AC Scenario

[WordWhiz]

Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent quote. This addresses my question about how the market would work to prevent this type of power grab.

[FooSH]

[ QUOTE ]
Ooh, a chance to drag out a good David Friedman quote. I can never resist such an opportunity:

"We must ask, not whether an anarcho-capitalist society would be safe from a power grab by the men with the guns (safety is not an available option), but whether it would be safer than our society is from a comparable seizure of power by the men with the guns. I think the answer is yes. In our society, the men who must engineer such a coup are politicians, military officers, and policemen, men selected precisely for the characteristic of desiring power and being good at using it. They are men who already believe that they have a right to push other men around--that is their job. They are particularly well qualified for the job of seizing power. Under anarcho-capitalism the men in control of protection agencies are selected for their ability to run an efficient business and please their customers. It is always possible that some will turn out to be secret power freaks as well, but it is surely less likely than under our system where the corresponding jobs are labeled 'non-power freaks need not apply."

[/ QUOTE ]

Under desirable traits for the men in charge of security companies, he seems to have left out "increase market share". Aggressive takeovers (using guns or money) could be a real problem with no higher authority to sort them out.

Or am I missing something?

[WordWhiz]

I have a feeling that using guns to increase market share would backfire. Unlike with nation-states, customers of security agencies could leave easily the moment their ostensible protectors started using violence or becoming too oppressive. And of course, it's very expensive. If A and B security agencies go to war, it is C, D, and E who win, regardless of the outcome.

Finally, it seems likely that the number of defense agencies would greatly surpass the number of current nation states. There's no way to say for sure on this, but Friedman points out the inefficiency problems that dog large urban police departments. It's highly doubtful that an anarcho-capitalist society would ever reach a point where one agency controlled 40% of the world's military might, or where two agencies served about 37% of the world's population.

[FooSH]

I agree war is very expensive, and that most security companies understand this. Would this not lead to appeasement of overly aggressive companies? Once a bigger security company decides it wants your territory, it can take you to the cleaners in so many ways without firing a shot, (customer mis-information, threats, bribes, vandalism, lawsuits etc.) Eventually you have to give in or get stronger allies and go to war, the former option being much cheaper with less chance of physical injury / death.

I'm unfamiliar with Friedman's points there, do you have a link or a summary? I always thought economies of scale = a good thing.

[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling that using guns to increase market share would backfire. Unlike with nation-states, customers of security agencies could leave easily the moment their ostensible protectors started using violence or becoming too oppressive. And of course, it's very expensive. If A and B security agencies go to war, it is C, D, and E who win, regardless of the outcome.

Finally, it seems likely that the number of defense agencies would greatly surpass the number of current nation states. There's no way to say for sure on this, but Friedman points out the inefficiency problems that dog large urban police departments. It's highly doubtful that an anarcho-capitalist society would ever reach a point where one agency controlled 40% of the world's military might, or where two agencies served about 37% of the world's population.

[/ QUOTE ]

They dont start using the violence until they have accumulated the capital, manpower and weapons to not need customers anymore.

I'm not sure where the percentages come from, but just as there are mergers of other corporations (5 companies own 80% of the market share in many businesses), there will be consolidation of successful defense companies. A coalition of two large ones that exceed those percentages is not at all unreasonable.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:



Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

[Felz]

[ QUOTE ]
They dont start using the violence until they have accumulated the capital, manpower and weapons to not need customers anymore.

I'm not sure where the percentages come from, but just as there are mergers of other corporations (5 companies own 80% of the market share in many businesses), there will be consolidation of successful defense companies. A coalition of two large ones that exceed those percentages is not at all unreasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Friedman depends on protective agencies facing diseconomies of scale. Obviously, introduce economies of scale say due to network externalities and everything falls apart.

Anyways Friedman is 10x the economist Rothbard was.

[John Kilduff]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:



Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler scrapped his plans to invade Switzerland due to expected heavy losses (all households armed and ready to resist), expected tank losses due to mountain passes having been mined, and the fact that no central Swiss government would have had the authority to surrender anyway. So while Hitler could have taken the major capital cities, he would have been fighting from that point on against a guerilla resistance from the entire populace. I thought it was very interesting when I read that no government entity would have had the legal power or authority to surrender Switzerland to Hitler.

[pvn]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is this plausible?

Adolph Hitler III takes over ownership of ABC Defense, the largest defense company in AC Land. How would the market prevent him from turning the free society into a dictatorship?

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this plausible?

The death star appears in orbit around earth, which has recently formed a unified world government.

How would the state prevent Darth Vader from turning the planet into a pile of asteroids?

[/ QUOTE ]

Ridiculous. I am becoming more and more of a supporter of AC ideas everyday. Some of you guys (hi Nielsio) are so defensive of your position that it verges on fanaticism. All kinds of things that I previously thought required a state turn out to be able to be provided for by the market (almost certainly in a better form). Stop being childish.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes! It IS ridiculous. Just like the OP is ridiculous, just like the other six xillion "ZOMG Bill Gates is going to kill hobos and nobody can stop him" and "ZOMG Coke and Pepsi battling it out in the streets" and "ZOMG who's going to stop hitler" threads we've seen.

For ANY government X, there exists SOME concentration of power Y that can conquer that state, *no matter how big that government*. The same can be said for any given population of people, state or no state. Having a government in place, with a population who is accustomed to submitting to such a government, only makes the conquest *easier*.

Your OP explicitly alluded to one of the BEST examples of how a state is MORE vulnerable to conquest:



Compare that to the VC, with no Maginot Line, no B-52 bombers.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hitler scrapped his plans to invade Switzerland due to expected heavy losses (all households armed and ready to resist), expected tank losses due to mountain passes having been mined, and the fact that no central Swiss government would have had the authority to surrender anyway. So while Hitler could have taken the major capital cities, he would have been fighting from that point on against a guerilla resistance from the entire populace. I thought it was very interesting when I read that no government entity would have had the legal power or authority to surrender Switzerland to Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

Assymetrical warfare FTW. The colonists knew it, Robert E. Lee knew it (but surrendered because he foolishly belived the Union would be honorable in victory), the VC knew it, Al Queda knows it. [censored], Princess [censored] Leia knew it.