Topic: Do We Need Government? - page 3. (Read 6961 times)

That assumes a binary situation.  By your logic the US has already taken over the entire world right and crushed all the sovereign powers who individually have less firepower than the US.  Err wait the US hasn't taken over the world?

If there are 10 security entities and the most powerful has 5 units of firepower but the other 9 entities have 1 to 4 units of firepower but combined have 30 then the largest entity isn't going to be able to win by force.  Also belligerence by the largest entity will  lead to a loss of consumers and thus revenue and thus ability to retain 5 units of firepower.

In the real world, if you are competing against men with guns, you need bigger guns.  The guy who has eliminated all rivals will have the biggest guns and may be backed by a foreign state.  Any new company will be slaughtered easily.  So your proposal results in democratic government with all its faults being replaced by dictatorship.  

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.

Having a monopoly on force is what a dictatorship is. If you can compete for justice and liberty (courts, law enforcement, prisons, arbitration, etc.) the likelihood any one person or persons can mete out punishment unilaterally and uncontested, is lessened. It's likely those groups would never get big enough to form a dictatorship. If you endow unlimited power to the select few, use an arbitrary unaccountable and unassailable vote, or violate contract rights, and you almost always get abused.

If someone owns the court and the security company, then they make their own law.  There may be other courts with other security companies but to stay in business, they will need to enforce their judgements and if there is a disagreement between courts, it will result in a zero sum game.  One will prevail.  Over time this means you will eventually end up with 1 court system and 1 security force owned privately and making its own laws for the society.

Most people would call that a dictatorship.

Of course there would still be courts.  Complaints between security company and victims would be handled by PRIVATE courts.  Security company which chooses to be bound by no court would have no recourse if it was defrauded, robbed, or attacked.   There would still be courts and the public would still place same demands on private entities that they currently do on public entities.  Even if a security company decided to take the risk of having legal framework to resolve dispute (might makes right) the public could simply reject that company. 

It is unlikely any such company would gain sufficient marketshare with polices that out out of step with the views of the consumers who support the company.  The ownership of the entity wouldn't magically change public perception of right or wrong.  If the public believes today that it is wrong for Public Police to drive away from a crime in progress it is dubious to suddenly think if the Police were private the populace would see that any differently.

deathandtaxes, what you are doing is ignoring the thread title.  The security companies would have contracts only with those who could afford to pay them and their would be no independent courts.  Your mistake is to assume that you can have no government and still have a system of justice.

Read the rest of the post, you know that part you intentionally snipped.

Here it is


The same society which requires (via public pressure) Police to stop a crime in progress would hold security companies to the same standard.  It is implausible that a society which mandates Police stop crimes in progress (in their jurisdiction) would somehow allow security companies to not live up to the same standard.  If society felt that wasn't a requirement ... they wouldn't hold Police to that standard now.   Replacing public official w/ private contractor doesn't material change the needs of society.

Society "needs" Police to stop crimes in progress thus pushes for laws/regulations/policies that mandate Police to stop crimes in progress.
Society has the same "need" if private security replaced public Police and thus pushes for contractual requirements that mandate these private companies stop crimes in progress.

I mean think about it for a second.  Why would society suddenly feel this "need" doesn't exist just because the actor changes (public Police officers vs privately employed security officer)?  They wouldn't.


So ultimately either
a) security company contract would require them to stop any crime at the protected property and failing to do so would open them up to lawsuits.
or
b) security company which rights contracts not in line w/ the expectation of society would go out of business from the public pressure, negative PR, and customers choosing alternatives that better respresent their needs/desires.

The same people (the citizens of the society) who enforce their will via statute would enforce their will via free markets.

If you are going to respond try not creating a strawman and respond to the argument as stated ... otherwise don't respond.  Right?  It wasted your time.  It wasted my time.  We can debate the merits of the ACTUAL argument not ones made up by you.

So she has no contract with the security firm, her husband does, and she gets to sue them for breach of contract?

You really need to think that through.  Its strange enough that you want to get rid of the state.  But replacing it with a world where people can sue in private courts bankrupting security firms that are obeying the terms of their contracts...what possible benefit do you see?

Lady sues security firm for multi-million dollar settlement, they go bankrupt and other security firms take note and change their policies.

Now if it possible that a security firm could write the contract which gives them the ability to drive away from a crime in progress however it is also possible for civil rights groups to decry said company, generate a lot of bad press, advocate boycotts, etc.  When that negative PR affects the bottom line they will write policies more in line w/ what society expects.  Those policies will ensure the company has a financial (if not ethical) responsibility to intervene when a crime is in progress.


Today some cops beat their wives and get away w/ it because their law enforcement buddies look the other way.  Your belief that someone advocating an alternative indicates they support assault is hyperbole. No system will protect 100% of the people 100% of the time.  The goal would be to protect as many of the people, most of the time.

The question is can private security provide comparable protection to what law enforcement provides today.  Obviously your mind is simply closed to even the possibility.

And if you believe all that, I have more for you:
Doctors are poisoning you.
Hospitals make you sick.
White paint makes things appear black.
Seat belts kill.
Smoking is good for you.
Making stupid assertions is what the Internet is for.

Are you serious?

Safety regulations make the workplace less safe and create unemployment.    
Work hour regulations create unemployment.
Minimum wage hurts the unemployed and creates even more unemployment.
Caps on water prices create water shortages and underinvestment in vital infrastructure.
Artificially cheap electricity leads to wastefulness.



Actually, it's more democratic.  When I'm pissed off with Sony I can stop buying Sony products and Sony will feel it immediately. When I'm pissed off with Obama I have to wait 4 years to exert my "influence", and that is if I am lucky enough to be a US citizen.

And don't say that I am "forced" to buy certain things from Sony because the same can be said for government.
 


Democracy is a teenage dream.  For a fictional world in which everybody puts society above self.  It's time for the world to grow up, or else it's in for a rude awakening.

Note that I am not talking about perfect anarchy.

A practical approximation to perfect anarchy is however both attainable and desirable.

When an organisation gets big enough it will invariably become self-referential and selfish.
It is no more different for a government then it is for a corporation.
A difference is that governments can be steered by society. Corporations much less so and usually through governmental power.
Both need to be steered so that they do not consume society.
What you need to look at is all the things that corporations fail at.
The list is pretty big and contains stuff like safety regulations, work hour regulations, minimum wage, cheap drinking water, cheap electricity, etc.
A corporation is not democratic, that's another thing. You have 0 (zero) influence unless they need free consumer input to make their product even more yummie (but also 3x as cancerous).
We need a central regulating body that we can at least somehow steer.
Giving this power up to the corporations would start a global corporate war over your ass.
Which is, of course, what is going on right now, but the playing field is being kept small so the fallout will not impact the whole of society.
Anarchy is a teenage dream for a world with much less population density.
Our world needs an overarching power to overrule the corporations because they do not care one dime about anything but themselfs.
If you think governments are bad, wait for the dogs to be set loose and enjoy the end of society as we know it.
Or, in other words, if we cannot democratize corporations then they should not get certain powers in society as people will not be able to control them in any way. It would be a pretty stupid idea not in the interest of humans at all.

Surely that is the argument for government?  "Superorganisms" as you call them, will exist no matter what.  Those that run for election to government at least aspire to a decent society.

It's the other way around.

And obviously I'm not talking about those corporations who are in bed with government (pretty much all large ones in the US).

I don't deny that a lot of individuals working for government are well-intentioned and earnestly "in it for you". But who is government as a superorganism in it for and who are private businesses as superorganisms in it for? To answer this question, you need to look at the incentives and not at the intentions.

Government (as a superorganism) gets rewarded for expanding its powers, by violent means, if necessary, and punished for surrendering its powers.  Regardless of the utility to the citizen.

Private business gets rewarded for providing value and punished for failing to provide value.  

Really

Governments are run by people, with the same failings as others...  When power is concentrated so is corruption. This is why our government worked best when it was limited in its powers... our system of states rights... balanced with Federal Powers maintained a balance. You can move between states, you can't abandon the Fed...

The Government has to much centralized power and has been corrupted. The funny thing is congress is giving the executive even more power not realizing where that leads.

But don't delude oneself, a 'candidate' for the people doesn't spend $1 Billion dollars to get elected to a $400,000 a year job.

Governments are necessary and natural however as noted below.

I should say that I am against sociologists and economists dictating policy with their baby science (only around since 1800s). How to go from the system I was born into towards something else though... I don't know. I mean look at black friday, who would do that?

Planet Earth.

Maybe I don't know all the details, please correct me. I am not trying to be an ass here... here is the most obvious example:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_Commonwealth

In the early 13th century, the Sturlung era, the Commonwealth began to suffer from serious internal strife. The King of Norway began to exert pressure on his Icelandic vassals that they bring the country under his rule. A combination of discontent with domestic hostilities and pressure from the King of Norway led the Icelandic chieftains to accept Norway's Haakon IV as king by the signing of the Gamli sáttmáli ("Old Covenant") in 1262. This effectively brought the Commonwealth to an end.

Please address this before continuing the conversation. It is a major point of failure in many people's minds.