Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
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.


[/ QUOTE ]
That's a pretty good arguement for AC is't it?
[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]
Well, in the past people wanted government. ACists have had no qulams with the fact that AC could not come unless the people wanted it.
[ QUOTE ]
What is so different about now that this would not happen today?

[/ QUOTE ]
Respect for property rights, sufficient resources for life, and one thing not fullfilled yet, which is a want for AC society by the people.
[ QUOTE ]
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.)

[/ QUOTE ]
If it happened today, yeah. I doubt people would be jailed or taxed in AC land, do you?

[bobman0330]

[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Talking about economics with you guys is disturbingly like talking to Christian fundamentalists about evolution. You really believe that there's no barrier to entry for an upstart security company trying to compete with a more experienced, entrenched, possibly violent or under-handed incumbent? If you think that, you're wrong.

As a basic model, since security is a non-durable good, consider the case where the incumbent charges monopoly prices, but commits itself to lower prices if a competitor enters. Voila barrier to entry and effective monopoly.

[ShakeZula06]

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]
In columbia there is a much smaller relative value given to property rights. Resources are also not available to the same degree.

[iron81]

[ QUOTE ]
In columbia there is a much smaller relative value given to property rights. Resources are also not available to the same degree.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say the landowners who hire the paramilitaries place a high value on their property rights, since they spend millions of dollars on them. And I think you underestimate how much drug money is floating around Colombia. And if there were more resources, that would just mean there is more to fight over.

[BCPVP]

[ QUOTE ]
You really believe that there's no barrier to entry for an upstart security company trying to compete with a more experienced, entrenched, possibly violent or under-handed incumbent? If you think that, you're wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]
If this hypothetical security company really is being violent towards its customers, then it's whole market is open for any one company or group of companies to come in and boot the agressor out.

[ QUOTE ]
As a basic model, since security is a non-durable good, consider the case where the incumbent charges monopoly prices, but commits itself to lower prices if a competitor enters. Voila barrier to entry and effective monopoly.

[/ QUOTE ]
Are the customers in this example stupid? Why would they go back to this abusive company?

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
The important thing is that the ruling class gets their loot, and they certainly are, aren't they? More and more every year.

[/ QUOTE ]

Exactly! So, how is this an argument *for* statism? The state *facilitates* this looting.

[ QUOTE ]
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

[/ QUOTE ]

The state won't be "somehow" eliminated. It will only cease to exist when enough people want it to; in this case, the spontaneous re-emergence is clearly not a given.

[NT!]

[ QUOTE ]
If this hypothetical security company really is being violent towards its customers, then it's whole market is open for any one company or group of companies to come in and boot the agressor out.

[/ QUOTE ]

You said before that this same criticism can be applied to states. Well, when the hypothetical security companies we call Iraq, North Korea, China, Stalinist Russia, etc abused their 'customers,' why didn't people immediately overthrow them?

You are being extremely obtuse if you don't think that a forced monopoly on the means of coercion is achievable. It may not be the most stable arrangement, but it can endure for quite a while.

NT

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
States by any sensible defintion have only existed from about the 16th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahaha.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
States by any sensible defintion have only existed from about the 16th century.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahaha.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ahahahaha at you thinking this inst true.

[iron81]

I'll admit that I'm confused too, so I'll ask you to explain why the following aren't states:

Roman Empire
European feudal kingdoms
Pre-Industrial Japan