Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

There is a common debate between ACers and statists over protection in AnarchoCapitalism. It typically goes as follows.

Statist-With no government, there will be no police and no one to stop me from violating your property rights.

AC- Not true, there is a demand for protection of property and a way to supply protection in a free market. Private Security companies would develop.

Statist- Yeah, and then the biggest and most powerful security company will just blow up all it's competitors and then game over man, back comes the state, and it'll probably be a tyrannical dictatorship.

The Statist forgets one thing though. That is that wars are expensive, very expensive. One line that Riddick would use is "What do you think the ROI is on waging war?" . Think about it. Think about all the money we as taxpayers have paid for the war in Iraq. Do you think we've made a profit off of that?

The government is projected to spend over $300 billion on the war in Iraq by the 30th of this month (last revised in August, source found here ). And we still have very little control over the area. How many people do you know (besides that conniving bastard Bill Gates, just waiting for AC society to come about) can afford that? How many companies could amass enough money through voluntary transactions to be able to field a military to create a state?

No, war is a product of the state. The state has a monopoly on both (a) security/military and (b) acceptable theft. Using these means, those that have power in the government can profit from it (for example, Cheney and Halliburton) even though it is not a profitable endeveur for the investors (taxpayers). War profitteering is made by a very very small minority (much less the 1%) of those paying for a war.

Agree? Disagree? Why or why not?

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

[ QUOTE ]
Statist- Yeah, and then the biggest and most powerful security company will just blow up all it's competitors and then game over man, back comes the state, and it'll probably be a tyrannical dictatorship.

[/ QUOTE ]

File this under "obviously."

This argument that war is not profitable is insufficient. Sure it's not profitible for "the people" but neither is ANYTHING else the government does. The important thing is that the ruling class gets their loot, and they certainly are, aren't they? More and more every year.

Basically the problem is, you claim that the state would not emerge out of whatever starting conditions you claim, and yet in history the state has emerged. What is so different about now that this would not happen today? I would claim that if you somehow eliminated the state, it would re-emerge much, much faster than before, simply because that is what most people think is good and right (whereas before the state existed it is harder for people to accept being taxed and jailed, etc.)

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

Market Anarchy objections
http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/sh...5077&page=

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

[ QUOTE ]
What is so different about now that this would not happen today?

[/ QUOTE ]
Time preferences

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

Please say why AC security companies would not behave similary to Colombian Paramilitaries, which I contend are similar to AC security companies. Its clear that these organizations find war to be profitable.

Wiki

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

States by any sensible defintion have only existed from about the 16th century. War has existed alot lot longer than that.

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

Who is to say that the transactions will be voluntary?
If a security company in your area acquires a monopoly, and forces you under the threat of death to support its war against a security monopoly in some other area, how will you be able to refuse?
Nobody is actually envisioning security companies blowing themselves up. What will actually happen, is that in each geographical area, the strongest most efficient and ruthless security company will acquire a monopoly on protection services through acquisitions, hostile take-overs, and other purely business practices, perhaps including violent elimination of small but stubborn competitor. Once the monopoly is established in the area, each company will try to extend its monopoly into other areas, and everybody it "serves" will pay for it.

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

[ QUOTE ]
If a security company in your area acquires a monopoly

[/ QUOTE ]
How will they acheive a monopoly without a government?

[ QUOTE ]
What will actually happen, is that in each geographical area, the strongest most efficient and ruthless security company will acquire a monopoly on protection services through acquisitions, hostile take-overs, and other purely business practices, perhaps including violent elimination of small but stubborn competitor. Once the monopoly is established in the area, each company will try to extend its monopoly into other areas, and everybody it "serves" will pay for it.

[/ QUOTE ]
What a terrible investment/business strategy! Serve the customers for years and years in a manner that gains them a large market share and then jeopardize it all by coercing people.

Could you provide an example of a company doing this in which they faced no competition after their decision to hike the rates they charge?

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

[ QUOTE ]

How will they acheive a monopoly without a government?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he's suggesting that they would physically destroy their competitors. I think the old adage is "Who's provide security against the security-providing companies?"

Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

How will they acheive a monopoly without a government?


[/ QUOTE ]

I believe he's suggesting that they would physically destroy their competitors. I think the old adage is "Who's provide security against the security-providing companies?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, if a monopoly means the exclusive control of a commodity, then no one firm could possibly become a monopoly under AC because there's nothing stopping others from entering. Plus he assumed that the company (at least for the most part) made its way to the "top" through competition.

Btw, your little adage works the same way with governments so it seems like a poor attack against AC.