A question about private roads

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime also revolves around extortion. No government needed to set that one up.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime also revolves around extortion. No government needed to set that one up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime does not "revolve around" extortion. If extortion magically blinked out of existence, organized crime would continue to exist. If prohibitions magically blinked out of existence, organized crime would NOT continue to exist.

[Borodog]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime also revolves around extortion. No government needed to set that one up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it did. Government reserves these extortion racket markets for organized criminals by outlawing competing security services that individuals could turn to and then failing to protect those individuals from predation. Usually the government thugs who are supposed to protect them from the private thugs are on the take. Yet people are forced to pay for this wonderful "service" via taxation.

Organized crime can only dominate markets that are reserved for it by government. Private, non-violent firms dominated to production and distribution of alcohol until the government reserved that market for violent criminals. Once that reservation was removed, criminal dominance of that industry collapsed. Private, non-violent firms used to dominate the production and distribution of drugs until the government reserve that market for violent criminals. We're still dealing the that one. The same pattern holds true for prostitution, gambling, etc.

By outlawing competition for the production of protection and security and then failing to actually provide protection and security, government also reserves for criminals the markets in the production of bads like extortion, unionized labor, etc.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ 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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Organized crime also revolves around extortion. No government needed to set that one up.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, actually, it did. Government reserves these extortion racket markets for organized criminals by outlawing competing security services that individuals could turn to and then failing to protect those individuals from predation. Usually the government thugs who are supposed to protect them from the private thugs are on the take. Yet people are forced to pay for this wonderful "service" via taxation.

Organized crime can only dominate markets that are reserved for it by government. Private, non-violent firms dominated to production and distribution of alcohol until the government reserved that market for violent criminals. Once that reservation was removed, criminal dominance of that industry collapsed. Private, non-violent firms used to dominate the production and distribution of drugs until the government reserve that market for violent criminals. We're still dealing the that one. The same pattern holds true for prostitution, gambling, etc.

By outlawing competition for the production of protection and security and then failing to actually provide protection and security, government also reserves for criminals the markets in the production of bads like extortion, unionized labor, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure how government has outlawed private security firms like Pinkerton's, but maybe I'm overlooking something. Why wouldn't a shopkeeper or auto dealership be able to hire private security rather than paying extortion money to the Mafia since the police do such an ineffective job? Oh I see, the tax money taken from business owners is no longer available for the hiring of private security, so maybe they can't afford to do both. Or maybe private security isn't that great a deterrent if the Mafia get you on the side and threaten you in other ways if you fail to pay protection money.

By the way, I had an afterthought regarding the Pizarro affair. You mentioned that some costs of the conquest were externalized. OK, but that has no bearing on whether or not the enterprise was profitable or not in sum. Costs could be externalized to the populace, but so potentially too could profits be shared with the populace (even if they weren't).

The only formula that matters to your argument (the argument being that costs of forceful predation exceed returns), is whether net Costs exceed net Expenses. Just because costs may have been partially externalized in no way implies that returns did not also exceed the sum of costs.

The greater the booty, the more likely it is that returns may exceed expenses. It is as easy to pickpocket $1000 as to pickpocket $30, and probably equally risky. A couple of thugs might break into a house and steal a new TV, or they might have information that an old widow has $100,000 stuffed in her mattress and break in there instead. A hundred ounces of gold, or a hundred thousand ounces, might be stolen by force. I don't think a blanket statement that forcible predation ALWAYS carries costs that exceed returns can be valid. Stagecoaches and trains wrre robbed and sometimes the bandits got away with little and other times got away rich. It really depends on the specific factors.

Partial externalization of costs might make some ventures privately profitable that otherwise wouldn't be profitable, but that in no way forms a rule that costs must always exceed returns in the absence of partial externalization of costs. I actually don't understand why you would think it must be so.

Thanks for reading.

[ianlippert]

[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a blanket statement that forcible predation ALWAYS carries costs that exceed returns can be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only time in history that this has ever been true is when the technologically advanced Europeans came over and decimated the native population. So yes, its not an economic law or anything but the current state of technology is such that a $20K RPG can take out a million dollar Black Hawk. There are just so many weapons out there that the technology gap is much lower now than it was when we invaded north america.

[tomdemaine]

John,

72 can beat AA sometimes when all in preflop. It doesn't make it +EV. Individual acts may have benefits that outweigh costs but as an EV calculation, if you can't externalise your costs it is alway -EV and luckilly those who are in the positions to do the most potential damage in a market society will usually be those who are good at doing EV calculations consciously or not.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]



Individual acts may have benefits that outweigh costs but as an EV calculation, if you can't externalise your costs it is alway -EV

[/ QUOTE ]

Ton,

It's the "always -EV" part of the statement which I have trouble believing. Apparently ACists on this forum don't have trouble having faith in it, though.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a blanket statement that forcible predation ALWAYS carries costs that exceed returns can be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only time in history that this has ever been true is when the technologically advanced Europeans came over and decimated the native population. So yes, its not an economic law or anything but the current state of technology is such that a $20K RPG can take out a million dollar Black Hawk. There are just so many weapons out there that the technology gap is much lower now than it was when we invaded north america.

[/ QUOTE ]

The countries with the largest technological edge aren't trying to slaughter entire populations and steal all their stuff. If they were so trying today, the results might be quite different than bogged-down guerilla wars.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a blanket statement that forcible predation ALWAYS carries costs that exceed returns can be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only time in history that this has ever been true is when the technologically advanced Europeans came over and decimated the native population. So yes, its not an economic law or anything but the current state of technology is such that a $20K RPG can take out a million dollar Black Hawk. There are just so many weapons out there that the technology gap is much lower now than it was when we invaded north america.

[/ QUOTE ]

The countries with the largest technological edge aren't trying to slaughter entire populations and steal all their stuff. If they were so trying today, the results might be quite different than bogged-down guerilla wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Death Star Objection.

Violence can be "profitable" if you have enough to totally overwhelm your victims. I can steal the lunch money from any number of kids at the kindergarden down the street. Bill Gates could send an army of thugs to steal ricebowls from starving people in Ethiopia.

There.

Now what? What does this acknowledgement do for your position?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I don't think a blanket statement that forcible predation ALWAYS carries costs that exceed returns can be valid.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the only time in history that this has ever been true is when the technologically advanced Europeans came over and decimated the native population. So yes, its not an economic law or anything but the current state of technology is such that a $20K RPG can take out a million dollar Black Hawk. There are just so many weapons out there that the technology gap is much lower now than it was when we invaded north america.

[/ QUOTE ]

The countries with the largest technological edge aren't trying to slaughter entire populations and steal all their stuff. If they were so trying today, the results might be quite different than bogged-down guerilla wars.

[/ QUOTE ]

Death Star Objection.

Violence can be "profitable" if you have enough to totally overwhelm your victims. I can steal the lunch money from any number of kids at the kindergarden down the street. Bill Gates could send an army of thugs to steal ricebowls from starving people in Ethiopia.

There.

Now what? What does this acknowledgement do for your position?

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it helps support my position. There is no reason that the target must always have less of value in assets (as in your examples) than the cost of acquiring it by force. What do you think? And what does "death star objection" mean?