Anarcho-capitalism, It appears we have moved on but....

[Sifmole]

I saw two items today that I thought were wonderful examples of why we can't expect all businesses to behave in the fashion ACers would like us to believe they would simply due to market conditions. For instance, ACers repeat that no business would use their money for force because it would be cheaper to out compete...

http://www.essentialaction.org/shell/issues.html

Remove the Nigerian government's involvement and nothing changes; shell simply hires the police themselves.

ACers would also have you believe that companies would compete above board with new and better products, well....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...051601873.html

One small company bashed other companies and got bashed back, and now basically due to blackmail they are closing down.

Don't see how real life and ACers utopia ever intersect.

[lehighguy]

Wait wait. The government slaughtered people and this is a reason we need more government...

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Wait wait. The government slaughtered people and this is a reason we need more government...

[/ QUOTE ]

Wait wait.. you can't actually read.

Read my post, then read the whole thing I linked to. As I noted there was a government involved -- but how does any of this change if the Nigerian government is removed?

Oh and nice complete dodge with the "more government", solid debate tactics there DooDe!

[lehighguy]

If the Nigerian government was removed a few things would change.

One, the company would have to pick up the entire cost of military operations, not just toss in a kickback. It would have to train soildiers, purchase equipment, maintain bases, pay disability, etc. Most of the cost of this thuggery is picked up by the Nigerian taxpayer.

So they just throw in a small kickback while the bulk of the cost is paid by someone else.

Also, the military forces that engaged in this behaivor don't have to worry about other armed groups fighting back. Since the government has complete authority no competing arms or security providers could oppose them.

So let's recap:
Government proceeds from taxation are used to subsidize corrupt thuggery and no one can stop it because the government monoploizes the use of force.

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
If the Nigerian government was removed a few things would change.

One, the company would have to pick up the entire cost of military operations, not just toss in a kickback. It would have to train soildiers, purchase equipment, maintain bases, pay disability, etc. Most of the cost of this thuggery is picked up by the Nigerian taxpayer.

So they just throw in a small kickback while the bulk of the cost is paid by someone else.

Also, the military forces that engaged in this behaivor don't have to worry about other armed groups fighting back. Since the government has complete authority no competing arms or security providers could oppose them.

So let's recap:
Government proceeds from taxation are used to subsidize corrupt thuggery and no one can stop it because the government monoploizes the use of force.

[/ QUOTE ]

In points:

Shell would have to pick up the entire cost: no, there would be plenty of individuals willing to start and work for companies whose basic mode of operation is thuggery. Such groups exist now in both legal and illegal forms apart from the government. These companies would be responsible for recruiting, training, arming, housing, etc these "troops". Shell would have to pay one of these companies for their services.

Small kickback vs real payment to a company: The article indicates that $12 billion dollars have dissappeared over the years this has been occuring. The article contains no dates of reference later than 1998 -- so it was perhaps written around 2000? The implication is that much of the $12 Billion has been the "small kickback" to the government. The article also states that 80% of the governments tax comes from oil related sources. So yes the government owes quite a bit to shell. Does it seem reasonable that shell would be willing to pay a company $1 billion a year ( less than the kick back amount ) to a private company for these services?

No competing groups of thugs: You have a point here, but there are a couple of things. One, who in Nigeria would be able to pay a similar Thug Co. approximately $1 billion per year to stop Shells First Thugs R Us? The nigerians that are being oppressed? Also, ACers state that such escalation of armed force won't happen because companies won't waste their money attacking each other, but instead will improve their offering or processes to make more money than their competition. How does that fit in with the idea that what the nigerians really need is a competing Thug Co to battle Shell's?

[lehighguy]

So we concede that this level of thuggery is easier because of the existance of government. That is a good start.

How would more government solve the problem then? Last time I checked, ACers never guranteed crime, delinquincy, coersion, and thuggery wouldn't exist in AC, but rather there would be far far less of these things then under government.

[Coffee]

Example 1 is evidence of a repressive government condemning free speech and a company USING government. How could a company use government if it didn't exist? Also...could it be that an advocacy website such as essentialaction.org might perhaps be, say, preconditioned to write from a particular point of view?

In example 2, you are describing the actions of one company fighting against a group of criminals...pure and simple. I'm not certain how AC or libertarianism got dragged into this one in your mind.

[Riddick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not certain how AC or libertarianism got dragged into this one in your mind.


[/ QUOTE ]

[Sifmole]

[ QUOTE ]
Example 1 is evidence of a repressive government condemning free speech and a company USING government. How could a company use government if it didn't exist? Also...could it be that an advocacy website such as essentialaction.org might perhaps be, say, preconditioned to write from a particular point of view?

In example 2, you are describing the actions of one company fighting against a group of criminals...pure and simple. I'm not certain how AC or libertarianism got dragged into this one in your mind.

[/ QUOTE ]


Example 1: Shows that a company is willing to pay significant money to oppressive government rather than improve their ways of doing business ( building better pipelines, paying people for their property, etc ). If they are willing to pay significant money to this government of thugs for this service, it follows that they, in the absence of any government, would be willing to pay thugs for this service. That is why I said remove the government and how does any of this change? Shell is willing to pay thugs significant money rather than improve their processes. This stands in direct conflict to AC philosophy that companies will not use the power of their money in ways that oppress individuals.

Yes it is an activist site, but finding anything completely unbiased regarding such a topic would be hard. Do you doubt such things are happening there? This topic has been reported on by several different entities, but somehow is not worthy of much attention from major new agencies ( old news really as far as they are concerned ).

Example 2: Spammers are not by default criminals; in some countries their business ( bulk email advertising ) is perfectly legal. Each of the spammers view themselves as a business entity. The "white hat" entity could not succeed in its goal by standard methods, so it flooded the "black hat" entities. The "black hats" responded by flooding the "white hat", and at least one "black hat" included a blackmail threat which has caused the "white hat" to shutdown. This is a real world example of the fact that companies do not always compete above board. Underhanded tactics are included in the methods they are willing to utilize. This stands in direct conflict to the utopia of corporate competition via price and quality that ACers like write about.

So -- now that we are done completely avoiding the obvious reasons why this is connected to an AC debate ( and I never included libertarians ), do you care to actually respond meaningfully?

[nietzreznor]

[ QUOTE ]
Example 1: Shows that a company is willing to pay significant money to oppressive government rather than improve their ways of doing business ( building better pipelines, paying people for their property, etc ). If they are willing to pay significant money to this government of thugs for this service, it follows that they, in the absence of any government, would be willing to pay thugs for this service. That is why I said remove the government and how does any of this change? Shell is willing to pay thugs significant money rather than improve their processes. This stands in direct conflict to AC philosophy that companies will not use the power of their money in ways that oppress individuals.

[/ QUOTE ]

So wait--are you saying big business often use government to give themselves unfair competitive advantages and to stifle competition? Who would've thought... well, clearly the solution is more government.
No one doubts that this is happening. But you really have given us no reason to think this is a good argument against anarchy. All you've shown is that big businesses can be ruthless and use their power to do bad stuff. Thanks, but we already knew that. One would wonder, though, why anyone would think centralized government is a solution, when a) they are the 'group of thugs' easiest for big business to rely upon, and b) they are the reason most businesses get so big in the first place. When you have a 'legitimate' authority that gives business countless benefits and allows them to consolidate power, you're gonna end up with big businesses that--guess what--use government thugs to harm other business, etc.

This sounds more like an argument for anarchy than against it...