|
|
#1
10-01-2005, 01:11 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Against pvn, part 2
One of the fundamental premises of anarcho-capitalism is that the free market can efficiently provide public goods such as military defense or police.
Take a hypothetical, typical citizen in a town threatened by gang activity. He would be willing to pay $100 to prevent the town being taken over by gangs. A local entrepreneur projects that a total of $50/citizen has to be raised for his new free-market police force to secure the town from the gangs. Sounds good. But then our hypothetical citizen realizes that he can contribute nothing, and his fellow citizens will be forced to pony up an extra dollar or two to cover for him. Then his neighbor realizes this, and so on, and so on. Thoughts? 
|
|
#3
10-01-2005, 01:52 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Against pvn, part 2
[ QUOTE ]
Who says the entrepreneur has to protect those who don't pay for his services? Will [/ QUOTE ] If the police decided not to protect specifically your house from organized crime, how much of a problem do you think that would be?
|
|
#4
10-01-2005, 03:06 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Against pvn, part 2
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Who says the entrepreneur has to protect those who don't pay for his services? Will [/ QUOTE ] If the police decided not to protect specifically your house from organized crime, how much of a problem do you think that would be? [/ QUOTE ] ...wow. I'm speechless. How much of a problem would it be? First off, organized crime would dissipate significantly in an a-c society, because much of what they engage in would be legal. But to your point - If I didn't want organized crime in my house, it would be a big problem. Thus, I'd make sure to pay the security service rather than throwing their bills in the trash. If I did want organized crime in my house...then it's no one else's business. You need to do some reading. Try this. Will
|
|
#5
10-01-2005, 09:44 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Against pvn, part 2
[ QUOTE ]
One of the fundamental premises of anarcho-capitalism is that the free market can efficiently provide public goods such as military defense or police. Take a hypothetical, typical citizen in a town threatened by gang activity. He would be willing to pay $100 to prevent the town being taken over by gangs. A local entrepreneur projects that a total of $50/citizen has to be raised for his new free-market police force to secure the town from the gangs. Sounds good. But then our hypothetical citizen realizes that he can contribute nothing, and his fellow citizens will be forced to pony up an extra dollar or two to cover for him. Then his neighbor realizes this, and so on, and so on. Thoughts? [/ QUOTE ] So basically your contention is that nobody will pay because they assume everyone else will pay and they plan on just taking a free ride. We can also address those too poor to purchase police protection. Assume there is perfect police protection, no crime. Those who pay will have direct protection (or whatever they've purchased) while the free riders only derrive security as a side benefit of the general increased level of security in their area. Lots of people will get sick of paying for something they're "not using". Police protection will decrease. Crime will start to appear. As fewer people pay for protection, more crime will appear. Eventually the free riders will decide they are no longer happy reaping the (decreasing) side benefits of everyone else's protection and pony up. Note that you can buy varying levels of police protection. There's no fixed quantity. You can have occasional patrols, or a full time in-house SWAT team. Whatever you pay for. Now let's talk about poor people that can't afford "police protection." It's a fact, some people will not be able to afford any police protection. Of course, there are (in our current system) people that can't afford food or shelter, commodities that are more important than police protection, yet there's no call for a government monopoly for providing food and shelter. Why is that? Chairity would take care of the poor. Private firms would provide goodwill services (as hospitals do) as part of their reputation-building. There are "legal aid" societies that provide legal services to the poor, it seems logical to assume that "police aid" societies would provide similar service to the poor (including pursuit of the ubiquitous "guy that kills homeless people for fun" that critics inevitably whip up in their arguments against anarchy). Given the poor level of police protection that the poor get in the state-provided system, it's not hard to believe that the poor would get better service in a free market. It would still be less than the rich get, yes. Homeless shelters are not as nice as the Waldorf-Astoria.
|
|
#7
10-03-2005, 06:58 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
What\'s to stop this quasi-stasi
That is stop them from becoming a de facto state? They have the power to do a lot of the things a state would do (a very small townsized state but none the less).
Let's say for instance that for some reason a large number (perhaps the majority but at the very least a significantly large minority) of citizens in this small comunity wants "Bob" to move out. Mind you, "Bob" hasn't done any crimes but they dislike him anyway perhaps because of his religion or his sexual orientation or just because he is not very likeable. What would stop a strictly for-profit organisation from running him out of town pressuming it was to be payed extra? Sure, given an anarcho-capitalist state he might have a gun or two but thats frankly just a fancy way of commiting suicide against a well-armed well-trained force of para-military policmen. This actually brings me to my biggest problem with anarcho-capitalism in particular and libertarianism in general. I don't belive in the "Non-initiation of force". As long as there are people who are prepared to use force to further their agenda and espesially people that use force colectivly I can't see how they wouldn't very soon be in charge. Unless of course all these would not initiate force would also band together to colectivly use force aginst those who would threaten their way of life but then that is in itself sort of a state. Because in essence, isn't banding together for mutual protection sort of the central core of what a state is??? /Bjorn
|
|
#8
10-03-2005, 09:43 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: What\'s to stop this quasi-stasi
[ QUOTE ]
Let's say for instance that for some reason a large number (perhaps the majority but at the very least a significantly large minority) of citizens in this small comunity wants "Bob" to move out. Mind you, "Bob" hasn't done any crimes but they dislike him anyway perhaps because of his religion or his sexual orientation or just because he is not very likeable. What would stop a strictly for-profit organisation from running him out of town pressuming it was to be payed extra? [/ QUOTE ] Bob can pursue damages against them in a non-biased court. BTW, what's to stop this scenario from happening inside a state? It's happened before, with state support, even inside the US. When the state supports such action, you have no legal recourse, since the state also monopolized arbitration (the state will never agree to a third-party arbitrator). Sometimes, the state even engages in this behavior directly! [ QUOTE ] Sure, given an anarcho-capitalist state he might have a gun or two but thats frankly just a fancy way of commiting suicide against a well-armed well-trained force of para-military policmen. [/ QUOTE ] Like Waco. A bunch of guys just minding their own business, and government comes and burns them to the ground. [ QUOTE ] I don't belive in the "Non-initiation of force". As long as there are people who are prepared to use force to further their agenda and espesially people that use force colectivly I can't see how they wouldn't very soon be in charge. [/ QUOTE ] Non-initiation does not mean non-use. If someone else initiates force, I have no problem with counterattack. [ QUOTE ] Unless of course all these would not initiate force would also band together to colectivly use force aginst those who would threaten their way of life but then that is in itself sort of a state. [/ QUOTE ] No, that's people pooling resources voluntarily to achieve a goal. [ QUOTE ] Because in essence, isn't banding together for mutual protection sort of the central core of what a state is??? [/ QUOTE ] With all the coercion and stealing tacked on.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
