5 ms·

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 thos

• 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.
    • arg01 13y ago
      I didn't miss the point, I was being flippant in that they can call it what they like and there is little you can do about it, you can call it extortion among your friends but that doesn't change the outcome. I also think you're forgetting what service they're providing. If you aren't paying anyone for protection then anyone can rob you and no one will be enforcing consequences on them for you as you have no protection, anyone can break contract with you as you have no option to enforce the contract. Maybe you're rich enough to hire a personal bodyguard but the majority of people can not. The majority of people effectively have to pay this “service” fee or move or be insecure in their possessions. Why doesn't another competitor enter the market? Well considering the market the competitor needs to be big enough to stand up to a literal attack by the incumbent. In the best case the incumbent and the newcomer both end up being about the same size and they compete. Alternatively as this hypothetical investor who has the capital to get about half of this large market I would do better spending the same investment on a smaller market were I can capture the whole market and force a higher percentage return on the investment. You can look at comcast/time warner to get an idea why these two big encumbents might not compete even without forming a cartel. If someone was to point me at google fiber as an example of how the market will be disrupted I'd point out the fact that the local companies are trying to use the legal system to thwart google fibers growth even within the city and if these companies were the enforcement of the legal system I don't particularly believe google would get a fair shake of the stick. What could be worse? What could be worse than conducting a theft from people calling it a service fee, then be bribed by corporations and not delivering the service to serve a corporate interests? Simple math: a company pays (it's not a bribe it's legal) the protection company with $1, the protection company allows $10 of somebody's stolen property to be used (so it doesn't cost them anything) for that company and that makes the company $100. In a system with a democratic government, the official has to at least pay lip service to working for the public good and it's illegal to accept that payment.