4 ms·

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 t

by 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.
  - snitko 13y ago
    I think all your assumptions come from the fact that you don't believe competition, specifically on the protection market, can work. If I could convince you that in fact it would, then it appears all other questions can be resolved. For example your hypothetical scenario in the last paragraph is absolutely impossible if people have a choice of whom to pay for what services. In fact, it is possible even if this firm is monopolistic: stolen property? how was it stolen? why did nobody care? why did customers thought it's okay to keep paying to that firm knowing that their property can be alienated at any point in the same way? But anyhow, back to competition. First of all, for a competition to exist, it doesn't have to take 50% of the market. It only has to be sure that it is cheaper for the monopolist to compete with it fairly than to go to war using tactics such as predatory pricing or actual violence. In almost all cases fair competition is more profitable in the long term. It is established by many industry experts and economists that predatory pricing doesn't actually work. Only legislators seem to not grasp it and there's a good reason why: because their pay depends on the fact that they are supposedly protecting the public. I've read an awesome book about Airlines once (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W6871G/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W6871G/) and at the time it was a big surprise for me to find that governments very often launched predatory pricing and anti-competitive cases against discounters, who tried to disrupt the market of big established carriers. > 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. The difference is, in a democratic government official when elected knows almost definitely he's not going to lose his job for the next n years. He knows people will keep paying taxes. How does that create any incentive for him to work in the interests of the public? This kind of situation only creates incentives to accept bribes and use the position of power. If this official does this carefully, he will never face allegations, let alone jail time, because, of course, the judges and the police work in the same system with him and it is HIM who pays them, although not from his own money. The only people who go to jail are in the lower echelons of power and those are the ones who weren't careful enough to not piss off their masters. The Democratic system the west adores so much is just civilized and institutionalized corruption. It's a theatre pulled over the eyes of the people and it's so sad many people have this blind faith or at best acceptance of it.

by arg01 13y ago

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.
- snitko 13y ago
  I think all your assumptions come from the fact that you don't believe competition, specifically on the protection market, can work. If I could convince you that in fact it would, then it appears all other questions can be resolved. For example your hypothetical scenario in the last paragraph is absolutely impossible if people have a choice of whom to pay for what services. In fact, it is possible even if this firm is monopolistic: stolen property? how was it stolen? why did nobody care? why did customers thought it's okay to keep paying to that firm knowing that their property can be alienated at any point in the same way? But anyhow, back to competition. First of all, for a competition to exist, it doesn't have to take 50% of the market. It only has to be sure that it is cheaper for the monopolist to compete with it fairly than to go to war using tactics such as predatory pricing or actual violence. In almost all cases fair competition is more profitable in the long term. It is established by many industry experts and economists that predatory pricing doesn't actually work. Only legislators seem to not grasp it and there's a good reason why: because their pay depends on the fact that they are supposedly protecting the public. I've read an awesome book about Airlines once (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W6871G/ http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000W6871G/) and at the time it was a big surprise for me to find that governments very often launched predatory pricing and anti-competitive cases against discounters, who tried to disrupt the market of big established carriers. > 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. The difference is, in a democratic government official when elected knows almost definitely he's not going to lose his job for the next n years. He knows people will keep paying taxes. How does that create any incentive for him to work in the interests of the public? This kind of situation only creates incentives to accept bribes and use the position of power. If this official does this carefully, he will never face allegations, let alone jail time, because, of course, the judges and the police work in the same system with him and it is HIM who pays them, although not from his own money. The only people who go to jail are in the lower echelons of power and those are the ones who weren't careful enough to not piss off their masters. The Democratic system the west adores so much is just civilized and institutionalized corruption. It's a theatre pulled over the eyes of the people and it's so sad many people have this blind faith or at best acceptance of it.