You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
RE: The Mathematical Case for Anarcho-Capitalism
There's no scenario in which it's easier to kill your competitors when your competitors have access to a private, competitive defense industry. Aggression becomes inviable as a business model in the absence of legitimized authority.
There is no scenario in which an established business could not afford better "defense" than a new, struggling competitor.
Not to mention all the nice open warfare that would occur between defense contractors. No better way to show you're better than the competition than to covertly kill people under their protection!
If that "defense" is actually aggressing against people, they're pitting themselves against the entire market for actual defense from such things. Not a lucrative business model.
Modern war only exists due to the tax streams to plunder. In the absence of taxation, war is too costly (and just awful), not to mention crippling to the reputation of a business (nobody wants to subscribe to a security company that puts the customer in danger by picking fights).
Covertly. I said covertly. As in your competitor's wards die, and no one knows who did it... But you claim it wouldn't happen under your watch.
You claim no one would patronize a business that picks fights yet drug pushers battle over territory all the time and no one cares as long as they get their drugs.
@soriano336:
Detectives.
Your next point will be that the defense contractors could have detectives too, but I hope you at least realize the conflict of interest in having employees responsible for determining their employer did nothing wrong. Literally everything that happened would be blamed on the competition...
Firstly, would you aggressively kill people under the protection of others? And how would you address these problems, if you were the manager of a defence company, or of some other company? And why is it that I've never heard of a security company deliberately breaking into the house or building of another company's client? Could it be because it just doesn't happen?
Nobody would patronize a defense company, with the job of protecting its customers, if it is picking fights which endangers its customers.
Wait... does the state stop people from "covertly" killing people now ?
@churdtzu:
What I would do has nothing to do with anything. I'm not a serial killer, but I recognize that serial killers exist. Anything less is simply delusional. What you're basically trying to state is that everyone involved in war for their own personal benefit now would magically give that up if there were no government. Which is utter bullshit. They'd just recruit their own troops and the wars would be internal between neighboring towns.
Don't believe me? Look at fucking history, there's plenty of examples of warring "kingdoms" and people attempting to take power through warfare.
Might be because the police would arrest their asses. Or because they keep it quiet. What, do you think they're going to hold a parade to announce they broke into a building protected by a rival?
What part of "covertly" do you not understand?
Without government, war is generally gone too.
Chimpanzees have been known to go to war against rival groups.
Most tribal societies war against neighboring tribal societies.
Government isn't the origin of war, limited resources and survival instinct are.
Chimpanzees have a kind of government... and the government has an interest in war.
@roy2016
But A) This just underscores the impossibility of there being no "government." Groups will always have a leader, even when it's wild animals!
B) You claim "the chimpanzee government" had an interest in war, but what do you think that interest was? It's not like she was supporting a military industrial complex... so either it was personal or she felt it was necessary for her tribe's survival. So you'd need to show those reasons wouldn't come up in a "government free" society.
Limited resources isn't nearly as much of an obstacle as it was, and it especially wouldn't be in a free society.
Those tribal societies didn't have to up against networks of millions of consumer-accountable protection companies.
Fucking comment limits...
No, you just think that because you (I'm assuming) live in a first world country which is sucking up all the resources from other places. There's a reason we constantly meddle in the Middle East for oil, and it isn't just a hard-on for war.
So? That doesn't change the fact that war is endemic to human history and would continue with or without government. And consumer accountability? Jesus... ok, tell me how many people stopped buying iPhones when we found out the factory workers were committing suicide because conditions were so bad.
Oh, right... none.
There is no such fucking thing as consumer accountability unless the consumers themselves are directly negatively affected. If other people die then so what?
Moreover, any company doing anything wrong keeps that shit under wraps. Companies don't hold parades when they illegally dump chemicals in water supplies, they hire lawyers and marketers to make sure they look squeeky clean. You think a defense contractor won't have the cash to make it look like the competitor is causing the problems (regardless of whether or not they actually are?)
Capitalism is not magic, it doesn't change human nature... and human nature is to do anything that will give you an advantage.