Topic: The legitimate purpose of military... - page 2. (Read 4961 times)

Ahh, but it's not all the same product. Some may offer video surveillance, some might prefer the more personal touch, patrol cars, etc. And while the number of possible suppliers is indeed pretty low in rural areas, in the larger metropolitan areas, the number can be quite high, to say nothing of franchises of firms that are based quite far away. A cartel would encounter quite a bit of instability as a result of mavericks.

I don't think you actually understand the meaning of that term. Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_monopoly

You do know that repeating this over and over again doesn't make it true, don't you? I know it's reassuring to your small, frightened, statist mind, but it's just whistling in the dark.

All of the stated reasons for a stable cartel apply to this situation.   Same product, no seasonal cycle,  small number of members,public pricing.

Add that violating the cartel earns you cement shoes and it is a very stable cartel.  Military force is a natural monopoly.

AnCap loses, again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartel#Long-term_unsustainability_of_cartels

(Haven't we been over this?)

And tell me why these competitors will not cooperate to reduce competition?

This happens routinely in business to the point where GOVERNMENT  has anti-monopoly laws.

AnCap fails,  again.

No, it is the behavior of competitors. They need not work together to watch each other, they can do that just fine on their own.

You might want to go back and re-read the post. I don't think you fully understood it.

(On cellphone and can't quote easily)

You referenced other security providers ho want Snarkies customers.   You stayed they would be watching him.  This is the behavior of a union, guild or consortium.   I don't care what you call it, they ate working together.  If they work together to keep their own in check they will certainly work together to set prices, establish regular practices and eventually to rule those who they control with force.

It might be as simple as providing "free" security to the less affluent near their customers but eventually they will be the law of the land.

AnCap fails, again.

What consortium? I don't mention any consortium. If anything, just the opposite. Those companies are in competition. Are you sure you're reading the same post?

Actually you did when you depended on a consortium to keep Snarky in line and an armed populace to keep the security consortium in line.  Laws mean nothing with out the threat of violence to enforce them.  Larger organizations have a more credible threat of violent force.  Ergo violent force is a natural monopoly.

AnCap  fails,  again.

Nowhere have I agreed to that. You're seeing things.

So you have agreed to my premise that might makes right.

In your AnCap world a consortium of security providers act to limit  the outlaw Snarhy.  What prevents the consortium (government)  from establishing the same racket that Snarky was running?   An armed population?  They also need to be organized (government).

AnCap fails, again.

Tom, I have thus far ignored the consequences of Snarky's actions, both to himself, and you as his supporter. I'll remedy that now.

Let me first reiterate that Snarky is not operating in a vacuum. There are other agencies out there, who would very much like his customers. Of course, they can't just take them, no more than Coca-Cola can just take Pepsi's customers. So, they advertise, and watch each other for any sign of wrong-doing. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?" finally has an answer. When one spots another doing something like what Snarky is doing - and that one is almost certain to be the one your neighbor employs - they are on him like white on rice.

For all that the security industry is just a nicer version of a protection racket, actually using strong-arm tactics is a no-no. So your neighbor's protection agency will call Snarky up, and mention that the front-door security cam they have set up caught something interesting the other day - Snarky's original, and somewhat menacing, conversation with your neighbor. This, of course, is just a courtesy call, he's done nothing wrong - yet - so they don't have anything to bring to an arbitrator.

Of course, Snarky has more balls and greed than brains, so the next night, he breaks into your neighbor's house and makes good on his thinly veiled threat to make "something happen" to his things. Your neighbor's security agency, meanwhile, has thoughtfully stationed a man nearby, just in case something like this were to happen. Well, the security system alerts the guy in his van, and they catch Ol' Snarky in flagrante delicto.

Now, we come to a juncture. You have a choice here: Do the smart thing, and jump ship to another security firm, or stay fast with Snarky. He, by the way, also has a choice: Do the smart thing, and pay restitution to your neighbor, or throw the arbitrator the bird and refuse. If either of you does the smart thing, Then you are in the clear, you've done nothing wrong except pick a somewhat foolish security agent. Only if both of you choose poorly does any harm befall you personally. Snarky alone picking badly only affects him; you've already jumped ship. But, for purposes of this story, we'll assume you're both the sociopathic morons that your statements have revealed you, at least, to be.

So, you keep Snarky on as your protector, and Snarky tells the arbitrator to go pound sand. Here's the best case scenario, now: Snarky, haven broken his contracts with the other defense agencies to arbitrate disputes, is left out in the cold. He's now an outlaw, in the original sense of the word: Neither bound nor protected by the laws that govern civilized society. Unless you had other arrangements (and most people wouldn't) your agreement to arbitrate disputes was included in your defense contract with Snarky. He's just cut himself, and by extension, you, off from the rest of society. You're an Outlaw, too.

Right about now, I imagine you're thinking something along the lines of, "Yeeeee-Haaaw!" You might want to wait a little bit before celebrating. As an Outlaw, neither you nor Snarky are bound or, more importantly, protected, under the rules which govern civilized society. No arbitrator will hear your case - Snarky saw to that - and no defense firm will come to your aid, except, perhaps, Snarky. Of course, he's now the one with the guns, and you... you're just some shmuck who was dumb enough to follow him into Outlawry. So he trashes your house, takes all your stuff, and burns what's left down.

Your neighbor gets that garden he's always wanted.

Sounds like you'd have it pretty good in an AnCap world. Why aren't you advocating the end of government right along with me, then? Is it because you know that your story is a bunch of bullshit?

That you actually wouldn't get to pull any of that, because you don't have a monopoly on force, and most people are smart enough to realize what's going on fast enough to stop it?

Feudalism requires a disarmed populace, and an AnCap society would be anything but.

I actually read that _before_ I referenced Somalia. 

What are the immigration and tourism stats for Somalia?

How soon do you plan to move there?

How long do you expect the local warlords will take to establish local "governments"?

Have you considered the fate of non-muslims in a stateless muslim region?  I wonder if they are allowed to eat and breed.

Again with the name calling.  tsk tsk

I'm having a visual of the Black Knight in the search for the Holy Grail claiming his missing arms are just a flesh wound.

Seems to me you have not shown that AnCap can survive human nature.  Perhaps it works well in Game Theory but practice rarely, if ever, follows theory.

So far, I have paid my security specialist to protect my house.  By not caring what he does to my neighbor, I have now gained a wonderful plot to grow veggies in next door.  If my neighbor comes back, I can hire him to work in my garden and if he complains my security specialist will silence him.  Perhaps I have paid a few extra shekels to my security specialist but that is a small investment to gain a beautiful garden.  If my security specialist ends up on the wrong end of a discussion with some other security specialist, I will simply hire the new guy.  If this process goes on long enough, I will end up owning my neighborhood and all the surviving former neighbors will be working my fields.  Since depending on the whims of the current security specialist might be high risk, I will pay some of those serfs working my fields to build a wall around my house.  Because I value their security (to a point) I'll make sure the wall is big enough for them and my favored security specialists.  You know, the ones who have married into my family.

Eventually, I shall be lord and king on all I survey and the AnCaps shall be working my fields for the right to eat and breed.  My nearest neighbors are operating similar estates and we make it a point to intermarry our children to grow the size of our estates.

I may have to deal with the "bigger fish" problem but that could be generations from now and until then me and mine live well on the backs of the AnCap serfs.

Tell me again how you have managed to improve our understanding of human nature?

Was it something about teaching everyone that monopolies are bad?  'Cause as master and lord of all I survey I like having a monopoly on force and I'm not inclined to let your little school house survive.

Macro and micro, as well as short term vs. long term don't always analogize to each other.

Indeed....

http://usu.kochscholars.usu.edu/files/2012/11/Better-Off-Stateless.pdf

God-damn, I love it when statists bring up Somalia.

I didn't make these up; this is very, very basic economics.

Right. I suppose you owe your amazing standard of living to self-sufficiency, huh? You live off the grid, and make all your clothes, tools, and the computer you're using to read this?

To paraphrase Barry, You didn't do that. Capitalism did.

The perils of free trade: http://www.redfortyeight.com/2010/01/27/the-perils-of-free-trade/

Things aren't that simple.

The less expensive things long term are more expensive to start and harder.

The easier things short term have costs later.

Your two lists simply don't jive with reality.