4 ms·

For what it's worth, anarcho-capitalists substantially agree with this collectivist anarchist, but still consider police worthwhile for your edge cases. They j

For what it's worth, anarcho-capitalists substantially agree with this collectivist anarchist, but still consider police worthwhile for your edge cases. They just want to voluntarily pay for private policing instead of having a monopoly impose it.

username90 6y ago
I can't see private police existing as the main source of violence without the different private police forces waging wars over each other to determine who gets to police what district. I mean, in what way would private police be different from a Mafia?
- haroldp 6y ago
  Ancaps believe that street wars would be notably unprofitable, and competing "rights enforcement agencies" would quickly normalize their relations with one another, in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up. > in what way would private police be different from a Mafia? If you didn't like the service you were getting, you could stop paying for it.
  - joseluis 6y ago
    Sorry Mr. Gangster we are not gonna need your business protection services any more... Yes, I can see it now. What could even go wrong with the privatization of violence?
    - haroldp 6y ago
      I mean... what you are describing as a worst case is actually the current system.
      - joseluis 6y ago
        I disagree. We currently have a system of law, and despite it not being perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least governments ar subject to it and are incentivied to adhere to it in form and in principle for the most part. That would not be the case with a free market of private violence for-hire...
        haroldp 6y ago
        AnCaps also support a system of law.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        No, it's not. The current situation is not privatized. Police are beholden to government leaders, who are elected.
        haroldp 6y ago
        > Police are beholden to government leaders, who are elected. That is a platitude that doesn't really reflect reality.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to. We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable. Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before. This argument sounds good in theory, but given that we've had wars before in history, it needs some explanation why states and individuals act irrational in that regard all the time, but these new companies would not.
    - haroldp 6y ago
      > But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to. Do you think that 7-11 is itching to shoot up AM/PM? Would you still buy your Slurpies there if they stared? > We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable. Drug cartels are an artifact of the state. There are no drug cartels without drug prohibition. > Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before. Would you keep paying for cops that did that? Or hire different ones? > This argument sounds good in theory It's not my argument, especially. I'm not an anarchist. :) > it needs some explanation why states and individuals act irrational in that regard all the time I think that's very fair. But I think you will find that at the bottom of mafia violence is rational decision-making. But private rights-enforcement is a different game with very different rewards for the actors.
      - luckylion 6y ago
        > Do you think that 7-11 is itching to shoot up AM/PM? Would you still buy your Slurpies there if they stared? Not while it lasted. But generally, that's what happened before the nation states took over the monopoly of violence and enforced it with an iron fist. You may not see two mega companies go at it (they'll form a cartel), but want to set up a new shop next to 7-11? Good luck keeping the flames from spontaneously erupting all the time. We've had private right enforcement before we've had public rights enforcement, or rather, public rights enforcement evolved from private rights enforcement. You went to your local nobility who had a bunch of men to do the violent enforcement, and they'd settle disputes for you. Still: war. I'm not convinced it's a good idea to go back to a system that we've abandoned for its many issues, injustice and general inefficiency. Now, if you throw blockchain in there, that's a totally different story, of course! ;)
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Tons of crimes meaningfully cross geographic boundaries. > in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up. Do I need to point out the obvious here? Uber and Lyft are subject to whatever states they operate in, including those police forces. The ancap police forces you're talking about would be subject to...what, exactly?
    - haroldp 6y ago
      > Do I need to point out the obvious here? Uber and Lyft are subject to whatever states they operate in, including those police forces. Would you still give Uber money if they were shooting up Lyft? > The ancap police forces you're talking about would be subject to...what, exactly? The voluntary support of their subscribers.
      - TulliusCicero 6y ago
        > Would you still give Uber money if they were shooting up Lyft? In the current context, no. If street wars between rival ride sharing companies was the norm, then sure, maybe, along with everyone else. People are remarkably flexible when it comes to necessities. Cabbies have been known to be racist as hell to black people for a long time, that didn't stop non-black people from taking taxis. > The voluntary support of their subscribers. Ah yes, and if they abuse others I'm sure their subscribers will withdraw their support, of course. Curious, what's the ancap version of something like CPS?
        haroldp 6y ago
        > Curious, what's the ancap version of something like CPS? I think this is the best question I have been asked in this thread. As you might imagine, ancaps are very into this topic and have done a pretty good job of thinking through all the little details. The answer to almost all these questions is something like, "It would work just like it does now, but you would voluntarily choose who to pay for the service, instead of a government having a monopoly on it, so you could fire them if you weren't satisfied". CPS seems like a genuinely difficult problem though. For that matter, it's a tough problem in the current system. If you ran a rights enforcement agency, what would be the fall-out for you for interceding in a child abuse situation? Or for having one reported, but choosing to not intercede? What kind of liability would interceding expose you to? If you heard that in real 2020 America, Uber had directed its drivers not to report suspected child abuse, and Lyft had the opposite policy, would that influence who you hired? Great question.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    I mean, street wars are unprofitable in the large to gangs, and yet they still happen.
TulliusCicero 6y ago
> They just want to voluntarily pay for private policing The idea of private policing being effective and reasonable is subject to the same ridiculous reasoning that anarchists use. At best you'd end up with some completely fucked up cyberpunk dystopian bullshit where corporations are governments in all but name.
- mhuffman 6y ago
  ... or protection for the rich only. Which leaves the poor to have to come up with other ways to get protection, which opens the door for a local "strongman", which turns into a type of government, rinse, repeat.
  - haroldp 6y ago
    Poor people pay for their policing today, but don't get much for their money.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      Yes, but they'd likely get even less from private policing. That the current situation is bad isn't a good reason to go and make it even worse. I'd love to see how such a system works out in practice, but much like anarcho-communists, there's no real evidence, just theorycrafting.
haroldp 6y ago
Negative karma for stating a fact? Does someone disagree that this is what AnCaps believe? Or do we just suppress heterodox ideas here?

username90 6y ago

I can't see private police existing as the main source of violence without the different private police forces waging wars over each other to determine who gets to police what district. I mean, in what way would private police be different from a Mafia?

haroldp 6y ago
Ancaps believe that street wars would be notably unprofitable, and competing "rights enforcement agencies" would quickly normalize their relations with one another, in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up. > in what way would private police be different from a Mafia? If you didn't like the service you were getting, you could stop paying for it.
- joseluis 6y ago
  Sorry Mr. Gangster we are not gonna need your business protection services any more... Yes, I can see it now. What could even go wrong with the privatization of violence?
  - haroldp 6y ago
    I mean... what you are describing as a worst case is actually the current system.
    - joseluis 6y ago
      I disagree. We currently have a system of law, and despite it not being perfect by any stretch of the imagination, at least governments ar subject to it and are incentivied to adhere to it in form and in principle for the most part. That would not be the case with a free market of private violence for-hire...
      - haroldp 6y ago
        AnCaps also support a system of law.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      No, it's not. The current situation is not privatized. Police are beholden to government leaders, who are elected.
      - haroldp 6y ago
        > Police are beholden to government leaders, who are elected. That is a platitude that doesn't really reflect reality.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to. We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable. Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before. This argument sounds good in theory, but given that we've had wars before in history, it needs some explanation why states and individuals act irrational in that regard all the time, but these new companies would not.
  - haroldp 6y ago
    > But we don't see them shooting each other up because there's the Leviathan with the big guns telling them not to. Do you think that 7-11 is itching to shoot up AM/PM? Would you still buy your Slurpies there if they stared? > We do for example, still see plenty of war between drug cartels, even though the wars are extremely unprofitable. Drug cartels are an artifact of the state. There are no drug cartels without drug prohibition. > Yet if you win one, you get to control much more space and you're suddenly a lot more profitable than before. Would you keep paying for cops that did that? Or hire different ones? > This argument sounds good in theory It's not my argument, especially. I'm not an anarchist. :) > it needs some explanation why states and individuals act irrational in that regard all the time I think that's very fair. But I think you will find that at the bottom of mafia violence is rational decision-making. But private rights-enforcement is a different game with very different rewards for the actors.
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > Do you think that 7-11 is itching to shoot up AM/PM? Would you still buy your Slurpies there if they stared? Not while it lasted. But generally, that's what happened before the nation states took over the monopoly of violence and enforced it with an iron fist. You may not see two mega companies go at it (they'll form a cartel), but want to set up a new shop next to 7-11? Good luck keeping the flames from spontaneously erupting all the time. We've had private right enforcement before we've had public rights enforcement, or rather, public rights enforcement evolved from private rights enforcement. You went to your local nobility who had a bunch of men to do the violent enforcement, and they'd settle disputes for you. Still: war. I'm not convinced it's a good idea to go back to a system that we've abandoned for its many issues, injustice and general inefficiency. Now, if you throw blockchain in there, that's a totally different story, of course! ;)
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  Tons of crimes meaningfully cross geographic boundaries. > in the same way that we don't see Uber and Lyft shooting each other up. Do I need to point out the obvious here? Uber and Lyft are subject to whatever states they operate in, including those police forces. The ancap police forces you're talking about would be subject to...what, exactly?
  - haroldp 6y ago
    > Do I need to point out the obvious here? Uber and Lyft are subject to whatever states they operate in, including those police forces. Would you still give Uber money if they were shooting up Lyft? > The ancap police forces you're talking about would be subject to...what, exactly? The voluntary support of their subscribers.
    - TulliusCicero 6y ago
      > Would you still give Uber money if they were shooting up Lyft? In the current context, no. If street wars between rival ride sharing companies was the norm, then sure, maybe, along with everyone else. People are remarkably flexible when it comes to necessities. Cabbies have been known to be racist as hell to black people for a long time, that didn't stop non-black people from taking taxis. > The voluntary support of their subscribers. Ah yes, and if they abuse others I'm sure their subscribers will withdraw their support, of course. Curious, what's the ancap version of something like CPS?
      - haroldp 6y ago
        > Curious, what's the ancap version of something like CPS? I think this is the best question I have been asked in this thread. As you might imagine, ancaps are very into this topic and have done a pretty good job of thinking through all the little details. The answer to almost all these questions is something like, "It would work just like it does now, but you would voluntarily choose who to pay for the service, instead of a government having a monopoly on it, so you could fire them if you weren't satisfied". CPS seems like a genuinely difficult problem though. For that matter, it's a tough problem in the current system. If you ran a rights enforcement agency, what would be the fall-out for you for interceding in a child abuse situation? Or for having one reported, but choosing to not intercede? What kind of liability would interceding expose you to? If you heard that in real 2020 America, Uber had directed its drivers not to report suspected child abuse, and Lyft had the opposite policy, would that influence who you hired? Great question.
- TulliusCicero 6y ago
  I mean, street wars are unprofitable in the large to gangs, and yet they still happen.

TulliusCicero 6y ago

> They just want to voluntarily pay for private policing The idea of private policing being effective and reasonable is subject to the same ridiculous reasoning that anarchists use. At best you'd end up with some completely fucked up cyberpunk dystopian bullshit where corporations are governments in all but name.

mhuffman 6y ago
... or protection for the rich only. Which leaves the poor to have to come up with other ways to get protection, which opens the door for a local "strongman", which turns into a type of government, rinse, repeat.
- haroldp 6y ago
  Poor people pay for their policing today, but don't get much for their money.
  - TulliusCicero 6y ago
    Yes, but they'd likely get even less from private policing. That the current situation is bad isn't a good reason to go and make it even worse. I'd love to see how such a system works out in practice, but much like anarcho-communists, there's no real evidence, just theorycrafting.

haroldp 6y ago

Negative karma for stating a fact? Does someone disagree that this is what AnCaps believe? Or do we just suppress heterodox ideas here?