AC: The Economics of Revolutions

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Arbiters who accept bribes go out of business. Imagine if PriceWatersHouseCoopers was exposed by accepting bribes from Paradise to keep its "rigged cards" under wraps. Who would ever hire PWHC after that?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, PWHC wouldn't be accepting bribes, Joe Blo in the claims department would be. After accepting bribes and resigning, he'd go on to lead a happy and healthy life and let PWHC deal with his mess.

[/ QUOTE ]
What makes Joe Blo immune from "prosecution"?

[/ QUOTE ]

What has Joe Blo done wrong other than make a poor business decision? As a result of it, he had to leave his job and will no longer be employed as a claims agent. Isn't that the free market in action? Haven't the services of Joe Blo Inc. lost their demand and, as such, hasn't he gone out of business, so to speak?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
What has Joe Blo done wrong other than make a poor business decision? As a result of it, he had to leave his job and will no longer be employed as a claims agent. Isn't that the free market in action?


[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. There's no law in the free market. Makes sense.

[PoBoy321]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What has Joe Blo done wrong other than make a poor business decision? As a result of it, he had to leave his job and will no longer be employed as a claims agent. Isn't that the free market in action?


[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. There's no law in the free market. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Joe Blo could certainly be forcively coerced into living in a prison, or moving to the Arctic Circle, or whatever, but isn't that the exact practice that ACers so ardently oppose in the government?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What has Joe Blo done wrong other than make a poor business decision? As a result of it, he had to leave his job and will no longer be employed as a claims agent. Isn't that the free market in action?


[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. There's no law in the free market. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Joe Blo could certainly be forcively coerced into living in a prison, or moving to the Arctic Circle, or whatever, but isn't that the exact practice that ACers so ardently oppose in the government?

[/ QUOTE ]
Uninitiated should be the stuck in front of coercion. Responding to another's aggression is not uninitiated coercion.

edit: because I can't type.

[bisonbison]

Uninitiated should be the stuck in front of government. Responding to another's aggression is not uninitiated coercion.

Of course, but if company A feels that they are responding to company B's aggression, when all company B did was buy a franchise down the street from them, who arbitrates that?

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
Uninitiated should be the stuck in front of government. Responding to another's aggression is not uninitiated coercion.

Of course, but if company A feels that they are responding to company B's aggression, when all company B did was buy a franchise down the street from them, who arbitrates that?

[/ QUOTE ]
Arbitraters...?

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, but if company A feels that they are responding to company B's aggression, when all company B did was buy a franchise down the street from them, who arbitrates that?



[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't profitable to initiate violence against a competitor, especially one who is insured by a private security firm.

Even jr. high educated, inner city gangs know this truth, and avoid "gang war" at all costs.

[bisonbison]

Even jr. high educated, inner city gangs know this truth, and avoid "gang war" at all costs.

No, they have few direct confrontations in force, but they have small skirmishes all the time at the fringes, and those skirmishes may be dangerous to bystanders. Those in the neighborhood (since they don't have to pay taxes) pay a private security firm to be out in force in their neighborhood. It's more cost effective for the security firm to offer this service to several adjacent communities at the same time and over time, the amount of coverage offered becomes sparser.

The citizens (unwilling to pay more to get the same service they used to get, but unwilling to go without and absent another choice due to the security market's entry costs) put up with it, but decide that a total ban on handguns on streets within 5 blocks of their houses is gonna be necessary for them to feel safe without a cop on every corner.

Now, non-subscribers live in this covered area, but everytime Bob AC goes out of the house with he sidearm, the few on-duty rentacops busts his balls, pushing him once or twice. Now Bob talks to his security company, demanding protection from these assaults.

The two security companies cannot reach an amicable agreement, and the non-coercer decides it's not worth the cost to insure Bob. Bob is now left uninsured in a two-provider market. Everytime he goes out with his gun he's harassed, and eventually an overzealous rentacop tries to take Bob's gun from him at a fourth of July picnic and gets shot.

The rentacop agency arrests Bob and disappears him, torturing him for weeks. And it all starts because some people live by a bar, don't want to sell their houses, and hate it when drunk people deface their property on saturday nights.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Of course, but if company A feels that they are responding to company B's aggression, when all company B did was buy a franchise down the street from them, who arbitrates that?



[/ QUOTE ]

It isn't profitable to initiate violence against a competitor, especially one who is insured by a private security firm.

Even jr. high educated, inner city gangs know this truth, and avoid "gang war" at all costs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Coke and Pepsi are going to fight it out in the streets! I'm sure they'll have no shortage of applicants to fill the ranks in their armies.

No blood for pop!

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
What has Joe Blo done wrong other than make a poor business decision? As a result of it, he had to leave his job and will no longer be employed as a claims agent. Isn't that the free market in action?


[/ QUOTE ]

Gotcha. There's no law in the free market. Makes sense.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, Joe Blo could certainly be forcively coerced into living in a prison, or moving to the Arctic Circle, or whatever, but isn't that the exact practice that ACers so ardently oppose in the government?

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a code 318. Legal actions under anarchocapitalism do not initiate force, they close force transactions opened by the initiating party.