When Can You Infringe On Others Choices?

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
In effect, with the pricing power they would enjoy as the sole court for some period of time, they would be a monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is pure fallacy.

[ QUOTE ]
The scenario I outlined could be thought of as a type of natural monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, then you've just disproved your own claim, because natural monopoly is a concept that was manufactured to justify government intervention to benefit a politically-chosen player.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
I assume discrimination suits wouldnt be applicable in an AC society, because everyone is free to discriminate however they see fit and "let the market sort 'em out".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Freedom of association includes freedom to trade with those of one's own choosing.

[ QUOTE ]
Same thing for product liability, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

Product liability can produce real damages that can be pursued.

[ QUOTE ]
In effect the only crimes that would require third party adjudication would be "criminal" in the sense that we think of now and civil matters would be handled by market processes.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, to the contrary, "criminal" cases would likely be less common than civil cases. To a large degree, this would be because a lot of things that are crimes now would not be crimes under a stateless system.

[ QUOTE ]
Actually what I am hypothesizing is that crime is an elastic commodity and as you raise the price for committing crime, you get less of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

And somehow this is a bad thing in your view. What's the optimal amount of crime?

[SheetWise]

[ QUOTE ]
SheetWise: I could keep going, but I assume it's safe to stop here.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
For your own sake, I think thats a great idea.

[/ QUOTE ]
Thanks for the sentiment. I'll live dangerously.

[ QUOTE ]
In effect the only crimes that would require third party adjudication would be "criminal" in the sense that we think of now and civil matters would be handled by market processes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The AC society relies heavily on the individuals right to contract. Are you proposing that these contracts have no legal teeth?

[ QUOTE ]
Actually what I am hypothesizing is that crime is an elastic commodity and as you raise the price for committing crime, you get less of it.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which I acknowledged. Crime will adapt to risk/reward.

I'm most interested in your idea that individuals can contract, but these "civil matters would be handled by market processes". The current legal distinction between civil/criminal behavior is fuzzy at best -- and can best be measured by a prosecutors mood.

Since we're talking about an AC society, isn't all justice a market process?

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
This is pure fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? IF the only way to have a monopoloy is through government intervention, why do we have antitrust laws? Explain to me how if I have the pricing power to make competition unprofitable that is fallacious to say that in effect, I have a monopoly?

[ QUOTE ]
OK, then you've just disproved your own claim, because natural monopoly is a concept that was manufactured to justify government intervention to benefit a politically-chosen player.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, natural monopoly is not a "manufactured" concept. You hurt your own credibility by claiming a term that is widely accepted by economists is an artificial creation.

Natural Monopoly

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
The current legal distinction between civil/criminal behavior is fuzzy at best -- and can best be measured by a prosecutors mood.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. If someone creates damages for you, does the label "civil" or "criminal" really make any difference?

[ QUOTE ]
Since we're talking about an AC society, isn't all justice a market process?

[/ QUOTE ]

Winner!

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This is pure fallacy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Really? IF the only way to have a monopoloy is through government intervention, why do we have antitrust laws? Explain to me how if I have the pricing power to make competition unprofitable that is fallacious to say that in effect, I have a monopoly?

[/ QUOTE ]

We have antitrust laws because government likes to intervene in markets. Simple. Antitrust laws almost exclusively benefit ONLY the competitors of the firms they are used against, and hurt competition in general.

They are not used against monopolies, because monopolies derrive their market dominance from government protection in the first place. Instead, they punish firms that achieve market dominance through successful competition. The elimination of competitors is NOT the same as the elimination of competition (only government itself can achieve that).


[ QUOTE ]
Sorry, natural monopoly is not a "manufactured" concept. You hurt your own credibility by claiming a term that is widely accepted by economists is an artificial creation.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're buying into myth. The theory of natural monopolies was developed (by interventionist economists) well after such monopolies were granted (for political reasons). The theory was then used to retroactively justify the government intervention.

The theory's suggestions are not bourne out by historical fact, either. There is no evidence that any firm has ever achieved long-term efficiency gains by being the only player in a given market. To the contrary, deregulation consistently brings more efficiency and lower prices to consumers.

[Jdanz]

i knwo you have faith in your arguments, but can't you at least admit that there are significant and serious disadvantages.

A utopian outlook towards any future or policy is pretty much the surest recipy for disater.

While you admit the new world won't be perfect you seem to think it will be better then this one in all aspects, which almost certainly must be false even if it might be a net benifit.

[tylerdurden]

[ QUOTE ]
While you admit the new world won't be perfect you seem to think it will be better then this one in all aspects, which almost certainly must be false even if it might be a net benifit.

[/ QUOTE ]

It certainly won't be better for everyone. Specifically, it will be much, much worse for those who make their living plundering from others.

[Jdanz]

jesus, come on, let's keep this on a higher level, is there any reason you couldn't say those who have power currently, then those plundering others. I'm doing my very best to keep this intelligent rather then start name calling, please do me the same courtesy.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
Product liability can produce real damages that can be pursued.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed, but it doesnt have any real effect on my argument.

[ QUOTE ]
And somehow this is a bad thing in your view. What's the optimal amount of crime?

[/ QUOTE ]

Im not sure how you got that from my arguments. Im arguing at as crime goes down (due to the rising costs of commiting crime) than the profit margin becomes thinner and thinner for the private courts. This competition for the shrinking market (less crime remember) is going continueto spiral into a situation where at best one firm has the luck and/or savvy to survive. At this point, it actually makes more business sense for the now sole provider of adjudication to lower the price of crime in order to garner more profit. And oh by the way you have in effect created a pseudo state.