Quote:
Originally Posted by Sethomas
I clearly gave you the benefit of assuming you were reasonably intelligent, but that you can spit that out and expect to be taken seriously? You're so naive that I'm going to be out of character and not format for a diereses over the i. And no, it's not an umlaut, so don't even be so stupid as to protest that.
|
PROTEST PROTEST PROTEST
Quote:
Look, not everyone wants to pay for an army. So if they don't have to pay for an army in an anarcho-capitalist system, they simply won't. This will piss off those who provide the service regardless of pay, since it's hard to keep the pillaging horde away from 5609 West Elm Street and not 5611 West Elm Street. So, bereft of any system that regulates arbitrarily, extortion would be inevitable.
|
Ass-ur-ance cont-ract, oh oh assurance contract, oh oh yeah.
Please do understand what the fuck I'm saying before beating the dead horse of the free-rider problem.
Quote:
Ergo, you suck. SUCK SUCK SUCK.
|
Ergo, you don't have a clue what the hell I'm telling you, do you?
Quote:
Armed groups don't take voluntary payments from their clients. Assuming the PDA's are better armed then their clients, (making them as much like armies as anything) their clients will have no choice but to a) pay them b) violently neutralize them, either on their own, or with the help of a new PDA (for those playing the home game, thats what we call a state of war) or c) be robbed by them.
|
Christ, have you even read my post? The threat of retaliatory force from other PDAs and severe loss of capital would be enough to stop any rational entrepeneur from coercing those around them. I already went into great detail as to why.
Quote:
And as for an armed populace, why then the PDA's at all?
|
Specialization and efficiency.
Quote:
And what if a serial killer is a paying customer? Couldn't criminals of any kind be paying customers? Wouldn't it be unprofitable for a PDA to prosecute its own customers? Wouldn't criminals neccesarily hire their own PDA's?
|
A PDA would not defend serial killers, even if they are paying customers, because that would drastically increase liability costs and risk. A PDA would only have to prosecute its own customer in those cases where both offender and victim are constituents, in which case, it would, of course, it would be logical to side with the victim.
Also note that it would most likely be the case where offenders were taken to private courts for violations, as opposed to internal courts within the PDAs. After all, both PDAs would have to consent to the chosen court, and operating them internally would simply give too much of a bias.
Quote:
And without laws (don't go all Hobbes on me here on this point now) wouldn't every competing company have a PDA to look out for its own interests? Ya, it wouldn't really be that profitable, but it would be the rational choice for a given group with its own interests to have its own armed group to look out for those interests. I mean, why would you choose to work under the same rules as people you are in competition with?
|
And do you think that the outrageous policies of said PDAs would hold up in court? And do you think that they would be sufficient to handle the larger PDAs used by the public, or the public itself? And do you think that companies will actually grow to a sufficient size for them to have PDAs of such strength in a free market environment?
Quote:
(As an empirical aside, it may be noted that the development of modern market generally coincided with the development of the modern coercive state)
|
Depends on what you consider a market, and what you consider a State. "Coercive State" is redundant.