I have just read the article, originally published as "De la production de la sécurité," in the Journal des Economistes in February 1849, The Production of Security, by Gustave de Molinari. It directly touches upon the discussion here, and even presented an opinion of Communism and Monarchy being the two sides of the same coin that I had not seen before. Quite interesting.
It is widely considered the first appearance of the system which would later become known as Anarcho-Capitalism, or Market Anarchy, by proposing that, like other industries, security (that is, government) would be best served by being delivered on the open market, rather than by a monopoly or by communism.
It's quite short, and took up less than an hour of my time, all told. Well worth it.
Topic: AnCap is not the end (Read 4927 times)
/nods
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?
So the monopolist can wave the "qualified immunity" carte blanche and get away with practically every injustice, and fail to prosecute itself to anywhere near the appropriate extent!
Or just straight-up Sovereign immunity.
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?
So the monopolist can wave the "qualified immunity" carte blanche and get away with practically every injustice, and fail to prosecute itself to anywhere near the appropriate extent!
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?
They need to be uniform. If they are not then you are not applying justice equally across your society. Certain public services should not be effected by market forces, these are some of them.
Why is applying justice equally preferable to applying justice fairly? Allowing market competition in the justice industry will allow those affected to select the best service. Poor justice will not receive business.
What public services should not be affected by market forces?
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?
They need to be uniform. If they are not then you are not applying justice equally across your society. Certain public services should not be effected by market forces, these are some of them.
In other words, you cannot, you only (falsely) assumed you knew what I was saying.
Derp.
Derp.
You're perfectly welcome to tell yourself what you wish. It matters not to me. Posts 26 through 30 speak well enough for me.
You're perfectly welcome to tell yourself what you wish. It matters not to me. I never said what you think I said.
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
Allowing competition in the industries of protection and justice is a joke? Why do those industries require monopoly?
In other words, you cannot, you only (falsely) assumed you knew what I was saying.
Derp.
Derp.
You're perfectly welcome to tell yourself what you wish. It matters not to me. Posts 26 through 30 speak well enough for me.
Ok, now that I have read the meat. Bottom-line is that the legal remedies have no teeth unless you have a central authority and unless it is paid by everyone equally, then it would be a goon squad like Blackwater or some other private enforcement agency. Yes, we all give us some of our individual rights so a 3rd party can enforce the most important ones. Without it you have goons or mafia. If that is what you want to live under, more power to you but to even suggest this is viable or even a good solution is a joke.
In other words, you cannot, you only (falsely) assumed you knew what I was saying.
Derp.
Derp.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people.
Quote the post where I said that.
Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate contain enough to make it clear what you were claiming.
Quote the post where I said that.
Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people.
Quote the post where I said that.
Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate contain enough to make it clear what you were claiming.
Quote the post where I said that.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people.
Quote the post where I said that.
Posts 26 through in 30 in aggregate contain enough to make it clear what you were claiming.
best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID
Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.
It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers. Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc... You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food. Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it? You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
Have you read that article I linked yet?
I browsed it but for you, I am going to read it right now and I will tell you what I think. I will really read it right now.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people.
Quote the post where I said that.
The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.
Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?
How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.
Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.
Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise.
Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time.
I will answer this: Its a lack of opportunity and a sense of fairness in the legal system is what creates desperation. People need hope and to know the rules are applied equally and fair. When that does not exist people lose faith in the system and then they are capable of many acts that you work to avoid in society.
best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID
Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.
It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers. Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc... You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food. Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it? You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
Have you read that article I linked yet?
best case scenario we have an established ID system that 99% of people trust and he can't counterfeit an ID and he doesnt' have id, people will see him as a suspicious person because he doesn't have that ID
Yeah, something like that. If there is a market need for non-forgable ID cards, then they'll be provided. Probably by a federated group of agencies.
It sure starting to sound like a central government with all kinds of enumerated powers. Federated groups, Rights enforcers, etc... You wish I would troll you, I am just waiting for some real debate food. Why should I take time actually flexing intellectual muscle if your responses are weak with lots of solutions that really sound like what I believe is necessary no matter how it operates or what we decide to call it? You may even call me an anti-disestablishmentarianist.
The conversation goes back to determining the value of X, where X is the number of desperate people in a society. Myrkul listed three factors which he claimed would determine the value of X. He challenged me to come up with three factors which could happen without government intervention. I laughed at him, because I couldn't believe that he was allowing his blinded way of thinking not allowing him to come up with those three factors himself.
Still can't come up with them, then? Are you really so lazy as to want me to defend your position?
How convenient for you to selectively quote me. I guess if you can't win the argument, then just selectively leave out the part I wrote that counters your position.
Oh, that list of things were supposed to create desperation in people? I just thought it was your usual random list of unrelated concepts.
Looking over them, I suppose some of them could, indeed. Of course, government makes most of them worse, and indeed causes a good many. Still, you did manage, I think, to put out a list of three possible causes of desperation not directly caused by government intervention. Of course, does that prove your point? No, it does not. I contend that removal of the State will reduce desperation. I don't claim to know by exactly how much. You are saying "You can't know by how much!", and then claiming that that refutes my claim.
Your claim was that you knew all the variables which determine what causes desperation in people. Now, in your above post, it appears that you concede that maybe that isn't the case, even while trying to insist otherwise.
Pathetic and contradictory all at the same time.
Jump to: