4 ms·

You keep linking to that wikipedia article but I don't think you've read it or understand it. >The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force

by ancap 10y ago

You keep linking to that wikipedia article but I don't think you've read it or understand it. >The store AND the consumers will be better off if a police force stopped the thefts. >This is the very definition of a market failure. You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. The claim is absurd and ignores measures that businesses already take today to stop thefts. Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts. We have a public police force. Thefts still happen. You have provided no evidence that absent a public police force that there would at least be more thefts and that option would be Pareto inefficient. Your argument is the very definition of a non-sequitur.

dragontamer 10y ago
> You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. They will do something to stop theft, and this something will cost money. It will cost insurance, it will cost security cameras, or security guards. And these costs will be passed onto the consumer by the store raising prices. IE: Consumer loses. Business lose. Thieves win. Market failure in a nutshell. > Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts On the contrary. I suggest the police force as a deterrence. They help fix the problem, but the costs of a perfect police force are too great (both in civil liberties and in monetary costs). So in practice, we settle for a medium were enough thieves get caught to deter crime, but not all thieves are caught.
- ancap 10y ago
  Customers covering operating costs does not constitute market failure. You should re-read that wikipedia article you keep linking. Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. Non-sequitur in a nutshell.
  - dragontamer 10y ago
    > Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. I have a far more nuanced argument than that. Thieves win in your system more than they do in the status quo, because you somehow think that insurance companies / bouncers are sufficient to deter thefts. A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis.
    - ancap 10y ago
      >A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis. I won't go into the silliness of the assumption that our current public police force is "fair", but what makes you think a private police force/security guards/etc, would be less efficient at preventing theft than a public police force?
      - dragontamer 10y ago
        The fact that each company would have to redundantly set up their own. The fact that the concept of private jurisdiction is currently incompatible with US Values. And finally, the fact that its a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" situation. Of course, you don't believe in that so what can I say? If one company's police force is effective, no other company will fund the police force. (At which point, the first company's police force will lose funding because why should only one company pay for the benefits of everyone else?) Now assuming each company's private police force gets their own jurisdiction, then all you gotta do to commit a theft is to leave the jurisdiction of police forces. Just like what criminals did before the FBI was invented in the 1920s. Committed a crime in New York? Move to Florida, then commit another crime. A system of a large-scale, cross-jurisdiction police force needs to be created to adequately solve the problem. (Ex: True, New York's NYPD will stop following you around, but the FBI will be on your tail). And then we go back to the problem of the big "one jurisdiction police force", who pays for it? Market failure. No one wants to pay for it, because everybody would rather be a freeloader. Because being a freeloader is the good and proper greedy way of getting things done. Solution? Tax everybody, then use taxes to pay for the big cross-jurisdiction police force. This gives the opportunity for little police forces (and private security measures) to do their thing in the small scale.

by ancap 10y ago

dragontamer 10y ago

> You continue to fallaciously claim that absent a public police force businesses would do nothing to stop theft. They will do something to stop theft, and this something will cost money. It will cost insurance, it will cost security cameras, or security guards. And these costs will be passed onto the consumer by the store raising prices. IE: Consumer loses. Business lose. Thieves win. Market failure in a nutshell. > Furthermore you fallaciously claim that a public police force would stop thefts On the contrary. I suggest the police force as a deterrence. They help fix the problem, but the costs of a perfect police force are too great (both in civil liberties and in monetary costs). So in practice, we settle for a medium were enough thieves get caught to deter crime, but not all thieves are caught.

ancap 10y ago
Customers covering operating costs does not constitute market failure. You should re-read that wikipedia article you keep linking. Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. Non-sequitur in a nutshell.
- dragontamer 10y ago
  > Also continuing to claim that in general "thieves win" is as absurd as claiming they "win" under the current laws and system. I have a far more nuanced argument than that. Thieves win in your system more than they do in the status quo, because you somehow think that insurance companies / bouncers are sufficient to deter thefts. A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis.
  - ancap 10y ago
    >A public police force is needed to deter thefts on a fair basis. I won't go into the silliness of the assumption that our current public police force is "fair", but what makes you think a private police force/security guards/etc, would be less efficient at preventing theft than a public police force?
    - dragontamer 10y ago
      The fact that each company would have to redundantly set up their own. The fact that the concept of private jurisdiction is currently incompatible with US Values. And finally, the fact that its a classic "Tragedy of the Commons" situation. Of course, you don't believe in that so what can I say? If one company's police force is effective, no other company will fund the police force. (At which point, the first company's police force will lose funding because why should only one company pay for the benefits of everyone else?) Now assuming each company's private police force gets their own jurisdiction, then all you gotta do to commit a theft is to leave the jurisdiction of police forces. Just like what criminals did before the FBI was invented in the 1920s. Committed a crime in New York? Move to Florida, then commit another crime. A system of a large-scale, cross-jurisdiction police force needs to be created to adequately solve the problem. (Ex: True, New York's NYPD will stop following you around, but the FBI will be on your tail). And then we go back to the problem of the big "one jurisdiction police force", who pays for it? Market failure. No one wants to pay for it, because everybody would rather be a freeloader. Because being a freeloader is the good and proper greedy way of getting things done. Solution? Tax everybody, then use taxes to pay for the big cross-jurisdiction police force. This gives the opportunity for little police forces (and private security measures) to do their thing in the small scale.