A question about private roads

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

But I'm asking you, so what?

In general, violence is -EV. You might rob a bank and get away with it, but over the long haul you're not going to turn a profit, and you're probably going to end up with a lower hourly rate than if you did legitimate work. But there are some situations where you might find an edge using violence.

SO WHAT?

Government can't magically make these cases go away.

[ QUOTE ]
And what does "death star objection" mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

The death star objection is exactly what you're bringing up - overwhelming force destroying some weak target, just like the Death Star blowing up Alderan. The reason the death star objection is a bogus argument is that it doesn't matter what sort of organizational structures Alderan has - they're going to get blown up if they're a planetary socialist utopia, a democracy, a stateless AC fantasyland, whatever, they're getting blown to bits.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
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?

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.

But I'm asking you, so what?

In general, violence is -EV.

[/ QUOTE ]

But I'm not talking about generalities. I'm talking about specific targeted predation. Even in the Natural Kingdom, lions and wolves don't just randomly select victims to attack. They select carefully to prey on the weakest so that their return on energy expended is greatest and their risk of physical injury is lowest.

[ QUOTE ]
You might rob a bank and get away with it, but over the long haul you're not going to turn a profit, and you're probably going to end up with a lower hourly rate than if you did legitimate work. But there are some situations where you might find an edge using violence.

SO WHAT?

Government can't magically make these cases go away.

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing that it could. I was disputing an assertion made, which was that forcible predation amongst human beings is never profitable.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
And what does "death star objection" mean?

[/ QUOTE ]

The death star objection is exactly what you're bringing up - overwhelming force destroying some weak target, just like the Death Star blowing up Alderan. The reason the death star objection is a bogus argument is that it doesn't matter what sort of organizational structures Alderan has - they're going to get blown up if they're a planetary socialist utopia, a democracy, a stateless AC fantasyland, whatever, they're getting blown to bits.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Pizarro might well have made a profitable trip against the natives (we don't really know without a comparison of total costs versus total returns), and perhaps the USA could make a profitable theft of Saudi oil if morals went out the window and wholesale slaughter and terror were employed (and possibly an alliance/profit-sharing arrangement made with other powerful countries).

That's all I was arguing, that predation may sometimes be profitable (usually when very carefully targeted). The contrary assertion is wrong. I would bet that forcible predation usually would indeed be unprofitable against random targets. Not against some targets carefully selected, though.

Therefore, in AC-land, I would suspect that some private security firms, under specific conditions and opportunities, would find it more profitable to steal and coerce than to maintain an impartially marketable name. Boro and another poster were saying that wouldn't happen because forcible predation is ALWAYS unprofitable unless costs can be externalized, an axiom I don't believe (as above). In certain specific situations force and theft can be VERY profitable. So under AC-ism I would expect much to go as you prognosticate, with exceptions which would give rise to a sort of alliance bnetween wealth and security forces and therefore some fiefdoms or feudalism would arise in places.

Thanks for reading and for your responses.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
So Pizarro might well have made a profitable trip against the natives (we don't really know without a comparison of total costs versus total returns), and perhaps the USA could make a profitable theft of Saudi oil if morals went out the window and wholesale slaughter and terror were employed (and possibly an alliance/profit-sharing arrangement made with other powerful countries).

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not.

Oil is trading for what, $80/barrel? The probability that the US can use force to obtain AND HOLD these oil fields for LESS than $80-cost of pumping per barrel is pretty close to zero. And keep in mind that conflict in the region is part of the reason that it's as high as $80 in the first place!

As the stakes rise, the probability that violence is +EV falls. Defense is cheaper than offense, and as an asset rises in value, the amount one is willing to spend defending it rises, too.

Of course, for an asset of value X, and a defender willing to commit Y to defense, there is SOME value Z that you could allocate towards overwhelming Y and taking X with your losses being less than X. However, questions of opportunity cost arise. The amount of materiel Z needed to "profitably" overcome Y is going to get ridiculous as Y rises, and those resources are scarce and they have alternative uses.

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in AC-land, I would suspect that some private security firms, under specific conditions and opportunities, would find it more profitable to steal and coerce than to maintain an impartially marketable name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. But these firms are overwhelmingly likely to be poor competitors in the first place. So the doomsday scenario of "one big firm cornering the market and then kicking everyone in the head" is still a longshot (but POSSIBLE! I admit it!).

[ QUOTE ]
Boro and another poster were saying that wouldn't happen because forcible predation is ALWAYS unprofitable unless costs can be externalized, an axiom I don't believe (as above).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't believe in anything being 100%. And even if things are "always" -EV, well, people do -EV things all the time. But over the long haul, such opportunities are few and far between, and tend to be small more often than large, and those who go ahead even when their plans are -EV will be removed one way or the other.

[ QUOTE ]
In certain specific situations force and theft can be VERY profitable. So under AC-ism I would expect much to go as you prognosticate, with exceptions which would give rise to a sort of alliance bnetween wealth and security forces and therefore some fiefdoms or feudalism would arise in places.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't follow. DUCY?

The most frequently-trotted out example is the conquistadors bulldozing the incas and myans. But this is rich, technologically advanced people vs. poor, primative people who just happened to be sitting on some shiny rocks. In the AC scenario, the AC-embracing society will grow wealth faster than the statist societies. Stateless populations will be *better equipped* to deal with such "fuedal" despot wannnabes.

States, because of their relative inefficiencies, will never be able to more effectively defend against threats than the same population with the same resources under a pure market distribution.

This is the core of the fallacy of the death star objection - that the state makes a *given* population with some *given* amount of resources MORE vulnerable to conquest, not less. Any force that can conquer some AC society would be MORE than enough to conquer the same society re-organized into any state structure.

[Orlando Salazar]

[ 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 ]

Ljalkgjlakjglakjb ...bable bable bable.

Do you have any understanding of economics or human pyschology?

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So Pizarro might well have made a profitable trip against the natives (we don't really know without a comparison of total costs versus total returns), and perhaps the USA could make a profitable theft of Saudi oil if morals went out the window and wholesale slaughter and terror were employed (and possibly an alliance/profit-sharing arrangement made with other powerful countries).

[/ QUOTE ]

Probably not.

Oil is trading for what, $80/barrel? The probability that the US can use force to obtain AND HOLD these oil fields for LESS than $80-cost of pumping per barrel is pretty close to zero.

[/ QUOTE ]

I doubt that much. It would not be so hard to nuke or chemical-weapon much of the rest of the country and form a buffer-zone "ring of death" around the oilfields. The reason you think taking and holding would be so hard, is because you are ruling out high-tech genocide. Saddam very effectively practiced genocide against the Kurds and against the swamp Arabs. If he could do it successfully. surely a much greater power could also. I'm not recommending that but pointing out that such conquest wouldn't be so hard or costly as you seem to think, and it would likely be very effective.

[ QUOTE ]
And keep in mind that conflict in the region is part of the reason that it's as high as $80 in the first place!

[/ QUOTE ]

Serious conflict doesn't go on much longer after genocide takes place - again, see Saddam's successful genocidal campaigns. Those campaigns kept the peace for a long time under his evil iron rule, until the USA stepped in against him.

[ QUOTE ]
As the stakes rise, the probability that violence is +EV falls. Defense is cheaper than offense, and as an asset rises in value, the amount one is willing to spend defending it rises, too.

[/ QUOTE ]

Defense is only possible if defenders are alive, if they are not wiped out by ruthless application of superior technology. The Incas and Aztecs or Mayans could not successfully defend their treasure from a technologically advanced and ruthless foe, although that foe was minuscule in comparison to their numbers.

[ QUOTE ]
Of course, for an asset of value X, and a defender willing to commit Y to defense, there is SOME value Z that you could allocate towards overwhelming Y and taking X with your losses being less than X. However, questions of opportunity cost arise. The amount of materiel Z needed to "profitably" overcome Y is going to get ridiculous as Y rises, and those resources are scarce and they have alternative uses.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nukes and chemical weapons are pretty cheap compared to the number of people they kill. The kill value is very very high. Conventional warfare is very costly by comparison, and less effective.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, in AC-land, I would suspect that some private security firms, under specific conditions and opportunities, would find it more profitable to steal and coerce than to maintain an impartially marketable name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Possibly. But these firms are overwhelmingly likely to be poor competitors in the first place. So the doomsday scenario of "one big firm cornering the market and then kicking everyone in the head" is still a longshot (but POSSIBLE! I admit it!).

[/ QUOTE ]

I wasn't arguing for that scenario, but rather that fiefdoms or feudalism might develop in some areas or to some extent.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Boro and another poster were saying that wouldn't happen because forcible predation is ALWAYS unprofitable unless costs can be externalized, an axiom I don't believe (as above).

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, I don't believe in anything being 100%. And even if things are "always" -EV, well, people do -EV things all the time. But over the long haul, such opportunities are few and far between, and tend to be small more often than large, and those who go ahead even when their plans are -EV will be removed one way or the other.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In certain specific situations force and theft can be VERY profitable. So under AC-ism I would expect much to go as you prognosticate, with exceptions which would give rise to a sort of alliance bnetween wealth and security forces and therefore some fiefdoms or feudalism would arise in places.

[/ QUOTE ]

This doesn't follow. DUCY?

[/ QUOTE ]

No, I think it is liklely for it to happen in exceptional circumstances. I would agree that it does not follow as a general rule, but I'm arguing for the unusual, not the commonplace.

[ QUOTE ]
The most frequently-trotted out example is the conquistadors bulldozing the incas and myans. But this is rich, technologically advanced people vs. poor, primative people who just happened to be sitting on some shiny rocks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just like the West and/or Russia (and in a couple of decades, the Chinese too) versus the technologically laggard Middle Easterners who are sitting on some very shiny, oily sands.

[ QUOTE ]
In the AC scenario, the AC-embracing society will grow wealth faster than the statist societies. Stateless populations will be *better equipped* to deal with such "fuedal" despot wannnabes.

States, because of their relative inefficiencies, will never be able to more effectively defend against threats than the same population with the same resources under a pure market distribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

After some time pases, perhaps. But perhaps only a state will ever have the infrastructure and means to employ unified highest-tech warfare.

[ QUOTE ]
This is the core of the fallacy of the death star objection - that the state makes a *given* population with some *given* amount of resources MORE vulnerable to conquest, not less. Any force that can conquer some AC society would be MORE than enough to conquer the same society re-organized into any state structure.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hm, I don't think that quite bears on my points but it is interesting.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
Just like the West and/or Russia (and in a couple of decades, the Chinese too) versus the technologically laggard Middle Easterners who are sitting on some very shiny, oily sands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if it came to that, the "laggard" middle easterners probably have the ability to make it VERY exepensive for anyone to get that oil for a long, long time, even if they all get killed. How cheap will the oil be then?

[pvn]

[ 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 ]

Ljalkgjlakjglakjb ...bable bable bable.

Do you have any understanding of economics or human pyschology?

[/ QUOTE ]

lol

[tomdemaine]

[ 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 ]

Ljalkgjlakjglakjb ...bable bable bable.

Do you have any understanding of economics or human pyschology?

[/ QUOTE ]

SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Just like the West and/or Russia (and in a couple of decades, the Chinese too) versus the technologically laggard Middle Easterners who are sitting on some very shiny, oily sands.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course, if it came to that, the "laggard" middle easterners probably have the ability to make it VERY exepensive for anyone to get that oil for a long, long time, even if they all get killed. How cheap will the oil be then?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead men burn no oil wells. Not that I'm recommending that.

[bills217]

[ 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 ]

Ljalkgjlakjglakjb ...bable bable bable.

Do you have any understanding of economics or human pyschology?

[/ QUOTE ]

SALAZARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!!!

[/ QUOTE ]

ROTHBARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!!