4 ms·

"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

by 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.
  - snitko 13y ago
    > As to what it's called; the extortion would be called a compulsory service fee, war would be called large scale protective operations. You're missing the point. Paying service fees is never taxation because the result of not paying for a service is denying that service, while the result of not paying taxes is forceful alienation of property and possibly imprisonment. I am yet to hear of a private company who threatened its customers with all that if they cancel their subscription. If this happens in the free market with the said protection agency, my point is that it will be called extortion and recognized for what it is. That's important because the threshold of compliance in people lowers when they recognize they are being robbed. > 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 don't understand this point. What prevents a competitor (say, a big investor) from entering the market and establishing another big protection firm with lower prices and better service? If you say "they all will form a cartel" then I will point out that cartels are always very unstable and someone deserts or another outsider disrupts the market, historically this has been true. > 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. What could be worse than conducting a theft from people calling it taxation, then be bribed by corporations and using those tax money to serve corporate interests? Simple math: a company bribes an official with $1, the official spends $10 of somebody else's stolen money (so it doesn't cost him anything) for that company interests and that makes the company $100. In the free market, companies at least deal with the money they actually made, so there's no "free" money for them and no one to bribe.
snitko 13y ago
Also, note that firms cannot grow indefinitely, enormous corporations we see today are actually products of this governmental system, in which they bribe government for regulations and deny competitors opportunities. A great example of a market force that prevented an entity from growing is a recent Bitcoin incident in which one hashing pool was close to 51% of hashing power, which would give it an ability to double spend or otherwise compromise the network. So people simply spread awareness and many withdrew from this pool, effectively lowering its market share. What makes you think this is impossible with other businesses?
- arg01 13y ago
  I understand that they cannot grow indefinitely but being the sole survivor in a city is not far fetched. Ofcourse the higher income with less service in that city gives them additional funds to operate in other cities. As to your second point nothing makes me think it's impossible when people are paying attention to the business. But I believe that apathy is a large factor. Not only that but in this unregulated world how would you even know that this business has enough of the market to be a threat. Why would you change to a worse service if you only suspect they're getting a bit big and it has real financial or service impacts for you. You in turn need to pass on to your customers these impacts making your business less appealing even though your competitor isn't.
  - snitko 13y ago
    If there's apathy it means people don't care. If they cared they would do something. For example, they would be paying a number of independent market research and consumer protection agencies to keep an eye on all other companies, so they wouldn't have to do it all by themselves. So, those companies would pretty much do the regulating/info function of a government, except that no one can force anybody else to use their service. That is, you DON'T HAVE to pay (as with taxes), but if you like, you CAN. That is the crucial difference. Again, if people are apathetic about something, then what right on earth does a government have to extract money from them and teach them what's good and what's bad on this money, regardless of whether they agreed with that or not?

by arg01 13y ago

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.
- snitko 13y ago
  > As to what it's called; the extortion would be called a compulsory service fee, war would be called large scale protective operations. You're missing the point. Paying service fees is never taxation because the result of not paying for a service is denying that service, while the result of not paying taxes is forceful alienation of property and possibly imprisonment. I am yet to hear of a private company who threatened its customers with all that if they cancel their subscription. If this happens in the free market with the said protection agency, my point is that it will be called extortion and recognized for what it is. That's important because the threshold of compliance in people lowers when they recognize they are being robbed. > 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 don't understand this point. What prevents a competitor (say, a big investor) from entering the market and establishing another big protection firm with lower prices and better service? If you say "they all will form a cartel" then I will point out that cartels are always very unstable and someone deserts or another outsider disrupts the market, historically this has been true. > 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. What could be worse than conducting a theft from people calling it taxation, then be bribed by corporations and using those tax money to serve corporate interests? Simple math: a company bribes an official with $1, the official spends $10 of somebody else's stolen money (so it doesn't cost him anything) for that company interests and that makes the company $100. In the free market, companies at least deal with the money they actually made, so there's no "free" money for them and no one to bribe.

snitko 13y ago

Also, note that firms cannot grow indefinitely, enormous corporations we see today are actually products of this governmental system, in which they bribe government for regulations and deny competitors opportunities. A great example of a market force that prevented an entity from growing is a recent Bitcoin incident in which one hashing pool was close to 51% of hashing power, which would give it an ability to double spend or otherwise compromise the network. So people simply spread awareness and many withdrew from this pool, effectively lowering its market share. What makes you think this is impossible with other businesses?

arg01 13y ago
I understand that they cannot grow indefinitely but being the sole survivor in a city is not far fetched. Ofcourse the higher income with less service in that city gives them additional funds to operate in other cities. As to your second point nothing makes me think it's impossible when people are paying attention to the business. But I believe that apathy is a large factor. Not only that but in this unregulated world how would you even know that this business has enough of the market to be a threat. Why would you change to a worse service if you only suspect they're getting a bit big and it has real financial or service impacts for you. You in turn need to pass on to your customers these impacts making your business less appealing even though your competitor isn't.
- snitko 13y ago
  If there's apathy it means people don't care. If they cared they would do something. For example, they would be paying a number of independent market research and consumer protection agencies to keep an eye on all other companies, so they wouldn't have to do it all by themselves. So, those companies would pretty much do the regulating/info function of a government, except that no one can force anybody else to use their service. That is, you DON'T HAVE to pay (as with taxes), but if you like, you CAN. That is the crucial difference. Again, if people are apathetic about something, then what right on earth does a government have to extract money from them and teach them what's good and what's bad on this money, regardless of whether they agreed with that or not?