4 ms·

Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we c

Of course it would be easy. Private companies can easily take people's property - just point a gun at them. It worked well for the East India company. If we can eliminate government, we can eliminate the people's protection racket. This will allow private companies to flourish, and the weak to be eliminated.

mindcrime 11y ago
The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.
- mozumder 11y ago
  Yah, I don't get why you feel the East India company was any different from any other company?
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power. The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
  - mindcrime 11y ago
    The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation. That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Not to mention they had a government-granted monopoly on trade with India for the first century of their existence.
    - mozumder 11y ago
      Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what private corporations can do, correct? Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
      - mindcrime 11y ago
        are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government. Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Correct. Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense. You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies". I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".

mindcrime 11y ago

The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. I find it amusing that you would cite that example as an argument FOR government, as I think it stands as a classic example of the worst of what government enables.

mozumder 11y ago
Yah, I don't get why you feel the East India company was any different from any other company?
- mindcrime 11y ago
  Which other private companies have been given the authority to more or less declare war and occupy territory as they see fit? I guess you could argue Halliburton comes close, but the point is that most private companies aren't given those powers.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> The East India Company was a "private company" in the loosest possible sense. It was operating with the explicit sanction of the British Empire and was effectively a government in its own right. Every company that exists as separate juridical entity (e.g., every corporation, for starters) does so with the explicit sanction of a government and is an exercise of government power. The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation.
- mindcrime 11y ago
  The East India Company was a private company in exactly the same sense as any other "private" corporation. That's just being pedantic. It was a "private company" yes, but a private company that was granted powers far beyond those given to pretty much any other private company. They were allowed to maintain their own private army and effectively rule large parts of India as though they were the government. That's a HUGE difference from the typical private company.
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Not to mention they had a government-granted monopoly on trade with India for the first century of their existence.
  - mozumder 11y ago
    Not sure what you're getting at here.. are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? It seems like you didn't think your cunning plan all the way through, because you seem to be implying that you need more government regulation on what private corporations can do, correct? Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies".
    - mindcrime 11y ago
      are you saying, that, without government, the East India company wouldn't be stealing people's lands? Most likely. Of course it's all hypotheticals, but since we - for the most part - define government as that entity which has (mostly) a monopoly on the use of force, a private company would not generally be considered empowered to do that without the sanction of a government. Or are you saying that, without government regulation, the East India company wouldn't have formed their own private army? Correct. Do you think private armed militias, that are legal today in the US, be allowed to exist? Of course they can exist. Now, of course, we're at the bottom of the stack, so to speak. What if one of these private militias "goes rogue" and commits unspeakable atrocities? Who's to stop that, right? And I guess your answer would be "the government"? I'd argue that the answer is "some other voluntarily assembled mutual defense entity, or no one". Anyway, all we've really shown here is that if you drill down deep enough, human conflict is inevitable and at some level we may never get away from "force vs force". But I argue against institutionalizing the idea of using force to compel people to do things, and keep the use of force reserved for self defense. You're going to have to reconcile your position of "less government" with "leads to more private armies". I'm not opposed to private armies in general. I'm opposed to private armies, operating with the sanction of the State, and essentially becoming one more arm of the government, and being used to violate people's rights. Or, you could even omit the "with the sanction of the State" bit, and the rest would still stand. The problem is, when we accept the presence and authority of something like a State, and then it endorses or sanctions "evil" (for lack of a better term) acts, it's that much harder to muster opposition to those acts, since they're nominally "legal".