A question about private roads

[Borodog]

Right back at you.

[NewTeaBag]

I thought Private roads, right of ways, and emminent domain issues were all "Invisible Hand FTW!" solutions in AC society.



Oh wait. NVM. Having read the responses....They still are.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Right back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I am expressing doubt that your precepts will work in nearly all cases, whereas you appear to be saying they will.

I think your arguments are fine except for the claim that the benefits of cooperation and a good name will necessarily trump the benefits of group pillage by force.

Didn't you concede that it may have been profitable for Pizarro to pillage the natives by force? If that example, why not others? (I am sure there are plenty)

Just because many security firms in ACland may likely decide to play nice for the future benefits does not mean that circuumstances won't arise where outright force is not more profitable. Tribes, fiefdoms, etc...you seem to have faith that that would be impossible.

I'm taking the view that some would accord to your projected scenario and some wouldn't. I'm not having faith, you are. I'm merey expressing skepticism at the previous poster's broad faith in the matter, and now at yours too, apparently.

Cooperation and a good name isn't always more profitable than corruption, collusion and theft.

[Copernicus]

Government isnt just the "current consumer choice", it is the only choice in history that has succeeded. And don't offer Somalia as an example of success, lol.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I am expressing doubt that your precepts will work in nearly all cases, whereas you appear to be saying they will.



[/ QUOTE ]

Of course thats what he is saying. Thats the von Mises version of circular reasoning. "The market will solve all of the problems because the market is perfect. The market is perfect because it WILL solve all these problems".

Llib Setag, an enormously successful businessman creates a huge business and becomes a multi-billionaire from producing gizmos. He decides to open a security firm and builds that to the dominant player in the security biz.

Through some personal tragedy or simply ego gone wild he decides his security firm is going to become a tool of vengeance/vigilanteism and criminal activity. He loses some business because of it and gains some business because of it. Does he really care about the balance? So what if it loses all of his business? He built it from profits, and its anti-social enterprises are plenty profitable. He can afford to bribe any DRO with wealth beyond resistance to the temptation. There is no way to say that couldnt happen without relying on an axiomatic "perfect market".

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Right back at you.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, because I am expressing doubt that your precepts will work in nearly all cases, whereas you appear to be saying they will.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I provided an argument based upon well known and understood market principles and incentives, for which you had no response, and accused me of having "too much faith." I.e., you are exactly the type of person with which it is pointless to argue.

[ QUOTE ]
I think your arguments are fine except for the claim that the benefits of cooperation and a good name will necessarily trump the benefits of group pillage by force.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then show it to be otherwise. The only reason that is the case these days is that the pillagers can externalize the costs of pillaging, because suckers like you believe in the necessity of pillage.

[ QUOTE ]
Didn't you concede that it may have been profitable for Pizarro to pillage the natives by force? If that example, why not others? (I am sure there are plenty)

[/ QUOTE ]

I conceded that argument too soon. The costs of that scheme were externalized onto the Spanish populace via taxation. And how did that pillage turn out for Spain in the long run, anyway? The fact that the people being plundered were at a vast technological disadvantage to the Spaniards, a condition that would not obtain in a modern technological civilization based on a high degree of specialization, the division of labor and exchange.

[ QUOTE ]
Just because many security firms in ACland may likely decide to play nice for the future benefits does not mean that circuumstances won't arise where outright force is not more profitable. Tribes, fiefdoms, etc...you seem to have faith that that would be impossible.

[/ QUOTE ]

It is vastly more profitable in a modern technological society to produce and exchange than it is to plunder and pillage, as long as you cannot externalize the costs of plunder and pillage. Sure I have faith; I have faith in logic. It actually works! You seem to have faith that the status quo is not the very INSTITUTIONALIZATION of the plunder and pillage you fear, which of course it is.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm taking the view that some would accord to your projected scenario and some wouldn't.

[/ QUOTE ]

And the ones that didn't, if they were so foolish, would be bankrupt and wiped out in short order. You still haven't addressed this argument. You just wave your hands and ignore it.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not having faith, you are. I'm merey expressing skepticism at the previous poster's broad faith in the matter, and now at yours too, apparently.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, this is just a dishonest debate tactic. Ignore carefully presented arguments about economic realities and incentives and claim the opposition's position is based on Faith.

[ QUOTE ]
Cooperation and a good name isn't always more profitable than corruption, collusion and theft.

[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. Corruption, collusion and theft are always more profitable under a system that institutionalizes and is based upon and formed by corruption, collusion and theft, i.e., the state.

There have been plenty of cultures and societies throughout history based on plunder and pillage. Where are they now? Lost in the dustbin of history to a culture and society based on private property, freedom of contract and voluntary exchange. A culture and society that is unfortunately being consumed by a cancer that would transform it into one based on plunder and pillage and send it screaming into the dustbin after all the rest.

If you're not actually going to address the arguments made to you, I'm not interested in continuing the discussion.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
Correct. Corruption, collusion and theft are always more profitable under a system that institutionalizes and is based upon and formed by corruption, collusion and theft, i.e., the state.

[/ QUOTE ]

That doesn't mean that theft requires those things in order to be profitable.

It wasn't profitable for ZEEJustin to play multiple accounts online, and it isn't profitable for college kids to collude online? It isn't profitable for a Russian trio of pickpockets to operate in and around NYC? It isn't profitable for the Mafia to shake down businesses for protection money??? Well...why do they do it then?

Theft is DAMN profitable if you can get away with it. Group theft is just the next step on the ladder.

There are many speculations and theories as to why the Roman empire collapsed. One thing's for sure, though: it expanded and prospered for 500 years + under its system of conquest and absorbtion and slavery. Who in the real world cares about indefinitely, whether a system will work in perpetuity? A corrupt person seeking gain and/or power will be very happy if they just have it for most of the rest of their life. That's plenty of motivation (and has been) for many individuals, small groups, and even societies. For many, they'll be happy just to make a good score - they don't even require that it be solid for the rest of their lives.

You're misinterpreting me if you think I think the staus quo does not encompass and accentuate plunder and pillage. I'm NOT arguing for the status quo. I'm saying that IMO you have too much faith that AC will be far better and that it will not devolve into tribalism and feudalism, etc.

You almost seem to be arguing that corruption will be unprofitable under AC. I find that concept absurd. I'll grant that corruption mught well be less profitable under AC than under a government, but that doesn't mean that it will cease being profitable and it doesn't mean that individual or group corruption (and theft) will disappear.

Corruption and theft are often enhanced by the opportunities offered by the State but they are not dependent on the state for their very existence. They're part of human nature and the human condition. That's why I don't believe they will just vanish if AC comes to pass.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
No, because I am expressing doubt that your precepts will work in nearly all cases, whereas you appear to be saying they will.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're both begging multiple questions here. You're both guessing about what security arrangements would look like, when in all likelyhood you're both WAY WRONG about what will emerge from a truly unencumbered market.

Arguing over these types of particulars is like arguing over whether the invading alien fleets will use unleaded gas or diesel in their tanks.

[Borodog]

pvn,

The private security literature is pretty well agreed that the most likely model is an insurance based one. And in fact it is already largely in place in many places (wherever it is allowed, in fact). And I haven't said anything about the details; only about well understood economic principles (e.g. that there would exist competing firms) and the directions of incentives.

So,

[img]/images/graemlins/tongue.gif[/img]

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Theft is DAMN profitable if you can get away with it. Group theft is just the next step on the ladder.

[/ QUOTE ]

ANd the bigger you scale it, the harder it is to get away with. Theft DOES NOT SCALE. That's why there are no nationwide networks of purse snatchers, or bank robbers. Organized "crime" always revolves around government prohibition, whether that be booze, dope, hookers, gambling, whatever.