They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly.
What makes you think they aren't?Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?
Topic: This sums it up well. - page 2. (Read 6249 times)
Have you read any book on economics that wasn't Keynesian?
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.
Ridiculous. The fourth addresses economy of scale. Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid. I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults? Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable? Strategize! 
The only point you made which is anywhere close to valid is the fourth one, addressing economies of scale. However, as I point out, it ignores the inherent diseconomies of scale. It's summed up in Wikipedia's definition of a natural monopoly:
Quote
Companies that take advantage of economies of scale often run into problems of bureaucracy; these factors interact to produce an "ideal" size for a company, at which the company's average cost of production is minimized. If that ideal size is large enough to supply the whole market, then that market is a natural monopoly.
Let me highlight the absurdity of what you're saying from several angles:
Monopolies are intrinsic to unregulated markets. They often happen to be profitable, otherwise regulations against them would be nothing but folly. Economics of scale is not the only thing that makes monopolies profitable. Monopolies snuff out the competition (by definition) -- that's the other thing making them profitable.
Taking a different perspective, addressing your "problems of bureaucracy," or "Diseconomies of scale":
Diseconomies of scale addresses the potential, though by no means inevitable or terminal, problems of scaling up. As single-cell organisms evolve & become multi-cell, absorbing "fuel" & expelling waste directly through the cell walls becomes impractical. Circulatory system, specialized cells & other "bureaucracy & infrastructure" have to be created. This certainly seems sub-optimal at first glance. Yet critters with more cells than you can shake a stick at not only exist, but rule this planet. One noteworthy multicell creature can wipe out life on the entire planet, several times over, if it so chooses. Diseconomy of scale never suggests that large=less efficient or less likely, simply that size has associated problems. Most of the time, these problems are dwarfed by the economy of scale. And once you consider other added advantages of becoming a monopoly...
Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it. I'll quote it again for you:
So, because conquest happened, that makes it inevitable and preferable to peace?Quote
Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans
There.What were you reading, certainly not my post?
Well, let's look at what you were responding to, shall we?
Let's, together!
Without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.
To which you said:
"No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better. Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.
It follows, then:
"These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"
I'm sorry, wut?
edit: And again, for the third time, you fail to answer the part i made extra-double-dog-sure you answered, i'll post it for the third time:
Quote
Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans
Most of Americas charity goes to Sarah Mcgloclin, Dogs, Cats, Africa, Cancer, Jerrey's Kids & Aids... Not poor people.
My apologies for necroing this comment, but I just saw this ignorant shit post.
Top US Charities for 2012:
- 1. United Way - $3.9B - https://give.unitedway.org/page/contribute/support-us?source=Adwords2013&subsource=BrandCampaign
- 2. Salvation Army - $1.7B - http://www.salvationarmyusa.org/usn/www_usn_2.nsf
- 3. Catholic Charities - $1.6B - https://support.catholiccharitiesusa.org/p/salsa/donation/common/public/?donate_page_KEY=9113&track=BPI_gs_18753975054_catholic%20charities&gclid=CIOX6auDy7cCFVRk7AodBEsACQ
All of the above charities are for poor people.
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.
Ridiculous. The fourth addresses economy of scale. Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid. I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults? Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable? Strategize! The only point you made which is anywhere close to valid is the fourth one, addressing economies of scale. However, as I point out, it ignores the inherent diseconomies of scale. It's summed up in Wikipedia's definition of a natural monopoly:
Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it. I'll quote it again for you:
So, because conquest happened, that makes it inevitable and preferable to peace?Quote
Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans
There.What were you reading, certainly not my post?
Well, let's look at what you were responding to, shall we?
Without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.
To which you said:
"No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better. Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.
It follows, then:
"These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well.
While this sounds brilliant at first (and is partly implemented here in Italy, having multiple police forces), actually @crumbcake's objections are quite valid and kind of destroy your point, unfortunately.Hey, I'd be glad to be proved wrong...
As I said, the first and third ones are absurd (the third one especially: "These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"), and the second and fourth ignore laws of economics.
Not sure how you got the above from:
- No *intelligent* person would "choose another nearby protection agency" any more than one would choose to pay protection money to a different gang, if the terms are better. Possible in theory, dangerous in practice.
What were you reading, certainly not my post?
And how did things go so wrong?
Territorial monopoly.There's plenty more, but any one of those bullets is enough to put down your pipedream.
No, they're not. Your first one is plain stupid.
Quote
The second ignores the fact that no other industry splits up territory like that, because it would be rock-stupid to do so. Why voluntarily hand over customers to your competitor?
The third is just as stupid as the first.
NO U!1!The third is just as stupid as the first.
Quote
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.
Ridiculous. The fourth addresses economy of scale. Countering arguments with "[that's] plain stupid" is just ... plain stupid. I know defending ideas you haven't thought through bites, but why shit up the boards with pointless insults? Why provoke when your stance is both absurd & undefendable? Strategize! Finally, i take pains to stress the most important point, and you, intentionally or through lousy reading comprehension, ignore it. I'll quote it again for you:
Quote
Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans
There.
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well.
While this sounds brilliant at first (and is partly implemented here in Italy, having multiple police forces), actually @crumbcake's objections are quite valid and kind of destroy your point, unfortunately.Hey, I'd be glad to be proved wrong...
As I said, the first and third ones are absurd (the third one especially: "These guys kick down my door and search my house at 3 AM, but at least they're cheap!"), and the second and fourth ignore laws of economics.
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well.
While this sounds brilliant at first (and is partly implemented here in Italy, having multiple police forces), actually @crumbcake's objections are quite valid and kind of destroy your point, unfortunately.Hey, I'd be glad to be proved wrong...
And how did things go so wrong?
Territorial monopoly.There's plenty more, but any one of those bullets is enough to put down your pipedream.
No, they're not. Your first one is plain stupid.
The second ignores the fact that no other industry splits up territory like that, because it would be rock-stupid to do so. Why voluntarily hand over customers to your competitor?
The third is just as stupid as the first.
The fourth ignores diseconomies of scale.
If the groups are voluntary, they will likely be composed mostly of violent people who like authority, i.e. the kind of people which once they realise that they can rule the country, they do it.
Not necessarily. Not at all, in fact. The people who would gravitate towards a job that is primarily defending others are mostly the "good cops," those who join the police force specifically to help people, stop crime, etc. The "bad cops," those who enjoy having power over people, would gravitate towards more criminal careers.What, if not "defending others," was the original reasoning behind plain old police force? And how did things go so wrong? What gave us the expression "bad cop," if not the self-same police force? Your "protection agencies" are not susceptible to abuse of power?
And the main difference between these groups and a feudal army is just the absence of a feudal lord... but since any army needs a very clear leadership, its general might quite easily step in and proclaim himself "lord".
After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well. Even if they don't mind attacking the people they were paid to protect, attacking is pretty risky business, and the other companies are still in the business of defense. Then comes the problem of pay. Even the most ruthless SOB mercenary wants his pay, and wants it on the regular. Without any voluntary subscribers, the only way a "lord" could get money to pay his troops is by force. Which puts them in direct competition with the other companies in the area, who have not only gained the rogue agency's customers, but a good chunk of their troops, too. After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.
A rogue protection agency/nascent state would not last long in a voluntary society.
i'm not going to dissect this part point by point. Let me end on a notion that may be new to you, and might give you a new perspective on things:
Unless evil aliens are involved, at least at one point in time, in the beginning, *all mankind was free*. This state of freedom gave birth to everything, including all the "artificial" regulations we know today. This is important. Please try to remember this when making plans
If the groups are voluntary, they will likely be composed mostly of violent people who like authority, i.e. the kind of people which once they realise that they can rule the country, they do it.
Not necessarily. Not at all, in fact. The people who would gravitate towards a job that is primarily defending others are mostly the "good cops," those who join the police force specifically to help people, stop crime, etc. The "bad cops," those who enjoy having power over people, would gravitate towards more criminal careers. The reason for this is simple: These groups do not have a territorial monopoly. without the territorial monopoly, any person who finds himself the target of abuse from one protection agency can simply call up another one which is based nearby to come stop it.And the main difference between these groups and a feudal army is just the absence of a feudal lord... but since any army needs a very clear leadership, its general might quite easily step in and proclaim himself "lord".
After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.
No, he has a relatively small portion of the people willing to fight. Remember, no territorial monopoly, so those who are willing to fight to defend others have many (or at least 2 or 3) choices of employer. And once an agency goes "rogue" like that, their voluntary customers will dry up, and the other companies in the area will gain subscribers. There will be a large portion of his fighters, in fact, which will jump ship, as well. Even if they don't mind attacking the people they were paid to protect, attacking is pretty risky business, and the other companies are still in the business of defense. Then comes the problem of pay. Even the most ruthless SOB mercenary wants his pay, and wants it on the regular. Without any voluntary subscribers, the only way a "lord" could get money to pay his troops is by force. Which puts them in direct competition with the other companies in the area, who have not only gained the rogue agency's customers, but a good chunk of their troops, too. After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.
A rogue protection agency/nascent state would not last long in a voluntary society.
Certainly. You compared a system of small, voluntary defense groups with mutual defense contracts to feudalism. The only similarity between the two is the mutual defense agreements.
You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics.
Thanks, I get your point.You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics.
Still, there are problems.
If the groups are voluntary, they will likely be composed mostly of violent people who like authority, i.e. the kind of people which once they realise that they can rule the country, they do it.
And the main difference between these groups and a feudal army is just the absence of a feudal lord... but since any army needs a very clear leadership, its general might quite easily step in and proclaim himself "lord".
After all, he already has at his command most of the people willing to fight.
In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it.
Could you clarify?You compared a small voluntary militia using guerrilla tactics to the NVA using guerrilla tactics (OK, I made the comparison, but you couldn't see the difference between the two). The only similarity is the guerrilla tactics.
But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state.
In both cases, you are confusing the method with the organization employing it.[/quote]
Could you clarify?
You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization.
So we would be back to feudal times, basically?If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked.
But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state.You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization.
So we would be back to feudal times, basically?If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked.
But that would still be a state versus another state, backed by yet another state.If you have a well-organised neighbourhood, what happens when a well-organised army from a whole region comes knocking at your door?
You ask the nearby well-organized neighborhoods to join in fighting off this army, and destroy the supply lines, rear bases, and transportation. In other words, you destroy their organization. If you have a relative that fought in Vietnam, ask him how well that worked.
Yet again when it comes to politics I encounter a bunch of people who present hypothetical bullshit scenarios and ultimatums, if you've read any history at all then you'd know when it comes to warfare anything can happen.
Sure. The invading troops may throw down their arms & break into a clumsy waltz. You agree that it's smarter to plan for the more likely scenarios?
He's talking about decentralisation not being disorganised, those are different things, what Libertarians and Anarchists tend to follow seems to be self-regulation rather than the more popular definition of chaos. You can still have leadership and communities in such a system but the point is that it's not one big organisation that runs everything.
Thanks.
I have a lot to say on this, but now is unfortunately not the time. Because I'm in the process of moving more than halfway across the country and already wasted too much time on this forum
I'll try to get a lot more detailed in a couple of weeks. But yes, that's why I said general COMPETENT armament. Any damn fool can lay their hands on a gun. And most damn fools aren't any better off than empty handed. There is a significant amount of training involved in being competently armed. The most important weapon a man can possess is the one that lies dormant between the ears of the vast majority.
That organ between ones ears can also be the most devastating and random weapon, especially paired with firearms.
He's talking about decentralisation not being disorganised, those are different things, what Libertarians and Anarchists tend to follow seems to be self-regulation rather than the more popular definition of chaos. You can still have leadership and communities in such a system but the point is that it's not one big organisation that runs everything.
But individuals will still be able to think for themselves, right?
One of the reasons that Soviet army was successful in WW2 was the fact that for certain shock battalions, retreat was not an option: In case of retreat, they would die at the hands of their own comrades. One incentive to fight on. How do you feel an army full of individuals would fare against that?