6 ms·

> It is more a reminder that those who most seek to overthrow what they perceive to be the current oppressors are the most likely to end up being the future opp

• Noxchi 13y ago
  First of all, you need to explain what your "Defense agency" does. Actual defense is almost impossible if you want any mobility. Even US presidents get shot by determined citizens. If someone is willing to give their life to kill someone else, it can be done. With current technology, real defense is absurdly expense and still not effective. So the way society currently works is on a system of retribution. You basically have a big paddle, and you whack people who get out of societal norms. You rely on people's (usually) occurring desire to not hurt themselves without enough reward to maintain a reasonable level of order. So your "Defense agency", are you basically paying them to avenge you in case someone does you wrong? This has actually existed for thousands of years, it is known as "blood feuds" (except your family members do the avenging instead of a hired party). What it leads to is different families killing one another for generations, some have lasted for multiple hundreds of years. OK, but now in your system, it isn't families killing eachother but hired guns. Lets say now instead of 1 big paddle (the gubment), you now have 5 smaller paddles. Human nature will have it that each of the owners of those paddles will threaten some people (usually where he lives) to give him money or else he will whack you. Now you don't freedom of choice. If you think you can funnel some more money to a different paddle to save you, that may work... until now that paddle is the biggest of the bunch and he controls your area as well. Human nature will... (look into what warlords are, read some history on the 1000-1500 years in Europe, Central Asia, Asia) Listen buddy, humanity started with anarchism. What we have now for government is at least close to the best that we ever had before. If other forms of human cooperation were better, then they would have survived. Human cooperation is a survival of the fittest, and currently in the world, people strive for western ideals. That means democracy, capitalism with a bit of socialism, is the best we have (and have had) so far.
• arg01 13y ago
  "and trust me, there will be plenty willing to have my money and do a better job" See this is the bit I don't understand, my understanding of market forces is that those that do the job better will grow if they are in anyway scalable. Now your in a position were small protection rings are unable to work against there large competitors. Similar to how you say you can't compete against government in the supply of defense of sovereignty these small firms can't compete against the large firms in defense of law. So now you have a system were you have these large protection firms consolidating absorbing any small upstarts and focusing on specific territories (to become more efficient). Soon you've carved up the protection by geographic region and these companies have carte blanche in their own regions with a few places having oligopolies. Now these groups were obviously very friendly during this time and obviously never abused their position because the market is good at incorporating moral values into the cost of what they buy... but you would have to admit that as they are now acting as the sole provider in a specific location then it makes sense for them to extort that region at an amount that is lower than the cost of leaving for those extorted.
  • snitko 13y ago
    Two or more big firms are better than having one violent monopoly. Furthermore, if people are well aware those are actually firms, it becomes very hard for those firms to bullshit people into obedience. Extortion wouldn't be called taxation, it would be called extortion and everyone will be able to see that. War wouldn't be called war, but would be called murder. And most likely people would rebel against that. So, if I was this businessman running a protection agency, what do you think would I do: risk losing my business and possibly being killed by an angry mob or steady profit and serving my customers well? Truth is, governments are only able to run this charade because of the combination of power and brainwashing. Take one component away and it's gone. Of course you might say "but people are so easily brainwashed, of course those firms are gonna be able to do it and convince people that them being de-facto government is a great thing". Well, ask yourself, these days, how many people can you convince that slavery is a good idea?
    • arg01 13y ago
      But you seem to be unhappy with the current system of the hundred or more big firms and are advocating disbanding these current governments and switching from this to even smaller firms. I'm confused because I believe this will naturally lead to these firms growing into larger firms with no oversight by the public at large and thus eventually give you even fewer options. As to what it's called; the extortion would be called a compulsory service fee, war would be called large scale protective operations. What people call it privately isn't a problem until the point at which the extortion is costing them more than they think they can save by revolting. As to why would the business do this? Because they can make more money doing this and it's not illegal because they are the law. They do not care about the good will of the customer, because the extra cost to the customer is not enough for the customer to act on. Prices are set to what the market will pay, in this case it's as close to revolt as the business can get away with. I would also like to point out that I don't disagree with your assertion that their are negatives with a government controlled monopoly on law enforcement, I disagree with the idea that a free market system for it would not be subject to worse corruption/abuse. Well, ask yourself, these days, how many people can you convince that bullying is a good idea? Just because an idea is not something that you would choose if you're enlightened, does not mean that people will not backslide into it.