7 ms·

Also, note that firms cannot grow indefinitely, enormous corporations we see today are actually products of this governmental system, in which they bribe govern

by 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?
  - arg01 13y ago
    Why in the world would I pay these regulators? It's an extra cost and their service is provided even if I don't pay because somebody else will pay for it. Why should these protection firms cooperate. How do we know the regulators aren't influenced by whichever of the protection firms they buy from? Remember it's only illegal for these regulators to lie if your own protection company supports the particular laws that require this other company to be accurate. If people are apathetic about the property rights of their neighbour what right does the government have to step in and stop them taking that property? In fact how would that even work in this pay for protection system? The neighbour will buy into a protection firm that will take the property back and a fee? If they can't pay the fee they will be placed in a work camp to deter the same action from others? Unfortunately the cost for board is higher than what your paid in the work camp. Is this perfectly acceptable under your system? If not how is it prevented? Does that man buy protection from a second company that will go in and storm the workcamp? If you're too poor to buy protection from one of the companies how is it illegal for them to just be collected and put in work camps? I just can't see your system of pay for protection being less abusive than one with a government.
    - snitko 13y ago
      > Why in the world would I pay these regulators? It's an extra cost and their service is provided even if I don't pay because somebody else will pay for it. You pay your taxes, don't you? Why wouldn't you pay private firms instead to do the same job more effectively? And then, of course, it's easy to imagine that such a regulator would only provide information to paying customers using a smartphone app, for example. > How do we know the regulators aren't influenced by whichever of the protection firms they buy from? How do you know your government regulator is not in bed with the company it regulates? In fact, you don't and in fact most of them are. You can only elect government officials (and not regulating agencies themselves) and then they stay in power for n years almost indefinitely. On the free market, there's competition of regulators. If I suspect one regulator takes bribes, I switch to another. Or maybe I subscribe to both and compare their info. Or alternatively, if I saw they were all in bed with consumer businesses, I'd stop paying them completely, as would many people, and that means they'd go out of business. > If people are apathetic about the property rights of their neighbour what right does the government have to step in and stop them taking that property? This one I didn't understand. In fact your last paragraph looks very odd and I don't understand how you came to imagine such a scenario. One thing I can tell you is that the poor will be able to afford protection agencies, just like they can afford owning a car or a pair of jeans or a computer. A protection agency doesn't have to be expensive to be profitable and it doesn't mean having personal body guards. There are various segments on that market and each can be covered. The crucial difference is that the poor will now be customers of the protection agency, whereas in the current system, I guess you're not going to argue, it is the poor who most often become victims of police brutality and injustice - the reason is, they're not customers, the police and the judges will be paid indefinitely and they know it.

by snitko 13y ago

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?
- arg01 13y ago
  Why in the world would I pay these regulators? It's an extra cost and their service is provided even if I don't pay because somebody else will pay for it. Why should these protection firms cooperate. How do we know the regulators aren't influenced by whichever of the protection firms they buy from? Remember it's only illegal for these regulators to lie if your own protection company supports the particular laws that require this other company to be accurate. If people are apathetic about the property rights of their neighbour what right does the government have to step in and stop them taking that property? In fact how would that even work in this pay for protection system? The neighbour will buy into a protection firm that will take the property back and a fee? If they can't pay the fee they will be placed in a work camp to deter the same action from others? Unfortunately the cost for board is higher than what your paid in the work camp. Is this perfectly acceptable under your system? If not how is it prevented? Does that man buy protection from a second company that will go in and storm the workcamp? If you're too poor to buy protection from one of the companies how is it illegal for them to just be collected and put in work camps? I just can't see your system of pay for protection being less abusive than one with a government.
  - snitko 13y ago
    > Why in the world would I pay these regulators? It's an extra cost and their service is provided even if I don't pay because somebody else will pay for it. You pay your taxes, don't you? Why wouldn't you pay private firms instead to do the same job more effectively? And then, of course, it's easy to imagine that such a regulator would only provide information to paying customers using a smartphone app, for example. > How do we know the regulators aren't influenced by whichever of the protection firms they buy from? How do you know your government regulator is not in bed with the company it regulates? In fact, you don't and in fact most of them are. You can only elect government officials (and not regulating agencies themselves) and then they stay in power for n years almost indefinitely. On the free market, there's competition of regulators. If I suspect one regulator takes bribes, I switch to another. Or maybe I subscribe to both and compare their info. Or alternatively, if I saw they were all in bed with consumer businesses, I'd stop paying them completely, as would many people, and that means they'd go out of business. > If people are apathetic about the property rights of their neighbour what right does the government have to step in and stop them taking that property? This one I didn't understand. In fact your last paragraph looks very odd and I don't understand how you came to imagine such a scenario. One thing I can tell you is that the poor will be able to afford protection agencies, just like they can afford owning a car or a pair of jeans or a computer. A protection agency doesn't have to be expensive to be profitable and it doesn't mean having personal body guards. There are various segments on that market and each can be covered. The crucial difference is that the poor will now be customers of the protection agency, whereas in the current system, I guess you're not going to argue, it is the poor who most often become victims of police brutality and injustice - the reason is, they're not customers, the police and the judges will be paid indefinitely and they know it.