3 ms·

Lots of cryptography and security guards?

by xyzzy4747 3y ago

nobodyandproud 3y ago
So threat of violence? In other words, a defacto government?
- xyzzy4747 3y ago
  The most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. I imagine it would mostly be for defensive purposes and to protect employees but you never know.
  - nobodyandproud 3y ago
    Sure but as a profitable company not accountable to customers, what stops them from giving poor service at a premium?
    - xyzzy4747 3y ago
      The customers would buy less of their services probably.
      - krapp 3y ago
        Why would companies that claim their own monopolies on violence and have no laws to answer to other than their own allow customers to do so? What's to stop companies from blacklisting such customers or collaborating to fix prices? What's being described here is what anarcho-capitalism and pure free markets always devolve into - the mafia. You don't get to just shop around for a better mafia if you don't like the one running your town.
      - seadan83 3y ago
        That implies having a choice to buy less or more of a service. Healthcare often does not give that choice.
  - JumpCrisscross 3y ago
    > most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. Monopoly on violence requires enforcing that monopoly. Such a firm would also stomp out its competition. You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
    - seadan83 3y ago
      > You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government. Government run healthcare, the healthcare where you just go to the hospital and then you just get treated.. (?) Government run healthcare does not have a great reputation for doing cutting-edge health care, but on the other hand it does have a good reputation for taking care of people for basic needs. How is that describing a monopoly on violence? Repairing broken bones is the same as breaking bones? (If the implied argument is that health care is so heavily rationed, that people are left untreated, tantamount to violence, I would beg you to look at the statistics of which countries have more complications due to untreated illnesses (hint, the US is high on that list [1]; or we could look at health outcomes per dollar spent, US is very far down on that list, US spends multiples of other countries for the same outcome)) I would think a more apt description and example of a monopoly on violence would be narco-states. Otherwise the example is a well functioning government, and that is demonstrated in the police force and judicial system (not healthcare). When considering the absence of the government monopoly on violence, drug markets are the closest thing there is to a true free-market. And yes, there contract enforcement is contingent upon a bunch of people standing behind you with guns. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-skipped-gallup/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-sk...
      - nobodyandproud 3y ago
        In your haste, I think you missed a key bit: “… by an unelected government.” Or do you mean an unelected government has a good track record of meeting basic needs as well?
        seadan83 3y ago

Lots of cryptography and security guards?

nobodyandproud 3y ago

So threat of violence? In other words, a defacto government?

xyzzy4747 3y ago
The most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. I imagine it would mostly be for defensive purposes and to protect employees but you never know.
- nobodyandproud 3y ago
  Sure but as a profitable company not accountable to customers, what stops them from giving poor service at a premium?
  - xyzzy4747 3y ago
    The customers would buy less of their services probably.
    - krapp 3y ago
      Why would companies that claim their own monopolies on violence and have no laws to answer to other than their own allow customers to do so? What's to stop companies from blacklisting such customers or collaborating to fix prices? What's being described here is what anarcho-capitalism and pure free markets always devolve into - the mafia. You don't get to just shop around for a better mafia if you don't like the one running your town.
    - seadan83 3y ago
      That implies having a choice to buy less or more of a service. Healthcare often does not give that choice.
- JumpCrisscross 3y ago
  > most profitable companies can afford the most security. It would probably work to some extent. Monopoly on violence requires enforcing that monopoly. Such a firm would also stomp out its competition. You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government.
  - seadan83 3y ago
    > You’re describing government-run healthcare by an unelected government. Government run healthcare, the healthcare where you just go to the hospital and then you just get treated.. (?) Government run healthcare does not have a great reputation for doing cutting-edge health care, but on the other hand it does have a good reputation for taking care of people for basic needs. How is that describing a monopoly on violence? Repairing broken bones is the same as breaking bones? (If the implied argument is that health care is so heavily rationed, that people are left untreated, tantamount to violence, I would beg you to look at the statistics of which countries have more complications due to untreated illnesses (hint, the US is high on that list [1]; or we could look at health outcomes per dollar spent, US is very far down on that list, US spends multiples of other countries for the same outcome)) I would think a more apt description and example of a monopoly on violence would be narco-states. Otherwise the example is a well functioning government, and that is demonstrated in the police force and judicial system (not healthcare). When considering the absence of the government monopoly on violence, drug markets are the closest thing there is to a true free-market. And yes, there contract enforcement is contingent upon a bunch of people standing behind you with guns. [1] https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-skipped-gallup/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/medical-care-costs-americans-sk...
    - nobodyandproud 3y ago
      In your haste, I think you missed a key bit: “… by an unelected government.” Or do you mean an unelected government has a good track record of meeting basic needs as well?
      - seadan83 3y ago