Topic: What&#039;s so special about the NAP? - page 23. (Read 20458 times)

Quote from: Equilux on June 18, 2012, 08:39:10 PM

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape together a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

The same people who fund the neighborhood watch groups now... the neighborhood watch groups.

That seems a fairly interesting point. But it doesn't scale very well, since like you said thay would need to be armed, and therefor trained, bringing us back to one of the issues on the previous page, that this is much less efficient since a much larger group of people would be doing the same job and most likely less well.

more importandly this would again favor the people and only their own neigberhoods, who have the time and money to parttake in those groups. And again the area's that need protection the most (which is the same area with the least people able to help in such groups) are left without protection.

On top of that there is also the problem of organised crime. watchgroups, of private police forces being paid to protect those with money won't stand a chance or don't feel the need to bother them because it happens not to affect them.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 08:32:18 PM

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 08:32:18 PM

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape together a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

The same people who fund the neighborhood watch groups now... the neighborhood watch groups.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 08:30:35 PM

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

And who would fund these watchgroups? The gangsters or impoverished people who can't scrape togther a living? Again massively favoring the rich, and the poor get inferior service again.

Again your lack of knowledge in economics is showing, since suggesting a thief is going to still from the poor is the most basic case of lack of an incentive for such an act to actually occur in the real world unless of course you believe all thieves are lunatics not acting rationally in their own self interest.

You should really check out those crime stats you talked about earlier, have you even gone outside every once in a while? Rationality? Really? you must have heard of ghetto's right? Crime is very local, thats very well documented, and too bad if it doesn't fit a economic model you chose to defend.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 08:22:51 PM

That is simply not true, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighborhood they know and usually inhabit.

Well, if the crime is local, then I see no reason why the solution cannot be either. Neighborhood watch groups already operate extensively, removing the monopoly on force would allow them to be armed.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

Again your lack of knowledge in economics is showing, since suggesting a thief is going to still from the poor is the most basic case of lack of an incentive for such an act to actually occur in the real world unless of course you believe all thieves are lunatics not acting rationally in their own self interest.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 08:22:51 PM

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

No no no, that the beauty, that's not just my opinion, and infact it's getting more and more well established, even among certain economists

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

you think that the poor will maybe get attacked? MAYBE? Oh no, they will definately be attacked hurt/killed and much more and much worse because of the reasons I outlined earlier. The "maybe" just gets moved to the rich and the people who can buy that "maybe"

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

Because you can't try to solve the problem of maybe being attacked and hurt/killed or maybe being robbed, by giving a small group of people the authority to perpetually rob you and definitely hurt/kill you if you resist.

Maybe > Definitely.

That's how.

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 08:14:20 PM

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

That's your baseless opinion, nothing more.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

How do you know it would be worse?

By consistently reasoning with the ideas presented, and seeing which consequences that would have.

How do you know it will not be worse, and infact will be even better?

What a significant body of economist fail to see is that there are quite a few areas where economic theory is not suited. I think you've been reading way to many of their works.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003

How do you know it would be worse? Does human history have any precedent of a sophisticated, highly developed and educated society that attempted a by strictly market consumers regulated market approach to law and security?

You know how you sound? You sound like those who defended slavery saying the world was going to end without slaves since there wont be enough food produced without masters having the slaves to work the fields.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: myrkul on June 18, 2012, 07:58:33 PM

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 07:47:01 PM

If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

This. So this. Read even some of the blog posts, and you'll get a better idea of what we're talking about.

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 07:54:35 PM

I understand that these services are not free and are paid for by taxes, which are indeed a burden on the poor. But I would argue that even the not really well to do (and naturally the poor all the way down to the dirt poor) will be much worse off. there is very little to be profited from these people, and with private policeforce they will receive matching protection ... very little. So again the people who generaly have the most to fear from violence and crime will get a worse protection.

I see you mean well, but you forget that those with little to pay also have little to steal, thus little incentive to steal from them. The free market, as illustrated by the cell phone analogy, will bring better service, for lower prices, than a monopoly ever could.

That is simply not thue, I suggest you check those stat Hazek was referring to, thefts and especially violence is extremely local. Thieves almost never go more than a mile or 2 from a neighbehood they know and usually inhabit.

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 07:47:01 PM

like I said before a giant slope leaning more and more towards inequality

I'm sorry to burst your bubble but we are not and can never be equal.

Never said we were, but should we make it worse? Should we make it worse for people who have no opportunity to make it better for themselves?

Equilux

sr. member

Activity: 353

Merit: 251

Quote from: Equilux on June 18, 2012, 07:30:14 PM

You really don't see a problem with your cellphone analogy? Really? Come on man. You find it acceptable that an enormous amount of people are unable to simply go about with their day because they are not able to defend themselves (or are uable to pay for it) just like it is acceptable that an enormous amount of people who clearly need a cellphone can't get one.

No I most certainly don't see a problem with my analogy.

Freedom is not free, those who wont or can't defend it or find others that will defend it for them will unfortunately have to cope without it. That's not ideal but it's the cruel reality we exist in. And don't for a second pretend that government and it's service of protection somehow solves this perfectly, especially for the really poor, because I'm not going to list various crime statistics to prove to you with concrete evidence how deluded you are.

Btw most of your wrong ideas about the world stem from your lack of good understanding of a by strictly market consumers regulated market econimics (i.e. free market economics) and I'm sorry but I can't afford to waste my time replying to you anymore because it's simply no point until you have a grasp on that. If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

Is that the cruel reality we live in? Really? Freedom is not free indeed, but from which dark hole did you pull this "rule" that if you are unable to defend it yourself you'll have to do without? That is, to be quite honest, a bullshit rule which you and unfortunately a few others (particularly americans) made up, and pretend that it really exists in the outside world.

And your distorted view of free market economics is also not universal, and it's rather childish to blame your blindsness for the downsides of and economic theory on my supposed lack of understanding.

And finally I'm quite aware that the govenment does not solve the issue of protection pefectly, we would not be having this conversation if it did. (did I say there was suffient protection for the poor under the current system? Talk about deluded ...) But What I am saying is that private policeforces would make things much much worse for a majorety of the people, while throwing what remains of justice decidedly out of the window.

myrkul

hero member

Activity: 532

Merit: 500

FIAT LIBERTAS RVAT CAELVM

Quote from: hazek on June 18, 2012, 07:47:01 PM

If you have an honest desire to learn, head on over to mises.org and educate yourself, a lot of is completely free(actually free, not government free).

This. So this. Read even some of the blog posts, and you'll get a better idea of what we're talking about.

I understand that these services are not free and are paid for by taxes, which are indeed a burden on the poor. But I would argue that even the not really well to do (and naturally the poor all the way down to the dirt poor) will be much worse off. there is very little to be profited from these people, and with private policeforce they will receive matching protection ... very little. So again the people who generaly have the most to fear from violence and crime will get a worse protection.

I see you mean well, but you forget that those with little to pay also have little to steal, thus little incentive to steal from them. The free market, as illustrated by the cell phone analogy, will bring better service, for lower prices, than a monopoly ever could.

hazek

legendary

Activity: 1078

Merit: 1003