to murder as long as their victim doesn't have someone who would/could definitely attempt revenge, either through a "rights enforcement agency," or themselves. Or, even if that person could, if the killer has enough money, they can still pay their way out of things. And there's no reason why a private judge and pair of arbitration companies wouldn't become corrupt. There's nothing to stop loopholes from forming by hiring specific agencies for the purpose of corrupt tax. Agencies have no reason to be globalized, and forming an agency is easy enough. So I form my two enforcement agencies, one to fake out people who I want to kill for the hell of it, and the other to protect me legally. I can replace the fake-out agency any number of times, as there is nothing preventing me from forming a new agency. And heck, I can amp this up one further by buying a judge agency. Yes, it would have limited scope, but what's going to stop me? Some "Super-hero" enforcement agency working for the good of the people? Either it's effectively identical to government enforcement, or it is ineffective.
And while you can always say "But we can make this system an ideal one because...", there will always be an incentive for corruption to form. And in a lot of those circumstances, corruption will win out, especially when accompanied by lots of money and by irreparable violent crime such as murder or rape.
Alright, I had an off period and I was bored so I watched it for fun. This mind set does fascinate me after all and there might intriguing ideas.
1st issue, first 2 minutes: Government always does worse, and the drawing seem to imply corruption in government that would be absent in private hands. Strongly, strongly disagree. I would be terrified to have the courts, police or other government functions in the hands of the private sector. The author is working on a Utopian idea that government is the root of all corruption, and by getting rid of it, the country would be better.
Right's Enforcement Agency: What happens when you have an issue with the REA that takes your case? Do you go to another REA then for restitution, or what's the game plan? Business makes mistakes all the time, what's the redress since you can't go to the government? What happens if both customers use the same REA?
Ok, they answered the lesser issue with REA's clashing, but how about the judge. Who gave the judge his right to be a judge? I assume there is no requirement for law, or to practice law for a period, and what happens when no judge can be found because each party has an issue with all the judges? Picking judges doesn't erally happen today, the closest you can do is maybe get a judge to get reclusal, but eh.
There is also going to be a quality difference in REA. *shrugs* it's true. And no surprise, the ones that have more money will likely have a better REA. Justice? I assume settlements will still be a thing so what happens when a weaker REA goes up against a stronger REA? His example of finding a judge seems to make the assumption that both REAs are about equal in strength, and avoiding conflict seems to be more beneficial because it would end in a likely stalemate or costly victory.
11 minutes: Blah blah blah, Free Market is perfect. A fine premise for studying Econ in class, but a terrible one to apply to the real world.
I don't see agencies ever decreasing their prices if they can raise them and maintain their customers. Like, what real world example would ever let you or the host ever believe that? If you have a product at 4.99, and can raise it to 9.99 without losing a single customer, why would you ever not raise the price?
A lot of things are optimal. It's optimal to not be racist or homophobic and alienate potential customers, but it doesn't mean it happens.
Rational Ignorance would apply here then: One customer is not going to make a company randomly change their money making strategy. Even in a smaller number. In the above, assume Mcdonalds has 20k customers. Raising the prise to 9.99 makes you have 19,999 customers. Did that one really hurt for moving your price is up?
The customers don't chose the court. The REAs do, so the customer has no actual direct say. They could I suppose choose to switch REAs, but again, a lot of people won't be in an optimal position to bargain.
Obama did the wrong thing versus right thing. In your court case, one REA is still going to lose in a dispute. Not much difference there.
Why would a customer of an REA ever accept a court case, and would that even be necessary if an accusation is made against a person who doesn't have an REA.
Like, why link this video and not explain it? It didn't take long, and in the first 5 minutes, his view of the world has a crippling flaw, and makes no many assumptions about why A, B, and C would happen, but doesn't assume that certain other traits would work. In this world, there will be better REAs. There will be corrupt REAs or judges, especially in smaller towns where people living there don't have the option to pick between too many choices (and whether you believe it or not, simply moving will be just as hard there as it is here). So your video actually does your presmise a disservice.
Ignoring the fact that this world view doesn't even discuss how foreign policy would be approached.
Edit: One last point that occurred to me, although a variation was pointed out earlier: These REAs have all this motivation to work together for the best of the customer. What is stopping the 3-4 REAs in say Cook County IL from discussing raising prices, because they can? Even if there is a hold out, not hard to just get all the other interested parties to pressure the dissenter.
What amuses me most about the "government is the root of corruption that wouldn't be present in private hands" is that it goes like this: "Look at all these greedy officials using their power for personal gain! Let's throw out this voting thing and rely on pure capitalism. Hooray for a system based entirely off of greed!"
Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place.
Edit: One last point that occurred to me, although a variation was pointed out earlier: These REAs have all this motivation to work together for the best of the customer. What is stopping the 3-4 REAs in say Cook County IL from discussing raising prices, because they can? Even if there is a hold out, not hard to just get all the other interested parties to pressure the dissenter.
Why apply pressure to the dissenter? You control the law enforcement between the rest of you. Surely it is far simpler to just shoot the dissenter and bury him in an unmarked grave?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
Edit: One last point that occurred to me, although a variation was pointed out earlier: These REAs have all this motivation to work together for the best of the customer. What is stopping the 3-4 REAs in say Cook County IL from discussing raising prices, because they can? Even if there is a hold out, not hard to just get all the other interested parties to pressure the dissenter.
Why apply pressure to the dissenter? You control the law enforcement between the rest of you. Surely it is far simpler to just shoot the dissenter and bury him in an unmarked grave?
I was making the assumption that anyone that had the power to form a REA would have significant power, and might have the reach to punish his/her murder(s). But true.
Even as I went to lunch, I was thinking of the basic problems with all of this. What happens if the offended party doesn't have enough money to afford a REA? What is stopping from an REA from rejecting a customer (like one who didn't have an REA, but then had to find because something bad happened). If the response is "Well, you should have had that protection earlier. *shrugs*" My response would be something along the lines of "Oh. So I had to pay for a service I wasn't using or risk repercussions of not getting help. That sounds like a tax."
It's why this is all a sham. This view of freedom basically just shifts the power of government to the private sector, and somehow expects quality of life to increase because "government bad."
Liberterianism is an ill thought through idea with little practical aplication in the real world. If anything it is on a rise in USA as a symtomn response from the countries echonomical crisis over the last 8 years, the replican legacy after bush. Both sides of goverment refuse to work with the other and media is making a major polarisation in that country. Bad governing has left people with little trust in the goverment and a want for change.
I wish liberterians luck but it is a pipe dream.
Join the dark side, become social democrats like scandinavia. Build something bigger then yourself, build a country to be proud of, build it with taxcation.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
I have dyslexia, no I am not going to spell check for you, yes you have to live with the horrors of it.
For those suggesting that the absence of government would lead to things even remotely being fine or decent, I would suggest looking at the case of Pitcairn Island. Imagine a group of people decided to leave civilization to start their own colony on an island. Imagine how this could go wrong. Then look at Pitcairn Island. Your scenario was probably better.
This comes down, like I said, to how we define personal freedom. If it's defined as "no one who works for the government can tell me what to do" I agree with you that taxes limit that definition of personal freedom.
Well, I mean, I question any definition of "personal freedom" that doesn't say that. Any instance of someone acting upon you or telling you what to do is a reduction of freedom. This goes all the way back to Hobbes.
What amuses me most about the "government is the root of corruption that wouldn't be present in private hands" is that it goes like this: "Look at all these greedy officials using their power for personal gain! Let's throw out this voting thing and rely on pure capitalism. Hooray for a system based entirely off of greed!"
Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place.
Which goes back to, once again, libertarians lacking a cursory understanding of an assortment of subject matter, and most particularly American History 101. Any understanding - any at all - of the Industrial Revolution would immediately highlight the destructive consequences of a lack of government regulation with regards to businesses. Any understanding - again, even a iota of understanding - of what happened during that time will totally destroy any notion that corruption will not occur within a lack of government oversight.
And yet, here we are. We are in an argument over whether 2+2=4.
Well, I mean, I question any definition of "personal freedom" that doesn't say that. Any instance of someone acting upon you or telling you what to do is a reduction of freedom. This goes all the way back to Hobbes.
The problem with it is that it ignores people who don't work for the government telling you what to do. Which is how you get these absurdities of "it's only bad if it's the government doing it".
For those suggesting that the absence of government would lead to things even remotely being fine or decent, I would suggest looking at the case of Pitcairn Island. Imagine a group of people decided to leave civilization to start their own colony on an island. Imagine how this could go wrong. Then look at Pitcairn Island. Your scenario was probably better.
The Original European Pitcairn Islanders didn't really set out to have a colony beyond civilisation though. They had just committed mutiny and needed to find the deepest whole they could find so the British Navy wouldn't find them and hang them.
If it was a planned colonisation one would hope that it was better planned and had a group of people with the skills needed to set up a new life instead of a bunch of desperate men and their unwilling captives.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Original European Pitcairn Islanders didn't really set out to have a colony beyond civilisation though. They had just committed mutiny and needed to find the deepest whole they could find so the British Navy wouldn't find them and hang them.
If it was a planned colonisation one would hope that it was better planned and had a group of people with the skills needed to set up a new life instead of a bunch of desperate men and their unwilling captives.
The difference between a civilization and, say, a business venture is that a civilization needs to encompass and to be able to handle all types of people.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
1. No, business does better because competition increases quality/cost ratio.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
An actual cartel (not the usage as it relates to current illegal drug enterprises) is essentially a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but you should never say never. The India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Ceylon Conferences was a cartel that lasted 134 years. Additionally, when a cartel breaks up, the pressures that led to the formation of the cartel return almost immediately, so even if an individual cartel does not last long, and industry can constantly have cartels.
it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
1. No, business does better because competition increases quality/cost ratio.
At the expense of having to accept a far smaller share of the market. And why are you expecting them to work against their own self interest. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner for the least expense. If they can do that by stifling competition and then by jacking up their prices they are going to do so. And if there is no one else in the market then the consumer is so out of luck.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
Who are they in competition with? Who says they are qualified? What incentive do I have to recognise your preferred REA over the one I like.
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
What if you have a market where other companies can't enter it cost effectively. Like with water and power companies. Or if there is a finite supply like again with water where there might only be a single source in a territory.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
De Beers has been running since 1871. Just after the start of the American Civil war. If you are claiming that is not a long time you need rework your definition of very long...
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
Who says anything about pitched battles? All I am saying is you quietly take some one out round the back of woodshed and put a couple of bullets in them. Then you amalgamate their gang into yours. Rince and repeat until you have got a super gang and no one else can touch you.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
And again you peddle this bull***** claim that taxation is theft. It isn't, it is payment for services rendered. Even if you did not consent to be charged for them you have used them so need to pay up or suffer the consquences same as if you didn't pay your dues under your wished for libertarian utopia. And as I stated before the means the state will use to gain restitution are a lot nicer that the ones that will be used in a society with no laws or rules.
The big problem you have through out all of this that you are under the mistaken belief that the only thing stopping humanity from acting alturistically is the nasty horrible goverment getting in the way. Unfortunately I have really bad news for you. The World does not work that way, as a species and individuals we are a bunch of selfish bastards that in the majority only looking out for ourselves and only helping others when it is also of benefit to ourselves to do so. It is governments that largely curb that selfish behavior and channel it in ways that do act for the greater good of society in one form or another.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag and start slitting throats.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
1. No, business does better because competition increases quality/cost ratio.
Not true.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
And you don't see an issue with market competition: for a position of law and order?
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
You completely missed the point. There are laws in place right now that keep businesses, especially those in oligolipies or government sanctified monopolies that keep they from going insane with the prices. I can't just decide to get into the Golf Course Building business unless I have an incredible amount of capital at my disposal. In your world, nothing is stopping these businesses from conspiring to simply agree to simultaneously raise their price. Or, keep people even in something as basic as ketchup from getting squeezed out by the bigger guys.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
Do you know why almost every single soda you have ever heard of is owned by Pepsi or Coke? And the ones that aren't are rather rare and niche (not that I have a problem with RC, but eh). You think two power house REAs can't crush any new ones that try to compete?
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
In more severe cases like murder or rape, I doubt the public would be outraged at my REA deciding to beat the ***** out of the other party. And again, it's only expensive if both REAs are at about equal power. Even in non-violent situations, I would imagine a more wealthy client could continue a grievance fight longer than someone who can barely afford their REA. Pro-tip: Most of the disputes will end pretty one sided, even giving you the benefit of the doubt that every case wouldn't come to violence.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
You have no right to the property you own, short of the deed. By buying your property, your ancestors (or you yourself, if you just got into land owning) accepted the right to own that land, in exchange for paying taxes for living their, to the city. Taxation will never be theft, no matter how badly you want the world to be like The Purge.
Even in non-violent situations, I would imagine a more wealthy client could continue a grievance fight longer than someone who can barely afford their REA. Pro-tip: Most of the disputes will end pretty one sided, even giving you the benefit of the doubt that every case wouldn't come to violence.
I think that there's a logical assumption to libertarianism that is where this doesn't make sense to a libertarian: That everyone starts equal in the system, that everyone starts with a blank slate, the same degree of motives, etc... Because if everyone is a perfectly equal robot, then libertarianism would work. But when humans are different from each other, it doesn't work so well.
Oh, you're going full on anarchy? Cool, it's easy to prove than Anarchy doesn't work. We know this because anarchy is what we all started with. Humanity didn't evolve with pre-existing governments. The whole world started in perfect anarchy. In the process people chose to do awful things to each other. We already know what anarchy looks like. And you're in a catch-22, because you think government is a bad thing. Clearly nothing in anarchy prevents governments from being created, because the whole world started with anarchy everywhere and now there's governments basically everywhere.
it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
Taxation is not a violation of property rights.
Nobody has agreed to pay tax. If you don't pay it 'they' will come after you. If you don't want to go with them 'they' will assault you and kidnap you. If you try and self defend yourself 'they' will kill you. Tax is theft with the threat of death. It is a direct violation of property rights!!!
it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
Taxation is not a violation of property rights.
Nobody has agreed to pay tax. If you don't pay it 'they' will come after you. If you don't want to go with them 'they' will assault you and kidnap you. If you try and self defend yourself 'they' will kill you. Tax is theft with the threat of death. It is a direct violation of property rights!!!
List the number of people that have been executed in America for failing to pay taxes please.
And who decides what this private security is allowed to do? What if a drug lord decides to use his private security to disappear people?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Whoever pays them and try and hire a bigger better armed security firm are the only answers we have managed to get out of MTGTCG nd have been repeated ad infinitum. Its almost as if he believes the arguements against his positions will magically go away if he sticks his head in the sand long enough.
Only problem is I don't think it is Sand that he has got his head stuck in.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Honestly, that's not a bad plan. How about we gather together and pool our money to pay for a shared private security force for all citizens? But of course, people won't want to pay if they don't have to... So let's agree to impose a mandatory fee on everyone to pay for this security force. That way we can ensure it's the biggest one around, and can't be out-muscled by competing private companies. After all, we're the ones paying them. We can make the decisions about what they do.
Spot any holes in this MTGTCG?
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
When you purchase land, while you live at the United State's will, you have accepted that contract. You have already been told that there is in fact an escape clause if you don't accept this contract.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Watch this video, it explains how an anarchic society would deal with legal disputes.
We aren't debating the creators of these videos, we are debating you.
But, from the little I did watch (might watch the rest on my break), it falls into the same trap most "perfect" market theories run into: All social interactions are perfect. In a perfect market society, the 13th amendment would never be needed, nor any laws protecting social rights. Why? Because in a perfect market, no baker would ever deny a customer based on skin tone, because money is money. Gender Gap Title IX would never exist either because you would never discriminate wages like they did, and even if it DID exist, it would mean women would dominate the labor force because it's basically cheaper labor. Why hire a male, apart from jobs that may require a stronger physique.
But to take a point from the video, why would any company invest in poor people for healthcare? They barely make any money on the poor account because surprise surprise, they pick the cheaper plan than people with more wealth and between wealthy and poor, who do you think likely gets sicker more often?
The GJ way path to no lynching:
While I agree with Gentleman Johnny's comment...
... I still have an issue here that should be mentioned. This theoretical system encourages people to murder as long as their victim doesn't have someone who would/could definitely attempt revenge, either through a "rights enforcement agency," or themselves. Or, even if that person could, if the killer has enough money, they can still pay their way out of things. And there's no reason why a private judge and pair of arbitration companies wouldn't become corrupt. There's nothing to stop loopholes from forming by hiring specific agencies for the purpose of corrupt tax. Agencies have no reason to be globalized, and forming an agency is easy enough. So I form my two enforcement agencies, one to fake out people who I want to kill for the hell of it, and the other to protect me legally. I can replace the fake-out agency any number of times, as there is nothing preventing me from forming a new agency. And heck, I can amp this up one further by buying a judge agency. Yes, it would have limited scope, but what's going to stop me? Some "Super-hero" enforcement agency working for the good of the people? Either it's effectively identical to government enforcement, or it is ineffective.
And while you can always say "But we can make this system an ideal one because...", there will always be an incentive for corruption to form. And in a lot of those circumstances, corruption will win out, especially when accompanied by lots of money and by irreparable violent crime such as murder or rape.
1st issue, first 2 minutes: Government always does worse, and the drawing seem to imply corruption in government that would be absent in private hands. Strongly, strongly disagree. I would be terrified to have the courts, police or other government functions in the hands of the private sector. The author is working on a Utopian idea that government is the root of all corruption, and by getting rid of it, the country would be better.
Right's Enforcement Agency: What happens when you have an issue with the REA that takes your case? Do you go to another REA then for restitution, or what's the game plan? Business makes mistakes all the time, what's the redress since you can't go to the government? What happens if both customers use the same REA?
Ok, they answered the lesser issue with REA's clashing, but how about the judge. Who gave the judge his right to be a judge? I assume there is no requirement for law, or to practice law for a period, and what happens when no judge can be found because each party has an issue with all the judges? Picking judges doesn't erally happen today, the closest you can do is maybe get a judge to get reclusal, but eh.
There is also going to be a quality difference in REA. *shrugs* it's true. And no surprise, the ones that have more money will likely have a better REA. Justice? I assume settlements will still be a thing so what happens when a weaker REA goes up against a stronger REA? His example of finding a judge seems to make the assumption that both REAs are about equal in strength, and avoiding conflict seems to be more beneficial because it would end in a likely stalemate or costly victory.
11 minutes: Blah blah blah, Free Market is perfect. A fine premise for studying Econ in class, but a terrible one to apply to the real world.
I don't see agencies ever decreasing their prices if they can raise them and maintain their customers. Like, what real world example would ever let you or the host ever believe that? If you have a product at 4.99, and can raise it to 9.99 without losing a single customer, why would you ever not raise the price?
A lot of things are optimal. It's optimal to not be racist or homophobic and alienate potential customers, but it doesn't mean it happens.
Rational Ignorance would apply here then: One customer is not going to make a company randomly change their money making strategy. Even in a smaller number. In the above, assume Mcdonalds has 20k customers. Raising the prise to 9.99 makes you have 19,999 customers. Did that one really hurt for moving your price is up?
The customers don't chose the court. The REAs do, so the customer has no actual direct say. They could I suppose choose to switch REAs, but again, a lot of people won't be in an optimal position to bargain.
Obama did the wrong thing versus right thing. In your court case, one REA is still going to lose in a dispute. Not much difference there.
Why would a customer of an REA ever accept a court case, and would that even be necessary if an accusation is made against a person who doesn't have an REA.
Like, why link this video and not explain it? It didn't take long, and in the first 5 minutes, his view of the world has a crippling flaw, and makes no many assumptions about why A, B, and C would happen, but doesn't assume that certain other traits would work. In this world, there will be better REAs. There will be corrupt REAs or judges, especially in smaller towns where people living there don't have the option to pick between too many choices (and whether you believe it or not, simply moving will be just as hard there as it is here). So your video actually does your presmise a disservice.
Ignoring the fact that this world view doesn't even discuss how foreign policy would be approached.
Edit: One last point that occurred to me, although a variation was pointed out earlier: These REAs have all this motivation to work together for the best of the customer. What is stopping the 3-4 REAs in say Cook County IL from discussing raising prices, because they can? Even if there is a hold out, not hard to just get all the other interested parties to pressure the dissenter.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
Rich jerks using their money and power to force other people to do what they want is how you get kings in the first place.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Why apply pressure to the dissenter? You control the law enforcement between the rest of you. Surely it is far simpler to just shoot the dissenter and bury him in an unmarked grave?
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
I was making the assumption that anyone that had the power to form a REA would have significant power, and might have the reach to punish his/her murder(s). But true.
Even as I went to lunch, I was thinking of the basic problems with all of this. What happens if the offended party doesn't have enough money to afford a REA? What is stopping from an REA from rejecting a customer (like one who didn't have an REA, but then had to find because something bad happened). If the response is "Well, you should have had that protection earlier. *shrugs*" My response would be something along the lines of "Oh. So I had to pay for a service I wasn't using or risk repercussions of not getting help. That sounds like a tax."
It's why this is all a sham. This view of freedom basically just shifts the power of government to the private sector, and somehow expects quality of life to increase because "government bad."
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I wish liberterians luck but it is a pipe dream.
Join the dark side, become social democrats like scandinavia. Build something bigger then yourself, build a country to be proud of, build it with taxcation.
Well, I mean, I question any definition of "personal freedom" that doesn't say that. Any instance of someone acting upon you or telling you what to do is a reduction of freedom. This goes all the way back to Hobbes.
Which goes back to, once again, libertarians lacking a cursory understanding of an assortment of subject matter, and most particularly American History 101. Any understanding - any at all - of the Industrial Revolution would immediately highlight the destructive consequences of a lack of government regulation with regards to businesses. Any understanding - again, even a iota of understanding - of what happened during that time will totally destroy any notion that corruption will not occur within a lack of government oversight.
And yet, here we are. We are in an argument over whether 2+2=4.
The problem with it is that it ignores people who don't work for the government telling you what to do. Which is how you get these absurdities of "it's only bad if it's the government doing it".
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
The Original European Pitcairn Islanders didn't really set out to have a colony beyond civilisation though. They had just committed mutiny and needed to find the deepest whole they could find so the British Navy wouldn't find them and hang them.
If it was a planned colonisation one would hope that it was better planned and had a group of people with the skills needed to set up a new life instead of a bunch of desperate men and their unwilling captives.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
2. Judges in the market would have to prove their trustworthiness and fairness. Again, this all happens through market competition.
3.If you raise your price too high, people will buy from someone else.
4. Then someone will patronize a non-cartelized protection agency, besides cartels never last very long...
5. These protection agecies wont want to fight each other because that is expensive, and is bad press for the protection agency that started the battle.
Another thing that I want to add is this, it is kind of ironic that people are arguing for the state to protect our property rights even though the state violates people's property rights through taxation.
An actual cartel (not the usage as it relates to current illegal drug enterprises) is essentially a version of the Prisoner's Dilemma, but you should never say never. The India-Pakistan-Bangladesh-Ceylon Conferences was a cartel that lasted 134 years. Additionally, when a cartel breaks up, the pressures that led to the formation of the cartel return almost immediately, so even if an individual cartel does not last long, and industry can constantly have cartels.
Taxation is not a violation of property rights.
Two Score, Minus Two or: A Stargate Tail
(Image by totallynotabrony)
At the expense of having to accept a far smaller share of the market. And why are you expecting them to work against their own self interest. The whole point of a business is to make as much money as possible for its owner for the least expense. If they can do that by stifling competition and then by jacking up their prices they are going to do so. And if there is no one else in the market then the consumer is so out of luck.
Who are they in competition with? Who says they are qualified? What incentive do I have to recognise your preferred REA over the one I like.
What if you have a market where other companies can't enter it cost effectively. Like with water and power companies. Or if there is a finite supply like again with water where there might only be a single source in a territory.
De Beers has been running since 1871. Just after the start of the American Civil war. If you are claiming that is not a long time you need rework your definition of very long...
Who says anything about pitched battles? All I am saying is you quietly take some one out round the back of woodshed and put a couple of bullets in them. Then you amalgamate their gang into yours. Rince and repeat until you have got a super gang and no one else can touch you.
And again you peddle this bull***** claim that taxation is theft. It isn't, it is payment for services rendered. Even if you did not consent to be charged for them you have used them so need to pay up or suffer the consquences same as if you didn't pay your dues under your wished for libertarian utopia. And as I stated before the means the state will use to gain restitution are a lot nicer that the ones that will be used in a society with no laws or rules.
The big problem you have through out all of this that you are under the mistaken belief that the only thing stopping humanity from acting alturistically is the nasty horrible goverment getting in the way. Unfortunately I have really bad news for you. The World does not work that way, as a species and individuals we are a bunch of selfish bastards that in the majority only looking out for ourselves and only helping others when it is also of benefit to ourselves to do so. It is governments that largely curb that selfish behavior and channel it in ways that do act for the greater good of society in one form or another.
- H.L Mencken
I Became insane with long Intervals of horrible Sanity
All Religion, my friend is simply evolved out of fraud, fear, greed, imagination and poetry.
- Edgar Allan Poe
The Crafters' Rules Guru
Not true.
And you don't see an issue with market competition: for a position of law and order?
You completely missed the point. There are laws in place right now that keep businesses, especially those in oligolipies or government sanctified monopolies that keep they from going insane with the prices. I can't just decide to get into the Golf Course Building business unless I have an incredible amount of capital at my disposal. In your world, nothing is stopping these businesses from conspiring to simply agree to simultaneously raise their price. Or, keep people even in something as basic as ketchup from getting squeezed out by the bigger guys.
Do you know why almost every single soda you have ever heard of is owned by Pepsi or Coke? And the ones that aren't are rather rare and niche (not that I have a problem with RC, but eh). You think two power house REAs can't crush any new ones that try to compete?
In more severe cases like murder or rape, I doubt the public would be outraged at my REA deciding to beat the ***** out of the other party. And again, it's only expensive if both REAs are at about equal power. Even in non-violent situations, I would imagine a more wealthy client could continue a grievance fight longer than someone who can barely afford their REA. Pro-tip: Most of the disputes will end pretty one sided, even giving you the benefit of the doubt that every case wouldn't come to violence.
You have no right to the property you own, short of the deed. By buying your property, your ancestors (or you yourself, if you just got into land owning) accepted the right to own that land, in exchange for paying taxes for living their, to the city. Taxation will never be theft, no matter how badly you want the world to be like The Purge.
The GJ way path to no lynching:
I think that there's a logical assumption to libertarianism that is where this doesn't make sense to a libertarian: That everyone starts equal in the system, that everyone starts with a blank slate, the same degree of motives, etc... Because if everyone is a perfectly equal robot, then libertarianism would work. But when humans are different from each other, it doesn't work so well.
They are also using the money on you, in ways you can not do yourself.
Oh, you're going full on anarchy? Cool, it's easy to prove than Anarchy doesn't work. We know this because anarchy is what we all started with. Humanity didn't evolve with pre-existing governments. The whole world started in perfect anarchy. In the process people chose to do awful things to each other. We already know what anarchy looks like. And you're in a catch-22, because you think government is a bad thing. Clearly nothing in anarchy prevents governments from being created, because the whole world started with anarchy everywhere and now there's governments basically everywhere.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane
Nobody has agreed to pay tax. If you don't pay it 'they' will come after you. If you don't want to go with them 'they' will assault you and kidnap you. If you try and self defend yourself 'they' will kill you. Tax is theft with the threat of death. It is a direct violation of property rights!!!
Legacy: Dark Depths, Pox, Eldrazi Agro
Vintage: Dark Depths, Grey Orge
Pauper: Faerie Ninja
7pt Highlander: BW Combo
EDH: Horobi, (t)Toshiro, (t)Isamaru
List the number of people that have been executed in America for failing to pay taxes please.
Remaking Magic - A Podcast for those that love MTG and Game Design
The Dungeon Master's Guide - A Podcast for those that love RPGs and Game Design
Sig-Heroes of the Plane