A question about private roads

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human inclinations to greed and tribalism created feudalism or feudalistic behavior; those same inclinations (or forces of human nature) will still exist in AC-land; those inclinationss may likely be offset to some degree by preferred customer choice of non-corrupt or non-feudalistic-model security firms.

I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that customer choice will always tend towards non-corrupt choices; many customers might prefer corrupt or partial firms in their corner. I'm not convinced that "a good impartial name" in the market will necessarily outweigh the advantages of a feudalistic model either for the security firms or for some customers. To presume it would be necessarily otherwise seems to me quite a leap. I think the answer would more likely "dpend" on a number of factors and would vary according to specific scenario.

Is that more clear, or do you still see it as a non-sequitur?

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human inclinations to greed and tribalism created feudalism or feudalistic behavior

[/ QUOTE ]

Site?

I don't think this is what created feudalism at all. Also, some feudalism gets a bad rap (not all forms of what is called feudalism were the same).

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, wait. The implication was that if security, law, courts were privately provided, there would be corruption. There is NOT government provision of food (for the most part), and there is no (significant) corruption in private food provision. Sure there are subsidies, interventionism, etc - but there isn't any sort of corruption approaching the levels we have seen in government-provided services.

[/ QUOTE ]


You're shifting away from the point. I never claimed that there was a direct government influence. I simply said that the fact the food industry runs privately without corruption now isnt sufficient to show it would do so without government, because you cant rule out the possibility that there are other, indirect, government influences that are preventing corruption.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is true; however, government isn't stopping corruption in the markets where it intervenes more heavily; if people wanted to corrupt the food market, why are they having so much trouble with so little government intervention?

[ QUOTE ]
Imagine that it is illegal to sell food at excessive prices during natural disasters (im not sure if this is or isnt the case, but I dont care, since its just a hypothetical). Also call this excessive pricing in times of need "corruption." (Im not sure if it is, but, again, just trying to illustrate the principle).[/quote[

I reject this contrived example. Someone who owns something can sell it for whatever he wants.

Price gouging laws, btw, invariably hurt more than they help. I'm not sure how doing something that helps people could be considered "corruption". Shortages, anyone?

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm just saying that I'm not convinced that customer choice will always tend towards non-corrupt choices; many customers might prefer corrupt or partial firms in their corner. I'm not convinced that "a good impartial name" in the market will necessarily outweigh the advantages of a feudalistic model either for the security firms or for some customers. To presume it would be necessarily otherwise seems to me quite a leap. I think the answer would more likely "dpend" on a number of factors and would vary according to specific scenario.


[/ QUOTE ]

How does the government solve any of these problems? The government is just our current consumer choice. At this point in time people still believe that force is legitimized by a majority vote. This means that everything the government does is due to the individual preferences of the voting public. If you take away the belief in government the other values that society has dont magically disappear. People will still care about poor people, people will still criticize corrupt business practices, and people are still going to want to defend their property and the property of others in their society.

The only difference is that the market provides us with an immediate decision making process that doesnt involve middle men who are incetivized to lie to us about what they are doing with our money. It also removes the ability of large groups of individuals to externalize the costs of their programs onto the tax payer. The market is going to have problems but I dont understand how any of these problems arent already present, and in many cases amplified, under governments.

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
This is true; however, government isn't stopping corruption in the markets where it intervenes more heavily; if people wanted to corrupt the food market, why are they having so much trouble with so little government intervention?

[/ QUOTE ]


This is good, and we are getting back to the point.

Of course, simply because the government fails to prevent some kinds of corruption in some markets in which it heavily intervenes doesnt necessarily mean it isnt needed to prevent other kinds of corruption in other markets.


Anyways, my main point was: just because the food industry runs corruption free and privately now, it isnt proof that government isnt needed for food to be distributed corruption free. Its just evidence that direct government influence isnt need. You cant remove something like the government, which has such a ubiquitous influence on us, and expect the things that dont appear to be affected directly to act similarily to the way they did with government.

Obviously, since I said I DO think the food industry would run well in the absense of government Im not arguing otherwise; Im just saying that removing the table cloth from underneath a set table is going to move the glasses to spots we've never seen.

[ QUOTE ]
I reject this contrived example. Someone who owns something can sell it for whatever he wants.

Price gouging laws, btw, invariably hurt more than they help. I'm not sure how doing something that helps people could be considered "corruption". Shortages, anyone?

[/ QUOTE ]


1) What are you, copernicus now??

2) Yeah, I agree its not a good example; I even said as much. But the example wasnt there to provide an example of where government prevents corruption, but to show the concept. Ie. In the example, removing the government has an effect on the distribution in the food industry, even though its currently a private industry.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there any reason that these firms won't be corrupted by money and power?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. It's called competition and voluntary eaxchange. A coercive monopolist who can simply force you to buy his "services" is much more susceptible to corruption (I would call government corrupt by its very definition, but that's another discussion) by power and money than is a firm whose customers can simply choose a non-corrupt competitor to do business with.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, that indeed is one force working in the direction you favor. Given the history of feudalism in the world, though, I'm far from convinced that it will constitute a sufficient force to withstand the pressures.

[/ QUOTE ]

As far as I can see this is a complete non sequitor.

[/ QUOTE ]

The human inclinations to greed and tribalism created feudalism or feudalistic behavior

[/ QUOTE ]

Site?

I don't think this is what created feudalism at all. Also, some feudalism gets a bad rap (not all forms of what is called feudalism were the same).

[/ QUOTE ]

Feudalism, tribalism, whatever the best name for it is I'm not sure. Whatever it is, it's a common refrain throughout history, though, isn't it? It has to do with greed, survival, and banding together with preferential treatment for those closest in culture/tradition and/or economic status and/or geographical location.

[Borodog]

I have no clue what you are trying to refer to, if you are trying to refer to it as either "tribalism" or "feudalism". I also don't understand what point you are trying to make, or what this has to do with competition.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue what you are trying to refer to, if you are trying to refer to it as either "tribalism" or "feudalism". I also don't understand what point you are trying to make, or what this has to do with competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That in AC-land, it cannot be soundly presumed that all private security firms will be more concerned with maintaining an impartial name (for market/sales purposes) than with taking sides due to their own private greed and interests, and/or corruption.

I don't disagree that concern for keeping a good fair impartial marketable name will influence many firms' conduct, but I don't think it is sound to presume that such concern will always trump projected or actual gain from partiality. Someone else seemed to be arguing that private security firms in AC-land will be impartial due to their "name-brand" concerns and I don't accept that as a blanket prognostication at all.

Given the history of feudalism, tribalism and the nature of human greed, I would think that some private security firms in AC-land would be sorely tempted and would succumb to immediate self-interest by helping their allies or employers via wielding or threatening pure force. Why wouldn't some private security firms in AC-land evolve into Mafia-like organizations? Well many wouldn't, but I suspect that some would. I can't accept as axiomatic that "market interest" will motivate all security firms to act anywhere near impeccably, and could even envision the development of many small fiefdoms, as it were, based on allied interests of the wealthy with security forces.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue what you are trying to refer to, if you are trying to refer to it as either "tribalism" or "feudalism". I also don't understand what point you are trying to make, or what this has to do with competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That in AC-land, it cannot be soundly presumed that all private security firms will be more concerned with maintaining an impartial name (for market/sales purposes) than with taking sides due to their own private greed and interests, and/or corruption.

I don't disagree that concern for keeping a good fair impartial marketable name will influence many firms' conduct, but I don't think it is sound to presume that such concern will always trump projected or actual gain from partiality. Someone else seemed to be arguing that private security firms in AC-land will be impartial due to their "name-brand" concerns and I don't accept that as a blanket prognostication at all.

Given the history of feudalism, tribalism and the nature of human greed, I would think that some private security firms in AC-land would be sorely tempted and would succumb to immediate self-interest by helping their allies or employers via wielding or threatening pure force. Why wouldn't some private security firms in AC-land evolve into Mafia-like organizations? Well many wouldn't, but I suspect that some would. I can't accept as axiomatic that "market interest" will motivate all security firms to act anywhere near impeccably, and could even envision the development of many small fiefdoms, as it were, based on allied interests of the wealthy with security forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Security firms make money by having clients. Would you continue to subscribe to a service that you suspected of imminent tyranny? I wouldn't. In fact, I would immediately stop paying them and sign up with an agency that would not do such a thing to protect me from the apparent mad-men who want to destroy their own firm via violence. Any such firm would immediately fall into bankruptcy or be destroyed by the security firms protecting their would-be victims.

The conditions under which states arose simply don't exist anymore. There are literally thousands of insurance companies, which serve as the natural model for security provision. They are large, numerous, voluntary, non-territorial and competitive. I don't need to live in a certain territory to subscribe to one, and I can switch providers at any time. Furthermore, insurance companies have a financial incentive to encourage their clients to protect themselves by installing security systems as well as arming and training themselves, just like I get a discount for having airbags on my car and smoke detectors and a safe in my house. No one will subscribe to an insurance provider that makes a provision of protecting them that they must disarm themselves or be otherwise helpless.

Your fears of the hypothetical mafia writ large fall on deaf ears, since we already have that system, and it can only continue to exist by making it illegal to protect yourself and enforcing a territorial monopoly in which it specifically outlaws its competition. None of these condition would obtain in a free market anarchist society, since the presumption is that the majority of people would not believe in the necessity of a special caste of people who are required to commit robbery, murder and enslavement lest society fall into chaos.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I have no clue what you are trying to refer to, if you are trying to refer to it as either "tribalism" or "feudalism". I also don't understand what point you are trying to make, or what this has to do with competition.

[/ QUOTE ]

That in AC-land, it cannot be soundly presumed that all private security firms will be more concerned with maintaining an impartial name (for market/sales purposes) than with taking sides due to their own private greed and interests, and/or corruption.

I don't disagree that concern for keeping a good fair impartial marketable name will influence many firms' conduct, but I don't think it is sound to presume that such concern will always trump projected or actual gain from partiality. Someone else seemed to be arguing that private security firms in AC-land will be impartial due to their "name-brand" concerns and I don't accept that as a blanket prognostication at all.

Given the history of feudalism, tribalism and the nature of human greed, I would think that some private security firms in AC-land would be sorely tempted and would succumb to immediate self-interest by helping their allies or employers via wielding or threatening pure force. Why wouldn't some private security firms in AC-land evolve into Mafia-like organizations? Well many wouldn't, but I suspect that some would. I can't accept as axiomatic that "market interest" will motivate all security firms to act anywhere near impeccably, and could even envision the development of many small fiefdoms, as it were, based on allied interests of the wealthy with security forces.

[/ QUOTE ]

Security firms make money by having clients. Would you continue to subscribe to a service that you suspected of imminent tyranny? I wouldn't. In fact, I would immediately stop paying them and sign up with an agency that would not do such a thing to protect me from the apparent mad-men who want to destroy their own firm via violence. Any such firm would immediately fall into bankruptcy or be destroyed by the security firms protecting their would-be victims.

The conditions under which states arose simply don't exist anymore. There are literally thousands of insurance companies, which serve as the natural model for security provision. They are large, numerous, voluntary, non-territorial and competitive. I don't need to live in a certain territory to subscribe to one, and I can switch providers at any time. Furthermore, insurance companies have a financial incentive to encourage their clients to protect themselves by installing security systems as well as arming and training themselves, just like I get a discount for having airbags on my car and smoke detectors and a safe in my house. No one will subscribe to an insurance provider that makes a provision of protecting them that they must disarm themselves or be otherwise helpless.

Your fears of the hypothetical mafia writ large fall on deaf ears, since we already have that system, and it can only continue to exist by making it illegal to protect yourself and enforcing a territorial monopoly in which it specifically outlaws its competition. None of these condition would obtain in a free market anarchist society, since the presumption is that the majority of people would not believe in the necessity of a special caste of people who are required to commit robbery, murder and enslavement lest society fall into chaos.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you are a man of too much faith. No offense intended.