Topic: Myrkul Sells AnCap... - page 7. (Read 8698 times)

Is that so?

Who have you killed today? On your drive to work, did you just plow out into the freeway, slamming other cars aside, or did you wait for a spot to open up before you moved over? When another car tried to get on the freeway, did you ram them over the guiderail, or did you let them on?

I would would heavily restrict lobbying if it was on my watch and I am not sure if I would even let companies participate.  Public official need to focus on domestic non-business issues almost exclusively.


You can live in your fantasy all you want.   I live in the real world where the reality is that humans are aggressive just like all top-tier animals in nature. 

Not gonna happen. Lobbying is cheaper than competing.

On the contrary, I have a much higher bar. You accept aggression as a matter of course, I do not.

Thank you for clarification on them being Joint-stock companies and how they would operate, sounds promising and I would like to see that in-place in our current system.

I am sorry you can't handle a mandatory tax for basic services.  I am also not going to continually defend it or apologize for it.  You obviously have a lower bar for what I believe is needed for the general welfare and well being of a functional society. 

Well, first off, they wouldn't be corporations. Not in the sense we use the word. They might still be Joint Stock Companies, but they would not have the legal and liability protections granted them by the government. Nor would they have their artificially high barriers to entry, provided by the regulations they paid for. Competition for their market share would be fierce. And how do they keep that market share? By serving the customers. Because we have the money they want, and without the guns of government to make us give it up, the only way to get it is to give us what we want.


So instead you give it to a monopoly, and let them use their guns to make you pay for it?

Sounds like something I wouldn't want to leave to chance or market gyrations. 

Oh so you say that AnCap corporations would be tamed.   Where is your proof of that?  Corporations would have the same motivations as they do now except they would have less rules and regulations because the people who would be the most capitalistic in the AnCap society would not "voluntary" agree to more rules and regulations.   I see this aspect of society regressing if we had AnCap than a Nation-State.

Did I say "one guy" anywhere in that? No, no I did not.

Because the efficient way is also more expensive. I can hardly predict the entirety of all market interactions, so I can't predict whether there would be more people who just sign up for security contracts, or more who train a few hours every week at home, or more who do both. (If I were running a security company, I would offer discounts for agreeing to - and training to - help out in the event of an invasion - allows me to keep my staff small, and my profits high.)

Can't you guess?
I think you already know:

No better means. I wouldn't call one guy attempting to take out a group of attackers 'best' in the sense that he's unlikely to survive. So, we agree that a larger group could potentially provide more efficient security? Being that it would be a free market, wouldn't the efficient organization become prevalent?

Wolf vs Dog - which is which?

Fallacy or not, that's just plain false, right there. A professional fighting force is certainly one way to do it, and it would certainly require fewer pros to defend a given area than it would militiamen or the like but "no better means" is pushing it a little bit. Remember "defense in depth"? He didn't say it, but the quote attributed to Adm. Yamamoto holds true: "We can't invade America. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." Invading a country with armed citizenry is dangerous. Invading one where the average citizen might have any weapon you do is suicidal.

And yes, there are people who whether because of religious or philosophical belief, or some other reason will desire someone else to do their defending for them. That's fine. They will be provided for. But even then, it need not be a large group that does it. Perhaps the community bands together, and the pacifist does the bandaging, in times of need.

What do you think we do? We shoot the fuckers. It's not rocket science. Smart security/merc companies know this, and would charge exorbitant prices. The really smart ones would refuse.

Comparing today's corporations, hiding behind the regulations they paid for, to companies that would operate in an AnCap environment is like comparing a wolf to a dog. Sure, they're both canines, but one is a dangerous beast, and the other is tamed.

Once we figure out how to end the benefits of being aggressive then aggressive actions will end.  Once aggression has no positive benefit for the aggressor then there won't be any aggressive actions that a person would do toward others.  Once there are no more aggressive people then there won't be any need for a state.  This is because of two things.  (1) the state will lose its ability to use aggression to coerce other people, and (2) it would lose its legitimacy because it cannot say it is needed to subdue 'criminals' or other nations.

Very true, what we have now is far from ideal. But the primary issue I have with the possibility of ancap this: you'd have to have nearly universal adherence to the NAP in order for it to work on any scale. Otherwise, you'd have all the problems we have now - except they wouldn't from a central source (the government) they'd be from multiple groups all at once affecting a much smaller area, with the likely hood of many of them overlapping in a way as to compound many of these issues.

I don't know... what do people do about it when it's happening now?


I guess what we have now isn't any better then?

They'll be happier among their kind, anyway.

Apparently the same thing that is happening in states with privately run prisons - police arrest people for stupid minor infractions, just so that the prison can make extra money, and no one is willing to stop it because "crime is bad."
Or the same thing that happens in every social republic turned dictatorship.
So, in other words, AnCaps will have to figure out how to deal with that just like democratic government types have had to. It's a stupid question, because someone else can just say, "What happens when voting becomes suppressed, and a democratic government becomes tyrannical? See? Democracy is bad/doesn't work!"

BTW, nice thing about AnCap is that, unlike Zeitgeist, AnCap can be started with a small community. It's even starting to materialize online. So, the answer to what will we do with free-loaders, irresponsible people who didn't save for retirement, and the lazy who never bother to learn personal responsibility is easy: we'll deport them to your countries 

The fallacious assumption behind that fallacious question:


is that there will be a need for a private funded security. I never conceded that people would need private funded security, the OP just assumed that that is what would happen, that that is how people would provide for their security.

I don't think I can spell it out any more clearly than that.

Well, I'm not that motivated at the moment, so I'm fine with it not happening.

That would be a black & white fallacy, whether or not it's a vaild question or not.

Because I never conceded that the assumption that the only way anyone could get protection is by hiring a security agency.