Topic: Stefan Molyneux: Lymphoma - page 3. (Read 5070 times)

Quote from: kokjo on May 04, 2013, 01:56:31 PM

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

Quote from: Gustave de Molinari

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.

that quote is shit and you know it.

Then answer his question. Why would they make war?

To gain market share. it is strategy 101: take out your competition, and be rich.

but collaboration would be a much more likely way they would take, to push the prices and gain power.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on May 04, 2013, 01:54:56 PM

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

Quote from: Gustave de Molinari

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.

that quote is shit and you know it.

Then answer his question. Why would they make war?

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: myrkul on May 04, 2013, 01:47:53 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 04, 2013, 01:54:56 PM

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Quote

A protection racketeer cannot tolerate competition within his sphere of influence from another racketeer.

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

On the open market, wars are expensive. Think of all the personnel you lose, healthcare costs, property damage, all the weapons and ammunition. That would do serious damage to a companies bottom line. Not to mention having to go constantly into the job market to replace lost personnel. People would soon get pissed off if they were constantly shooting up their neighbourhoods too.

The only institution that can fight wars is govt because they can forcibly take money, print war bonds and ultimately print money if necessary.

The smart thing for security companies that have disputes would be to agree to go to arbitration.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

Quote from: Gustave de Molinari

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.

that quote is shit and you know it.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

Quote from: Gustave de Molinari

Under the rule of free competition, war between the producers of security entirely loses its justification. Why would they make war? To conquer consumers? But the consumers would not allow themselves to be conquered. They would be careful not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attack the persons and property of their rivals. If some audacious conqueror tried to become dictator, they would immediately call to their aid all the free consumers menaced by this aggression, and they would treat him as he deserved. Just as war is the natural consequence of monopoly, peace is the natural consequence of liberty.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: hawkeye on May 04, 2013, 01:41:39 PM

Quote from: kokjo on May 04, 2013, 01:36:59 PM

Quote from: myrkul on May 04, 2013, 01:47:53 PM

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt. I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed. People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

I would be free to choose which one I pay and which services I get. And leave and get another provider if I wasn't happy. It's all my choice. With the government, I don't have a choice. It's pay or else.

And I would be free not to have one at all if I didn't want. But that's like not going with a phone company or electricity company. I could not do it, but my life would be worse off.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Quote

A protection racketeer cannot tolerate competition within his sphere of influence from another racketeer.

i see that start of a war(take out the competition), or the collaboration between 'voluntary' security firms.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: hawkeye on May 04, 2013, 01:41:39 PM

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

Nope. Protection rackets need monopoly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protection_racket

Quote

A protection racketeer cannot tolerate competition within his sphere of influence from another racketeer.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

Quote from: kokjo on May 04, 2013, 01:36:59 PM

Quote from: kokjo on May 04, 2013, 01:25:52 PM

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt. I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed. People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

but your private security firms would also be protection rackets.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: ?? on ??

So you've pretty much described how and why the State helps to guarantee people's freedom.
Freedom from lynch mobs.
Freedom from "law of the jungle" mob 'justice'.
Freedom from persecution based on past behaviour. While past behaviour may still be taken into account, the process is formalised so that everyone is treated as fairly as possible.
Freedom from witch-hunts.

Justice: another point that An-Cap sucks at.

The state doesn't guarantee any of that. It just claims a monopoly on it.

Anon136

legendary

Activity: 1722

Merit: 1217

Quote from: Anon136 on May 04, 2013, 01:21:39 PM

We do not believe that using violence to acquire just compensation from an aggressor is a form of aggression. In the same way that not all violence is aggression because some violence is defensive. Using violence to uphold justice is similarly not aggression.

oh, justice, you mean enforcement of arbitrary rules? who's rules?

If you are on your own property and you are doing crazy stuff than dont be surprised if bad things happen to you and no one really cares to attempt to punish the person who does bad things to you, after all why should they. If you are on someone elses property and doing things that they dont like, than you will be asked to leave. if you refuse to leave than they will pay someone to make you leave. if you try to pay someone to prevent the legitimate property owner from making you leave than you would find it prohibitively expensive.

if you defraud people and refuse to pay just compensation. Even though a person could hire some mussle to take back his property much more cheaply than you could possably expect to hire people to defend your illegitimate claim. People would most likely find that social ostracism was more than enough to protect against fraudsters.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

Quote from: kokjo on May 04, 2013, 01:36:59 PM

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

Some would, there is no doubt. I have never doubted nor claimed that security wouldn't be needed. People should have the choice though and not be forced to pay a monopoly protection racket.

kokjo

legendary

Activity: 1050

Merit: 1000

You are WRONG!

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

i would say that people are forced the respect the NAP, because of the government threat.

if there was no police, people would be taking what they wanted if they have the necessary force.

(yes yes, go on talk about pseudo-police private security firm)

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

Oh and it would be enforced. Through the protection of property rights when you sign a contract with a security company.

hawkeye

sr. member

Activity: 364

Merit: 253

no way to enforce it. but you people would be a bunch of hypocrites too, if you did not respected it to the letter.

The vast majority of people respect it now.

The only institution that allows for the initiation of aggression and calls it OK is the government.

Without the government it would be perfectly obvious to everyone that the initiation of aggression is wrong, just as it is now for everyone but govt.

And people would not directly rob from their neighbours. In fact, that's the reason why they don't want to get rid of the government. Because they know they can't get away with it themselves.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM