Political Theory

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

filc — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:47:24 GMT

scineram:
Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.

Without economic calculation how do I know I am getting the best bang for my buck?

A friend of mine lost his father over a year ago due to a hit and run. The driver was currently on the job. We know the business involved and the driver, we have names of both the company and the potential driver. The state spent the last year clowning around with the case never allowing the family the opportunity to continue legal recourse against the business or the individual who murderd their father. We weren't even allowed to touch the case. What kind of justice is this?

If this were a PDA they would have been fired 8 months ago. How is property being protected in these scenarios? How can we compare this performance to that of other domestic legal systems? We can't. If the state out-competed everyone as you assert, there would be no need for the continued legal monopoly.

Also need we point out the last 3 years of bailouts, intervention, and involvements which have effectively been nothing but the destruction of property and capital in the US? The state is the number one culprit for increased capital consumption. Your equation is ass backards, The state does not foster the accumulation of capital which makes an economy rich, the market will do that alone and by itself. (Capital markets grew long before the US, and long before democracy) The state negate's the speed by which capital does accumulate and in addition it increases the rate of capital consumption.

At some point Scineram you may feel inclined to actually start learning economics. No offense my friend but you have had the same consistent assertions since day one with us. Why continue with the badgering?

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

JL Bryan — Sat, 24 Apr 2010 23:32:02 GMT

I think I get Bloom's point here (correct me if I'm wrong). It seems like he's saying that since we have a monopoly security system now, that must be what works. In other words, since the market hasn't evolved to provide security--against states, at least--maybe the market isn't the best provider of security. If it were, why isn't it providing security now--why didn't market competition prevent a monopolist from arising? Or anyway this is a question that seems related.

I think the market is evolving to provide more and more security. There's a multibillion-dollar private security industry, a multi-trillion-dollar insurance industry. I read somewhere around Mises or LRC that there are more private security guards than government police now.

The market does, in many places, provide most or all of the day-to-day security people actually need. If you live in a condo or apartment, security can be (often is) bundled in with your rent (or condo fees). The same if you operate a business in an office park, shopping center, airport, etc.--security comes bundled with your lease. Obviously it must be cost effective to pay for security in these places, or we wouldn't see businesses doing it everywhere.

So imagine the government police disappear, and all the existing security guards instead have the weapons, training and compensation to act as the primary enforcers of security, protecting people and property. Since all these property owners will no longer pay taxes, it'll be even easier for them to afford security services to make their properties more attractive to tenants.

So who would that leave unprotected right now? There are suburban homeowners. Some of these already hire security through homeowner's associations, and they may have gates and other security measures. That leaves suburbanites who don't have HOAs (and many prefer this). In their case, if they want security services, they'll have to buy them individually. But this would just be one more bill, along with water and electricity. Nobody's forced to buy water or power (or TV or internet), but just about everyone does. The security could just be a number to call for security officers in case of emergency, or could include monitored burglar alarms, regular patrols, etc. depending on what you're willing to pay for.

Now who does that leave without security? I guess rural people. But first, they aren't subject to much crime or conflict, since there aren't many people around them. Second, such people usually have a tradition of self-reliance and solving conflicts directly. Finally, if they feel that they need additional security, they can subscribe to a service (or start one, if none exists yet).

So there are really only a few minor changes on the market side. Those facilities and HOAs that don't currently provide much security would need to contract for more, in the absence of police. Entrepreneurs would need to provide a variety of new subscriber-based security for suburban homeowners and standalone businesses--the closest analogy in our current market is probably those 24/7 burglar alarm monitoring companies. However, the lack of taxes would make up for these costs. Also, private security would have to be ready to use violence to protect persons and property against aggression. Some of them just carry a flashlight and cell phone right now, like mall security. Bank security guards, though, are usually armed.

And of course you can already buy insurance for your property and your life. And insurance companies already handle disputes among each other through private arbitration. So I think a lot of the free-market order has been quietly forming over the last century or two while nobody was watching, just in the cracks where the state provided insufficient or inefficient security and arbitration. The entire institutional infrastructure of a pure market society is all around us and thriving.

If the state continues on its way to fiscal collapse, people might turn more and more to private alternatives to meet their security needs. It may not even take a conscious ideological shift--we could end up in market anarchy by default. It makes me think of how people lived with monarchy and slavery for thousands of years, and then in the last couple centuries, at least in the West, everybody just kind of changed their minds and didn't believe in those institutions anymore. Today, most people consider monarchy, Communism, fascism and dictatorship to be bad forms of government. What will the statists do when people don't have any enthusiasm left for the democratic/republican form of government? All the other options besides free markets are being winnowed away by their demonstrated failure over time.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 21:49:45 GMT

The tactics you use depend on the type of opponent. See Sun Tzu.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

twistedbydsign99 — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 16:21:06 GMT

bloomj31:
I don't know what I would use to personally oppose the military tbh.

Our military is good at conquering an overt force. If you were part of a force that blended in with the local populace it would be very hard for them to conquer you. Also we the people have superior numbers, that means that we have the strategic advantage, the military has the tactical advantage (superior weapons and armor). If you are looking for a target of opportunity attack the transport trucks the military uses, the supply chain is their biggest weakness.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

bloomj31 — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 07:30:40 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

Take your pick.

I don't know what I would use to personally oppose the military tbh.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Caley McKibbin — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:44:04 GMT

bloomj31:

Caley McKibbin:

You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because.

What do you oppose them with?

Take your pick.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

bloomj31 — Thu, 01 Apr 2010 03:17:46 GMT

Caley McKibbin:

You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because.

What do you oppose them with?

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Vichy Army — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:33:36 GMT

Earlier you were rightfully decrying democracy...now it seems that you say that democracy is the legitimizing force for your proposed government?

This has nothing to do with legitimacy. This has to do with a de facto requirement, basically that the elite by and large consent and thereby lead the masses to accept the sovereign. This is not what makes it 'right', this is a practical requirement.

I assume you mean land owners? Why is land ownership relevant?

Well, not so much anymore. Land ownership is important (as it factors into territorial control), but pretty much the intellectual and commercial elite and middle-class. Mostly the super-rich.

What do you mean by "civilized manner"?

If you have to ask, you'll never know?
Not acting in a way that lowers property values, drives out commerce and disturbs any relevant portion of the elite who own the government or the oligarchy/dictatorship that runs it.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:19:00 GMT

scineram:
How do you make sure they don't exist?

You oppose them. The minarchist position is to accept them... just because.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Caley McKibbin — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:16:12 GMT

scineram:

CrazyCoot:
If you believe in a limited state please tell me why you think that the shortcomings of monopolies, rising prices and decreasing quality, don't apply to the state and any other reasons why the state would do a better job than a private firm.

Think of it this way: the state is the PDA that outcompeted all the others.

There is obviously no reason to think of it this way for the simple reason that did not compete for clients. Even if it did, it's one of the basics of AE that competition is defined by open entry, not the number of firms.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

mhamlin — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 19:09:22 GMT

Liberté:

Andrew Cain:

How does it gain said authority?

By the willingness of a significant majority of property holders to actually submit to its rulings and sovereignty.

Earlier you were rightfully decrying democracy...now it seems that you say that democracy is the legitimizing force for your proposed government?

Liberté:

So, a non-voluntary government?

It is voluntary for those who hold property and can maintain themselves in a civilized manner. Barbarians are neither subject to nor protected by laws except at the sufferance of the sovereign.

I assume you mean land owners? Why is land ownership relevant? What do you mean by "civilized manner"?

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

Vichy Army — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 16:38:57 GMT

Andrew Cain:

How does it gain said authority?

By the willingness of a significant majority of property holders to actually submit to its rulings and sovereignty.

It would be more accurate to say that this is an ex post facto justification and victim rationalization rather than its "purpose".

Not at all. I grant you that at certain points many governments are bad at this, for reasons of bad organizational structure or bad leaders - but the same can be said of any failed corporation. The trick is to make sure that the right incentives, corporate structure and prospectus are in place to ensure (as far as is possible in any human endevour) that the right people and organizations exist. To a large extent this must rely on what economists like to call 'market forces', but not solely on 'market' forces, also on forces of the human mind, culture and civilizational development of a people. It must be suited to specific circumstances and societies. These can not be proscribed, for 'a constitution for all nations is fit for none'.

So, a non-voluntary government?

It is voluntary for those who hold property and can maintain themselves in a civilized manner. Barbarians are neither subject to nor protected by laws except at the sufferance of the sovereign.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

bloomj31 — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:30:08 GMT

scineram:

How do you make sure they don't exist?

This.

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

scineram — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:24:23 GMT

Andrew Cain:

bloomj31:
Do they really need the right to outlaw other forms of competition when they've got the guns? I mean...isn't that kinda the whole point of being the institution of force?
'

If they are the only 'PDA' because they use violence or the threat of violence then they have no legitimate right in the first place.

How do you make sure they don't exist?

Re: Why does a large chunk of the population not view national defense and law enforcement as services?

DanielMuff — Wed, 31 Mar 2010 08:23:56 GMT

Liberté:

Daniel Muffinburg:

Liberté:

.... The answer is not, however, 'no government' but real government; actual authority, actual capacity, actual governance, actual responsibility.

Is this a voluntary government or non-voluntarily government?

As valuable as 'liberty' (in the Manchester or Hobbesian sense) may be, it must be preceded by peace, order and security. Thus the government supercedes the authority of any given individual for its explicit purpose is Cameralist (to protect property owners, and to derive revenues thereby). Those who are a threat to property owners and privilege (private law) are outside of its purview and are to be dealt with in whatever way seems most appropriate.

The corporate body is formed for the interests of its customers and its owners, not some imaginary 'society' or 'rights' or what have you.

So, a non-voluntary government?