Reactions to AC

[Richard Tanner]

[ QUOTE ]
How could you hire a bigger one? Insurance companies don't provide protection when you attack someone and they defend. My car insurance doesn't pay out if I take a hammer to it. You would only bribe my company if the amount that it would take to bribe them is less than the amount that you could take from me. It would take a lot to bribe the insurance company because the force of the negative reputation would cost them profit. I'd get on the horn to my friends and family and say "hey, spread the word about that god damn insurance company being evil crooks".
As far as laws go.. jesus christ that's complicated but if cell phone providers can find a way to make it work so that they can call eachother then we could find a way to make laws work. Though exactly how it would work is far beyond my mental capacity.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok you're focusing on a detail when it's the big picture that's the point. The fact that it's a insurance company isn't the point, let's say it's a "security company" that I hire/bribe (and I bribe would work, because it'll be hard to complain if you're dead). More over, what if my guys don't care about repuation, they've got a lot of guys, who all have guns, and they're gonna take what they want. Granted it would take alot of manpower to do this, but it's by no means impossible.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not assuming it's impossible. I'm saying that it has never worked. The entire history of the state is about its expansion. It only stops expanding when it collapses. Am I incorrect here? I could be.. I'm nowhere near as knowledgeable about all this as I'd like to be.

[/ QUOTE ]

Eh, yes and no. By and large, people in power want more power. It's an evil breed, this man. But you said it, it's not impossible, in fact, what I'm suggesting (and also AC) has never been attempted, so we're both speaking largely in hypotheticals.

[ QUOTE ]
If they consent then that is not government. Government is about no consent. It's like if I agree to rape then it's not rape. Part of the definition is that I don't want to be raped.

[/ QUOTE ]

Huh? If it's a group of people they appoint to run things, it's a government. They're people that govern them, thus govern-ment.

[ QUOTE ]
As for the pharmacies and ro-ads.. roods.. roeds.. (Chris Farley obviously): I haven't researched Ip enough to give you an answer as to how it would work.

[/ QUOTE ]

If only PVN had the courage (or will) to give an answer. There's nothing wrong with saying "I don't know", no one knows everything. So we'll leave some of my examples alone.

[ QUOTE ]
Roads are easy though. If people are willing to pay to use a road then some capitalist pig will find a way to slim their wallets.



[/ QUOTE ]

Some easy math, your house (and it's lovely) has 800 feet of land on it's border (just play along with the numbers). Every road takes 100 feet of border space. Once the 8th road gets build from your house (you're out of space) they owners get together and say "hahahaha well now he either has to pay to park his car in a garage and walk X miles to and from it everyday, or he has to pay our huge fees, miserable piss-ant" and you're boned. This is one of those few moments where it'd be really cool to have some large entity with authority say "play fair".

[ QUOTE ]
p.s. I linked to some podcasts on roads earlier if you care to listen to them.

[/ QUOTE ]

They're good, though not perfect. These guys have done their homework.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm sure I sound like a hippy but seriously I'm utterly convinced that the problem we are having is caused by how you view your parents.

[/ QUOTE ]

You sir, have piqued my interest. I'm not going to say anything, you tell me how I view my parents and I'll tell you how right you are.

Cody

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 40,000 people die every year on government roads. That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads
[ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -> Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source -> logical reasoning.

Rampant speeders, drunk drivers, narrow lanes, dangerous curves, all on private property? Think about the contributory negligence verdicts that would occur before private owners took measures to fix each of these death dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Also, the safest roads would attract all of the business and the most dangerous roads would be abandoned. Thus constantly moving the market to safer and safer roads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. If Im Wal-Mart and I build road systems from towns X, Y, and Z to my town-centric superstore, I want my customers getting to my store and back, repeatedly, as safely and comfortably as possible. No semi's doing 85mph (I'd build separate roads for them), no drunks period, and above all no traffic congestion.

And I'll want them better, cleaner, and safer than Costco's roads.

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh but it is, any group with guns can demand your money, unless you're immune from bullets, in which case you'll likely destroy us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe violent theft, pillaging, and murder is part of human nature?

If so, what does the word "society" mean to you? And how did [censored] sapiens manage to last so long from the time of our caveman ancestors without killing ourselves off entirely?

If not, what are you pointing out, other than some people are criminals, and that crime will occur in AC-land just like it does in your statist dreamworld of today?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
Some easy math, your house (and it's lovely) has 800 feet of land on it's border (just play along with the numbers). Every road takes 100 feet of border space. Once the 8th road gets build from your house (you're out of space) they owners get together and say "hahahaha well now he either has to pay to park his car in a garage and walk X miles to and from it everyday, or he has to pay our huge fees, miserable piss-ant" and you're boned.

[/ QUOTE ]

And when the poor victim said [censored] off, you're extorting me, Im not paying you a dime, what then?

[valtaherra]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[Oh, and a big [censored] LOL at linking private defense contractors being paid by the government and claiming they compete with government.

[/ QUOTE ] This is precisely what they do. The government has decided to use force. Then they've looked at their cost to do it and realized a private contractor can (in some instances) do it better than they can for the same amount of money, or do it as well as they can for even less money. That is the definition of competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

Dude, this is almost insulting.

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]

quote] but you make excuses for it.. How come?

[/ QUOTE ]

...sometimes we need it. I promise I'm not trying to drag my feet here. The reason I agree to some (limited) government is
Cody

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

He wants to slip out of defending government despite was recently talked about in the previous few posts and instead 'agree' to it hahahaha how convenient

[bkholdem]

[ QUOTE ]
In response to the edit: So if government were kept small that would keep them from becoming large?

Let's say that the people in gov't decide that they can better serve you by taking 100$ from your bank account everyday. Who would stop them?

[/ QUOTE ]

No one would stop them. Don't you see the little game he's playing and how much fun he's having? He's putting you in the position of defending 1 million different hypothetical situations that he's just making up. A discussion like this could theoretically go on for the rest of your life and mr. cody does not show any signs that he is interested in wrapping up any time soon.

He's not looking for answers and he's not looking for reassurances. You must really enjoy trying to defend against millions of made up scenario's [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

After all, you 'agree' to AC don't you? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Taciturn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Oh but it is, any group with guns can demand your money, unless you're immune from bullets, in which case you'll likely destroy us all.

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you believe violent theft, pillaging, and murder is part of human nature?



[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
If so, what does the word "society" mean to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

A community where there are sufficient disincentives to murder, pillage, steal, and do other naughty things that would harm the community.

[ QUOTE ]
And how did [censored] sapiens manage to last so long from the time of our caveman ancestors without killing ourselves off entirely?


[/ QUOTE ]

How much property did cavemen have? I don't know - maybe there were some violent struggles over Mammoth carcasses and so on - perhaps some cavemen killed each other over cavewomen. I don't think being a homicidal maniac is part of human nature - But, just like other animals, using violence to get things is natural. When there are a lot of things to fight over, and we move beyond spending all of our times on hunting and gathering excursions, society develops to curb the violence.

In anarchy, a powerful group that wants your things is not going to restrain from using violence to steal from you based on some goody two-shoes notion of human nature. Perhaps the only thing that would prevent them is a group that is even more powerful/has more guns, etc.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 40,000 people die every year on government roads. That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads
[ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -> Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source -> logical reasoning.

Rampant speeders, drunk drivers, narrow lanes, dangerous curves, all on private property? Think about the contributory negligence verdicts that would occur before private owners took measures to fix each of these death dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]
You mean unless the owners included a "no fault" clause in the contract you have to sign in order to use their roads, I assume.

[jogger08152]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ] 40,000 people die every year on government roads. That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads
[ QUOTE ]
"That number would all but disappear on privately operated roads." -> Source?

[/ QUOTE ]

Source -> logical reasoning.

Rampant speeders, drunk drivers, narrow lanes, dangerous curves, all on private property? Think about the contributory negligence verdicts that would occur before private owners took measures to fix each of these death dealers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post. Also, the safest roads would attract all of the business and the most dangerous roads would be abandoned. Thus constantly moving the market to safer and safer roads.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. Good thing there's all sorts of space to build "competing" roads on; it's also fortunate that road-building isn't a capital-intensive, land-intensive natural monopoly. Otherwise things might not work out so well.