November 2007 - Posts


 This is a reply to the brain police's article "Minarchis: Ethically Self-contradictory"  It just wouldn't be fair to leave a 3 page comment. so here it is. I'm pretty new to a real debate about anarchist so if I mis represent any ideas please let me know. again here is a link to the article I'm responding to... 


 I'm not an anarchist, and not even a sympathizer, but I can nod my head at a point or two unlike a writing by a socialist or neo-con.

    But lets get a few things straight. the analogy you present at the beginning is wholly ill-representing the min-archist's ideas. It is not that we are simply robbed, but given a valuable service and then being robbed. I think there is a wide range of disagreement on just how valuable these services are, but even you, by expecting the service to one day be carried out by private companies. would anyone really abstain from receiving emergency assistance? or justice after being  assaulted?
The second complaint you might have; is that under our current system people who do not pay for a service reap its benefits. And that is natural, I would not pay for the internet if someone else would pay for it and I could get it for free. but remember that in business a owner can charge a dollar for you to have a cup of coffee and give the same coffee away for free. Now a person does not go into business in a field simply for money, at least not always. most doctors and surgeons really do want to help people. and I believe if justice were privatized it would be dispensed to many who could not, or had unwisely decided not to pay. this idea is compounded by the fact that a person who burglarizes me one day, would be much more likely to burglarize you tomorrow! and so it would be in a company's interests to catch a bad guy whenever possible regardless as to whether the victim is a customer or not. My point here is that the only real differences between the min-archist  and the anarchist is that those individuals who are really concerned with crime and justice would pay more and those who are not as interested or don't have the money would not pay at all instead of just a little bitty bit. In essences the result would be the same as donations.
    I can let the tariffs slide! tariffs are an end around sales tax. It is the same as the corporate income tax or contractor paying income tax. its a joke. any smart business man, whether a contractor, corporate CEO or exporter is going to be smart enough to pass on his costs to the consumer. a cabinet builder doesn't buy the lumber, the consumer does, so it is with Income tax and tariffs.
On the other side, I have often time jewed a store owner to lower his price so that after the sales tax is added on It is the same as the original asking price.

    Now lets talk about monopolies. if there were two companies in the business of “law” enforcement. How would there be real competition? Would they try to drive one another out of business? And if so how? Would the Loomis Fargo company kidnap criminals out of the hands of the Pinkerton police company? I don’t think so, again people do things because they enjoy it and believe in it. And therefore would work hard and try to increase efficiency in keeping people safe. In every situation I believe there would be a merger. And this might get scary, if the CEO expands his business across an entire region or even the country, did we just trade democracy for anarchy for a dictatorship?

    Another Basic question is who keeps the police in check? This idea of loosly organized non government protection is basically how gangs started. But then they did whatever they want? If the Bloods were around still but we did away with the government... well I see a way out of it through force, public uprising and violence. But wouldn’t you rather not have to go through all that?
Finally there is the issue of the customer. Lets talk about marginal returns. If the criminal company is doing a good job on all counts except I don’t think he is punishing arsonist harshly enough it is very unlikely that I could Start up another company and compete against the one already established. It might very well be that a lot of people feel the same way as I do. But, Pinkerton gets it right 95% of the time, so who wants to raise a fuss over 5%. They would prefer that be handled too, but it isn’t that big of a deal, people have other things to worry about, and no one is so concerned to invest the time and money, and giving up their current occupation to start up and run a competing company. But! Through a representative government, a Judge can be deposed relatively easily and you can even run as a judge. So through a government. Everyone has a better say in how the necessities of life are carried out.

    Lastly. The Anarchist is not going to get anywhere with abolition of the government. As of now the Min Archist and the Anarchist are fighting the same battle. It seems like 20% of people in America are working for the government in one way or another. Maybe more if we talk about the contractors sub contractors and the people who make money by selling to them. Eat an elephant one bite at a time. Fight socialism and big government by voting for small government. And once it is small and only a few people work for the government and it is feasible for the government’s job to be taken over by companies... then we can really have a debate and get into the nitty gritty. Until then to talk about anarchy is just whistlin’ in the wind.