Animal cruelty and child molestation in AC land

[TomCollins]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mods: it's pretty well agreed upon in both SMP and the politics forum that skidoo and sharkey are the same poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rumor is incorrect. Please stop spreading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

mods? IP Check?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
PVN,
I've been wondering why you are going back and forth with this guy. I think this part of your post is very accurate.

To me it seems like you are debating in detail potential issue number 680,556,794 parts A-C with this guy.

It seems that he has absolutely no interest in seeling the big picture, of even considering the possibility of the concept. How come your putting in so much effort in these interactions with this guy?

[/ QUOTE ]

It's a personal flaw. I'm working on it.

[AlexM]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Mods: it's pretty well agreed upon in both SMP and the politics forum that skidoo and sharkey are the same poster.

[/ QUOTE ]

This rumor is incorrect. Please stop spreading it.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be true, but your sudden appearance right after Skidoo doesn't help your case. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[iggymcfly]

Here's the thing about non-binding arbitration. Could it theoretically work as the sole method to govern business disputes? Yes. Could it work in all the business disputes that currently arise? Yes. Could it work as the only type of judicial system whatsoever in a technologically advanced, highly populated area? No!

I think the Mafia example is the best one here. Most recently, the Mafia's dealt with things like drug dealing and illegal gambling since the law was stringent enough that they had little competition in those fields, but not so strict that they could not practice them without the law taking action.

Now imagine there's no law whatsoever. What will Mafia type groups do? They'll take over completely. They'll be demanding protection money from every business on every street. And who will stop them? No one. An advanced security firm might be enough to protect Bill Gates and occasionally, desperate citizens might band together, risking their lives, but for the most part, organized crime will run roughshod.

Eventually, the force of unregulated crime will cause commerce to break down and will devalue any form of currency as no one can buy anything without worrying that their money will just be taken. A large society needs some sort of government to enforce basic laws. Otherwise, chaos erupts.

An ideal situation would be a government that only provides necessary services and otherwise stays out of the way, but I'll take 30% tax from a government that can be voted out over a 50% tax from thugs that will beat you with a billy club if you refuse to pay and that even afterward provide little security for you, your family, or your business.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine there's no law whatsoever. What will Mafia type groups do? They'll take over completely. They'll be demanding protection money from every business on every street. And who will stop them? No one. An advanced security firm might be enough to protect Bill Gates and occasionally, desperate citizens might band together, risking their lives, but for the most part, organized crime will run roughshod.

[/ QUOTE ]

What magic power does government have that free market security firms will not have in dealing with the mob?

And note, protection money rackets are not enough to sustain a nationwide network of thugs. And there are no nationwide networks of purse snatchers. The thing that sustains these huge enterprises is contraband. And without the state, there is no contraband.

When the mob goes head-to-head with legitimate, voluntary business, the mob loses.

Without the foundation provided by the black market in drugs/prostitution/gambling/etc, what power base will the mob have to run protection money rackets?

And why will the population be unable to stop them?

Why am I not currently being shook down (by the mob, at least)?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
Now imagine there's no law whatsoever. What will Mafia type groups do? They'll take over completely. They'll be demanding protection money from every business on every street. And who will stop them? No one. An advanced security firm might be enough to protect Bill Gates and occasionally, desperate citizens might band together, risking their lives, but for the most part, organized crime will run roughshod.

[/ QUOTE ]


So basically you hate the state?

Maybe it's time then to look into some alternatives.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Here's the thing about non-binding arbitration. Could it theoretically work as the sole method to govern business disputes? Yes. Could it work in all the business disputes that currently arise? Yes. Could it work as the only type of judicial system whatsoever in a technologically advanced, highly populated area? No!

[/ QUOTE ]

Because you say so?

[ QUOTE ]
I think the Mafia example is the best one here. Most recently, the Mafia's dealt with things like drug dealing and illegal gambling since the law was stringent enough that they had little competition in those fields, but not so strict that they could not practice them without the law taking action.

Now imagine there's no law whatsoever.

[/ QUOTE ]

What does such a hypothetical have to do with anything? Why do you continue to labor under the ridiculous assumption that in the absence of a monopolist of law that there would be no law? Is there an absence of food production in the absence of a monopolist food producer? Is there an bsence of clothing production in the absence of a monopoly clothing manufacturer? Is there an absence of telecommunications in the absence of a monopolist telecommunications provider?

Law is so incredibly valuable in the market that it is litteraly ridiculous to assume that the market would not produce it in the absence of a monopolist. The law predates the state and its monopolizations thereof. Have you never heard of common law?

[ QUOTE ]
What will Mafia type groups do? They'll take over completely. They'll be demanding protection money from every business on every street. And who will stop them? No one. An advanced security firm might be enough to protect Bill Gates and occasionally, desperate citizens might band together, risking their lives, but for the most part, organized crime will run roughshod.

Eventually, the force of unregulated crime will cause commerce to break down and will devalue any form of currency as no one can buy anything without worrying that their money will just be taken. A large society needs some sort of government to enforce basic laws. Otherwise, chaos erupts.

[/ QUOTE ]

There is a reason why "organized crime" restricts itself to supplying markets made black by government; the government has specifically reserved those markets to people who don't mind breaking the law. If organized crime is so profitable in the absence of their government-created monopolies, why is it that organized crime dominated the alcohol industry only during prohibition, but not before or after? It's because when markets aren't resrved for them by the government, they cannot compete. Criminals have high time preference, and hence tend to make poor decisions because they either ignore or cannot understand and include long term consequences, and hence costs, in their economic calculations. Profits flow to entrepreneurs who make good decisions and are the best at making economic calculations. In a free market, criminals simply cannot compete with legitimate businessmen. Without the government to reserve markets for them (drugs, alcohol, prostitution, unionized labor, etc.) they are just a bunch of unemployed bums. At worst they will eek along in lives of petty disorganized crime; at best they will just get a damn job.

[ QUOTE ]
An ideal situation would be a government that only provides necessary services and otherwise stays out of the way,

[/ QUOTE ]

You never explained who gets to decide what "necessart" services are. I'll give you a hint what "necessary" services are under government: whatever the government wants to monopolize.

[ QUOTE ]
but I'll take 30% tax from a government that can be voted out over a 50% tax from thugs that will beat you with a billy club if you refuse to pay and that even afterward provide little security for you, your family, or your business.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok. Vote out the current government so that I don't have to pay the 50% that I'm currently paying. I can't seem to get rid of them. And if I refuse to pay, thugs show up with guns and billy clubs to throw me in prison and kill me if I resist.

Give me a break. The "organized crime" you're so afraid of taking over is already here. And it's here because the majority of people, like you, believe in their right to shake you and me down, not because there is some inevitable law of nature that makes thuggery, with all of its associated risks and costs, more porfitable than just satisfying customers better than the competition.

[Nielsio]

It's also a matter of lucrativeness. When you can make a lot of money dealing drugs comparatively to other professions, and you don't mind the risks then that's what you're gonna do. Ofcourse the higher the risks, the more money is to be made. So you can never destroy such markets.

But when you can make no more money trading drugs on the street than trading aspirine, sugar or sweet oranges, then people will gravitate towards other professions.

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
It's also a matter of lucrativeness. When you can make a lot of money dealing drugs comparatively to other professions, and you don't mind the risks then that's what you're gonna do. Ofcourse the higher the risks, the more money is to be made. So you can never destroy such markets.

But when you can make no more money trading drugs on the street than trading aspirine, sugar or sweet oranges, then people will gravitate towards other professions.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bingo. Not to mention big pharmaceutical corporations enjoy the protection of their products, which are illegal for anyone else to make. A mom and pop oxycodone business could easily drive Pfizer out of the market.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
Bingo. Not to mention big pharmaceutical corporations enjoy the protection of their products, which are illegal for anyone else to make. A mom and pop oxycodone business could easily drive Pfizer out of the market.

[/ QUOTE ]

Uh, what? Economies of scale?

WalMart:M&P Retail as Pfizer:M&P Pharma.