AC Scenario
 

Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

Re: AC Scenario
 

Any time a large military-like force becomes pathological and hell-bent on enslaving a region it will suck for all parties involved regardless of whether the region is AC-land or a state. This should go with out saying. However, there are a few factors that will make this scenario suck less in AC-land.

1. ABC Defense's clients will stop paying for the service. Without a steady stream of income ABC Defense will rely on looting to sustain itself. While this might be theoretically possible, it's very difficult in the modern age, and will be more difficult than "free" money from sources like taxes.

2. ABC Defense cannot print it's own money. States can often sidestep the issue of huge taxes by stealing money in a sense from the current monetary supply by basically creating new money out of thin air at the expense of causing inflation. If taxes were raised in the US to a level that would be required to pay for the Iraq war, instead of the government borrowing the money, it would have been much less likely to happen.

3. ABC Defense will have a much more difficult time than the state keeping it's employees in line while they're running around raping and pillaging their fellow man. While I'm sure ABC Defense would be working hard to emulate the nationalistic brain-washing and conditioning the state does so well, thats much tougher to do with mercenaries. Result: Aggressive wars will cost ABC Defense more than they cost the state, at least payroll wise.

4. Is ABC Defense totally self-contained, or does it contract with other companies to produce it's weapons, ship it's equipment, run it's administrative buildings, train its doctors, etc. etc.? No Defense company is going to rise to prominence in a free-market without contract stipulations with other companies that make the agreements null and void if it decides to go on a murderous rampage. Would you hire ABC Defense if you knew from consumer reporting groups that there were no contractual disincentives to it pwning you? It would be ostracizing itself from most of the rest of the market by making this decision, meaning it would have to be truly monolithic in order for this to occur.

There are other reasons, but I"ve got to run to work so I'll let others fill in. All that being said, you could construct a really pathological scenario where ABC Defense had gotten so large that it controlled most of the means of war-industry itself so it could operate independent of the market, had run a campaign over the last 10 years indoctrinating its employees so effectively they would fight and die cheaply to further its goals, and had deals with the majority of the banks in the region that allowed it to sieze everyone's funds at will so they couldn't really stop paying it. Notice though that when you take pains to construct a completely pathological example of the worst-case scenario in AC-Land you get the statist status quo.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Statism scenario.
Adolp Hitler III takes over ABC country, the most powerful country in the world. How would the other countries stop him for taking over the world?

Re: AC Scenario
 

"
Statism scenario.
Adolp Hitler III takes over ABC country, the most powerful country in the world. How would the other countries stop him for taking over the world?
"

The bomb.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any time a large military-like force becomes pathological and hell-bent on enslaving a region it will suck for all parties involved regardless of whether the region is AC-land or a state. This should go with out saying. However, there are a few factors that will make this scenario suck less in AC-land.

1. ABC Defense's clients will stop paying for the service. Without a steady stream of income ABC Defense will rely on looting to sustain itself. While this might be theoretically possible, it's very difficult in the modern age, and will be more difficult than "free" money from sources like taxes. <font color="red">so they steal it </font>

2. ABC Defense cannot print it's own money. States can often sidestep the issue of huge taxes by stealing money in a sense from the current monetary supply by basically creating new money out of thin air at the expense of causing inflation. If taxes were raised in the US to a level that would be required to pay for the Iraq war, instead of the government borrowing the money, it would have been much less likely to happen. <font color="red">so they counterfeit it or steal it </font>

3. ABC Defense will have a much more difficult time than the state keeping it's employees in line while they're running around raping and pillaging their fellow man. While I'm sure ABC Defense would be working hard to emulate the nationalistic brain-washing and conditioning the state does so well, thats much tougher to do with mercenaries. Result: Aggressive wars will cost ABC Defense more than they cost the state, at least payroll wise. <font color="red"> so they steal the differential </font>

4. Is ABC Defense totally self-contained, or does it contract with other companies to produce it's weapons, ship it's equipment, run it's administrative buildings, train its doctors, etc. etc.? No Defense company is going to rise to prominence in a free-market without contract stipulations with other companies that make the agreements null and void if it decides to go on a murderous rampage. <font color="red">rofl. back to utopia. or they steal them </font> Would you hire ABC Defense if you knew from consumer reporting groups that there were no contractual disincentives to it pwning you? It would be ostracizing itself from most of the rest of the market by making this decision, meaning it would have to be truly monolithic in order for this to occur.

There are other reasons, but I"ve got to run to work so I'll let others fill in. All that being said, you could construct a really pathological scenario where ABC Defense had gotten so large that it controlled most of the means of war-industry itself so it could operate independent of the market, had run a campaign over the last 10 years indoctrinating its employees so effectively they would fight and die cheaply to further its goals, and had deals with the majority of the banks in the region that allowed it to sieze everyone's funds at will so they couldn't really stop paying it. Notice though that when you take pains to construct a completely pathological example of the worst-case scenario in AC-Land you get the statist status quo.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red"> unsupported assumption. In the statist situation you have 2 protections. A public official trying to accumulate that power still has to convince enough voters to get elected in the first place and has to convince the military to turn traitor on the country. A private individual/company trying to accumulate that power has the full financial resources of the state working against him, not whatever can be raised volunatarily . (and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected). You can create pathological situations in either scenario, it is the likelihood of them actually happening that is the issue. Any time you need quick reaction to a new, threatening situation, a state is likely to be more responsive.</font>

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Bankruptcy.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means. <font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand coalition run goverments? Even when no party receives a majority of the votes, the eventual prime minister or chancellor still is an elected leader. He was appointed chancellor with the support of a coalition of parties. Papen, his coalition partner, thought he could control him, but he was wrong. Definitely qualifies as the elected leader of the government by any standard.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand coalition run goverments? Even when no party receives a majority of the votes, the eventual prime minister or chancellor still is an elected leader. He was appointed chancellor with the support of a coalition of parties. Papen, his coalition partner, thought he could control him, but he was wrong. Definitely qualifies as the elected leader of the government by any standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand them. Hitler is an example of the breakdown of a coalition system. There was no majority coalition. Papen was fired, von Schleicher (sp?) quit, Hindenburg appointed Hitler only to avoid violence from Hitlers minority.

It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
(and lest you try and roll out Hitler, he wasn't elected).

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure he was elected, in the same sense that any parliamentary leader who gains his position with the support of a coalition of parties is elected. The fact that he went on to out-manipulate his coalition supporters to gain even more power doesn't change the fact that he originally attained the position of Chancellor through democratic means.

Of course, actors in both AC and statist scenarios can be and sometimes will be psychotic and evil. The AC scenario would be worse when this happens because there won't be any other outside states to reign in the evil character.

[/ QUOTE ]<font color="red">He was appointed Chancellor not elected. The National Socialist Party that appointed him never received more than 37% of the vote. In the elections immediately preceeding his appointment the NSP lost seats and votes vs the prior election. He was only appointed because of the threats of violence from his thugs. That is hardly a democratic process. </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you not understand coalition run goverments? Even when no party receives a majority of the votes, the eventual prime minister or chancellor still is an elected leader. He was appointed chancellor with the support of a coalition of parties. Papen, his coalition partner, thought he could control him, but he was wrong. Definitely qualifies as the elected leader of the government by any standard.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes I understand them. Hitler is an example of the breakdown of a coalition system. There was no majority coalition. Papen was fired, von Schleicher (sp?) quit, Hindenburg appointed Hitler only to avoid violence from Hitlers minority.

It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're sizzlin today [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img].

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Any time you need quick reaction to a new, threatening situation, a state is likely to be more responsive.

[/ QUOTE ]

I guess that depends on how you classify "responsive". States will certainly talk a lot very quickly. I'm not convinced that they really take action that quickly if there is no transparent gain to them.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Population elects Person A as president, Person A gives the position to Person B with no election. Thats not democracy.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Population elects Person A as president, Person A gives the position to Person B with no election. Thats not democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hindenburg was the duly elected president, and he had the right to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Completely democratic and constitutional.

Why are we afraid to admit that bad people can get into power through democratic means? Bad people would get into power through AC too.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Population elects Person A as president, Person A gives the position to Person B with no election. Thats not democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hindenburg was the duly elected president, and he had the right to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Completely democratic and constitutional.

Why are we afraid to admit that bad people can get into power through democratic means? Bad people would get into power through AC too.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not - I asked specifically about the situation proposed by Copernicus. To my knowledge, the president isn't supposed to decide that the Secretary of D should be president instead and step down.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Population elects Person A as president, Person A gives the position to Person B with no election. Thats not democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you only go as far as you stated, it is still democracy. Appointments are made all the time, not all posts are elected. The step that needs to be taken for it to be non-democratic is for the appointment to be made under threat of reprisal against the citizenry.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
If you only go as far as you stated, it is still democracy. Appointments are made all the time, not all posts are elected. The step that needs to be taken for it to be non-democratic is for the appointment to be made under threat of reprisal against the citizenry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If an office is an elected office, if the elected official hands over the office to someone else without an election that's not democracy.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">so they steal it </font>

<font color="red">so they counterfeit it or steal it </font>

<font color="red"> so they steal the differential </font>

<font color="red">rofl. back to utopia. or they steal them </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid objections, but how does this draw any contrast with life under the state? Under which scenario would it be easier to steal--as a lone corporation or as an established centralized government?

The AC argument as I understand it is that AC is preferable, not perfect, so anything that is equally bad under statism is moot. I can see it being much more difficult for a private individual running a private company to seize power than an individual member of the state with the coercive apparatus already in place. George Bush is more likely to seize dictatorial power than Warren Buffett.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
If you only go as far as you stated, it is still democracy. Appointments are made all the time, not all posts are elected. The step that needs to be taken for it to be non-democratic is for the appointment to be made under threat of reprisal against the citizenry.

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree. If an office is an elected office, if the elected official hands over the office to someone else without an election that's not democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, democracy isn't magically immune to thugs taking over? I keep hearing how we need things like "democracy" and magical pieces of paper to prevent this stuff from happening, yet it happened anyway? Something isn't adding up.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It would be the equvialent of President Shrillary appointing Rumsfeld Secy of Defense and giving him Presidential powers because Rumsfeld threatened to nuke Washington. That isn't a democracy of any sort.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it is.

[/ QUOTE ]

How so? Population elects Person A as president, Person A gives the position to Person B with no election. Thats not democracy.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hindenburg was the duly elected president, and he had the right to appoint Hitler as chancellor. Completely democratic and constitutional.

Why are we afraid to admit that bad people can get into power through democratic means? Bad people would get into power through AC too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right, this question is a little silly. It's true that it's easier for Der Furher III to take over a PMC then it would be to take over a country, it's still hard for him to take over the world.

Could he do alot of damage, yeah, drop a few atomic bombs, sure, but it's still going to be pretty costly to do so.

Cody

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there might be one little obstacle. It's hard to send people to die in the name and cause of "ABC Defense" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You need a good propaganda machine to fight a war like that and I am not sure what random cause you could find.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there might be one little obstacle. It's hard to send people to die in the name and cause of "ABC Defense" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You need a good propaganda machine to fight a war like that and I am not sure what random cause you could find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's nonsense, plenty of non-state causes are out there. Religion is a good one ("Hey those guys pray to a different invisible guy...kill 'em") and any other rallying cry that groups people together (to fight another group) is possible.

It's a failing of our human minds, we'll do almost anything to "belong".

Cody

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">so they steal it </font>

<font color="red">so they counterfeit it or steal it </font>

<font color="red"> so they steal the differential </font>

<font color="red">rofl. back to utopia. or they steal them </font>

[/ QUOTE ]

All valid objections, but how does this draw any contrast with life under the state? <font color="red">I don't believe that in most areas the state is de facto superior. What I do believe has two prongs. First, for AC to function at all, transaction costs are far higher to acheive equivalent results. Second, AC depends on first defeating very real human tendencies of greed, lack of cooperation and the tendency to cede power because it is expedient and generally non-threatening.</font> Under which scenario would it be easier to steal--as a lone corporation or as an established centralized government? <font color="red">we werent talking about corporations, we were talking about military organizations. I think it would be easier for a well funded mercenary organization to overcome the roadblocks to power than it would be to convert the existing military to a despots individual gain. </font>

The AC argument as I understand it is that AC is preferable, not perfect, so anything that is equally bad under statism is moot. <font color="red">I believe that is the claim as well, however they have rarely demonstrated preferability, only achieving equality at great incremental expense. That isnt moot </font> I can see it being much more difficult for a private individual running a private company to seize power than an individual member of the state with the coercive apparatus already in place. George Bush is more likely to seize dictatorial power than Warren Buffett.

[/ QUOTE ] <font color="red">I disagree, but there is no way to substantiate either side. </font>

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there might be one little obstacle. It's hard to send people to die in the name and cause of "ABC Defense" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You need a good propaganda machine to fight a war like that and I am not sure what random cause you could find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's nonsense, plenty of non-state causes are out there. Religion is a good one ("Hey those guys pray to a different invisible guy...kill 'em") and any other rallying cry that groups people together (to fight another group) is possible.

It's a failing of our human minds, we'll do almost anything to "belong".

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can, but it's hard for me to imagine people getting fanatical over a company religion, although stranger things have happened. I would imagine acts of terrorism to be more likely (a rogue violent group of nuts like Al Queda) Or maybe I'm not getting the scale of this. But I still think it'd be harder, not that it would make it any less painful

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there might be one little obstacle. It's hard to send people to die in the name and cause of "ABC Defense" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You need a good propaganda machine to fight a war like that and I am not sure what random cause you could find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's nonsense, plenty of non-state causes are out there. Religion is a good one ("Hey those guys pray to a different invisible guy...kill 'em") and any other rallying cry that groups people together (to fight another group) is possible.

It's a failing of our human minds, we'll do almost anything to "belong".

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can, but it's hard for me to imagine people getting fanatical over a company religion, although stranger things have happened. I would imagine acts of terrorism to be more likely (a rogue violent group of nuts) Or maybe I'm not getting the scale of this. But I still think it'd be harder, not that it would make it any less painful



[/ QUOTE ]

That actually brings a focus on why I dont think it would be harder for the non-state group. It isn't very difficult at all to indoctrinate and instill fanaticism in a group. It happens frequently with sports teams, fraternities, start-up companies, and most importantly the military. Things have softened since my Army days, but the breakdown of the individual and formation of a fanatical "team" was extremely efficient. The problem a statist "takeover" would have is that the military is already indoctrinated with fighting for the country, and to get their cooperation in a coup would be much more difficult than indoctrinating a mercenary group with the same fanaticism, especially since many in an all volunteer state army are already predisposed to defending the country against individual threats.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sweet a classic misapplication of the DSO. The DSO applies when statism is equally powerless to defend against something as an AC society would be. This isn't the case. The State (most of them) can certainly beat back Bill Gates if he invests in Harriers and M1A1s.

You can say an AC society would be able to fend him off as well, but using the DSO doesn't really work here.

Cody

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, there might be one little obstacle. It's hard to send people to die in the name and cause of "ABC Defense" [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img] You need a good propaganda machine to fight a war like that and I am not sure what random cause you could find.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok that's nonsense, plenty of non-state causes are out there. Religion is a good one ("Hey those guys pray to a different invisible guy...kill 'em") and any other rallying cry that groups people together (to fight another group) is possible.

It's a failing of our human minds, we'll do almost anything to "belong".

Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

I suppose you can, but it's hard for me to imagine people getting fanatical over a company religion, although stranger things have happened. I would imagine acts of terrorism to be more likely (a rogue violent group of nuts like Al Queda) Or maybe I'm not getting the scale of this. But I still think it'd be harder, not that it would make it any less painful



[/ QUOTE ]

Think of this:

Company A: Ok workers, you aren't going to believe this, but out competitor Company B is blockading our shipping and attacking our delivery people.

Workers: My god are we next.

CompanyA: You know it, time for war.

So on and so forth.

Laughable? God I hope so, but people have fallen for worse, much worse.

Cody

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

Re: AC Scenario
 

Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent quote. This addresses my question about how the market would work to prevent this type of power grab.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

[/ QUOTE ]

Under desirable traits for the men in charge of security companies, he seems to have left out "increase market share". Aggressive takeovers (using guns or money) could be a real problem with no higher authority to sort them out.

Or am I missing something?

Re: AC Scenario
 

I have a feeling that using guns to increase market share would backfire. Unlike with nation-states, customers of security agencies could leave easily the moment their ostensible protectors started using violence or becoming too oppressive. And of course, it's very expensive. If A and B security agencies go to war, it is C, D, and E who win, regardless of the outcome.

Finally, it seems likely that the number of defense agencies would greatly surpass the number of current nation states. There's no way to say for sure on this, but Friedman points out the inefficiency problems that dog large urban police departments. It's highly doubtful that an anarcho-capitalist society would ever reach a point where one agency controlled 40% of the world's military might, or where two agencies served about 37% of the world's population.

Re: AC Scenario
 

I agree war is very expensive, and that most security companies understand this. Would this not lead to appeasement of overly aggressive companies? Once a bigger security company decides it wants your territory, it can take you to the cleaners in so many ways without firing a shot, (customer mis-information, threats, bribes, vandalism, lawsuits etc.) Eventually you have to give in or get stronger allies and go to war, the former option being much cheaper with less chance of physical injury / death.

I'm unfamiliar with Friedman's points there, do you have a link or a summary? I always thought economies of scale = a good thing.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that using guns to increase market share would backfire. Unlike with nation-states, customers of security agencies could leave easily the moment their ostensible protectors started using violence or becoming too oppressive. And of course, it's very expensive. If A and B security agencies go to war, it is C, D, and E who win, regardless of the outcome.

Finally, it seems likely that the number of defense agencies would greatly surpass the number of current nation states. There's no way to say for sure on this, but Friedman points out the inefficiency problems that dog large urban police departments. It's highly doubtful that an anarcho-capitalist society would ever reach a point where one agency controlled 40% of the world's military might, or where two agencies served about 37% of the world's population.

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont start using the violence until they have accumulated the capital, manpower and weapons to not need customers anymore.

I'm not sure where the percentages come from, but just as there are mergers of other corporations (5 companies own 80% of the market share in many businesses), there will be consolidation of successful defense companies. A coalition of two large ones that exceed those percentages is not at all unreasonable.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:

http://www.dirgart.com/anunnaki/phot...tler_paris.jpg

Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
They dont start using the violence until they have accumulated the capital, manpower and weapons to not need customers anymore.

I'm not sure where the percentages come from, but just as there are mergers of other corporations (5 companies own 80% of the market share in many businesses), there will be consolidation of successful defense companies. A coalition of two large ones that exceed those percentages is not at all unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Friedman depends on protective agencies facing diseconomies of scale. Obviously, introduce economies of scale say due to network externalities and everything falls apart.

Anyways Friedman is 10x the economist Rothbard was.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:

http://www.dirgart.com/anunnaki/phot...tler_paris.jpg

Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler scrapped his plans to invade Switzerland due to expected heavy losses (all households armed and ready to resist), expected tank losses due to mountain passes having been mined, and the fact that no central Swiss government would have had the authority to surrender anyway. So while Hitler could have taken the major capital cities, he would have been fighting from that point on against a guerilla resistance from the entire populace. I thought it was very interesting when I read that no government entity would have had the legal power or authority to surrender Switzerland to Hitler.

Re: AC Scenario
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:

http://www.dirgart.com/anunnaki/phot...tler_paris.jpg

Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler scrapped his plans to invade Switzerland due to expected heavy losses (all households armed and ready to resist), expected tank losses due to mountain passes having been mined, and the fact that no central Swiss government would have had the authority to surrender anyway. So while Hitler could have taken the major capital cities, he would have been fighting from that point on against a guerilla resistance from the entire populace. I thought it was very interesting when I read that no government entity would have had the legal power or authority to surrender Switzerland to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assymetrical warfare FTW. The colonists knew it, Robert E. Lee knew it (but surrendered because he foolishly belived the Union would be honorable in victory), the VC knew it, Al Queda knows it. [censored], Princess [censored] Leia knew it.