|
|
#21
09-25-2006, 04:12 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
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 [/ QUOTE ] Easy. No monopoly on violence and no rule of law over their own territories. These are the two most obvious ones but there are lots of others. This realy is politics 101. 
|
|
#23
09-25-2006, 04:28 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused. Isn't rule of law is what AC is all about? How are you going to defend your property rights, if there are no laws which define your property rights? [/ QUOTE ] Well the AC crowd say you dont need a State to protect property rights and have rule of law, whilst anyone with any formal study of politics will tell you that rule of law over the entirety of its own territory is one thing that defines a State. In the examples given by Iron, alot if not most of the territories of those nations were in fact lawless.
|
|
#24
09-25-2006, 04:37 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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? [/ QUOTE ] The problem you overlook, is that each of the monopolies is limited to a certain geographical areas. The people living under monopoly in one geographical area have no reason to trust a monopoly from a different area. The areas need only be sufficiently small, that internal competition is easily suppressed. Once this order of things emerges, the monopolies controlling different geographical areas will start competing with each other for resources and also help each other to suppress internal competition inside each other's territories. The objective of each would be to increase the territory it covers at the least possible cost. The companies who are most successful will become very big, and will control large territories. Eventually, they will overtake their smaller counterparts in weapons and communication technology, and it will be easier for them to threaten violence and achive their ends. The consumers will not be harmed without need, however, as the security company branches out into related businesses of communication and education, it will have easier time selling their customers new services at increased prices. Eventually, the laws governing property rights and the courts adjudicating disputes will be influenced by the security company that will have the monopoly on enforcing courts' decisions. Then, it wouldn't matter that you live under AC.
|
|
#25
09-25-2006, 04:39 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] 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 [/ QUOTE ] Easy. No monopoly on violence and no rule of law over their own territories. These are the two most obvious ones but there are lots of others. This realy is politics 101. [/ QUOTE ] TOAFK is certainly right that if you take any introductory political science course at a reputable university, it's generally accepted that the modern state doesn't come into existence until at least the late 15th century.
|
|
#27
09-25-2006, 04:48 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
In the examples given by Iron, alot if not most of the territories of those nations were in fact lawless. [/ QUOTE ] I think it's generally the case that prior to the 15th century, and even today in much of the developing world, that although many territories lack written and codified 'laws', natural property rights existed and do exist, in the sense that people do successfully establish private property regimes, based on local conventions, that are independent of and often in opposition to the state.
|
|
#28
09-25-2006, 04:49 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
I am confused. Isn't rule of law is what AC is all about? [/ QUOTE ] No, it's about the libertarian principle of having the freedom to do what you want with your own property as long as it's not impeding on that same right of others. [ QUOTE ] How are you going to defend your property rights, if there are no laws which define your property rights? [/ QUOTE ] I'm not sure what laws you're talking about that define that I own the keyboard I'm typing on right now, but as for how to defend them-    *Mods: If you think the last pic is spam or something you can remove it. Obviously no affliation.
|
|
#29
09-25-2006, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
it's generally accepted that the modern state doesn't come into existence until at least the late 15th century. [/ QUOTE ] No "modern" languages were spoken 2000 years ago, I guess they didn't have language then.
|
|
#30
09-25-2006, 04:54 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: Mandatory front page AC thread: Security in AC land
[ QUOTE ]
The problem you overlook, is that each of the monopolies is limited to a certain geographical areas. The people living under monopoly in one geographical area have no reason to trust a monopoly from a different area. [/ QUOTE ] Huh? Assuming this other company got to become a "monopoly" by serving its customers best until its competition couldn't keep up, why should people being oppressed by their current monopolist fear them? In fact, if this second company is offering relief from the tyrannical company, they have far more reason to trust them than they do the monopolist. And why are these companies limited to certain geographical locations?
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
