Anarcho capitalist penal system (2 Viewers)

[Anonymous-]

ITT we discuss the anarcho capitalist penal system. A system where we eliminate the state and let the free market and natural laws take place. In this libertopia courts, law enforcement, police are all privatized rather funded through the coercive mechanism of taxation. Does any one think that this is fd?

LOL

 

[proletariat]

ITT we discuss the anarcho capitalist penal system. A system where we eliminate the state and let the free market and natural laws take place. In this libertopia courts, law enforcement, police are all privatized rather funded through the coercive mechanism of taxation. Does any one think that this is fd?

LOL

so who pays for the police?

 

[0bs3n3]

so who pays for the police?

What? So what benefit would a corporation get from policing?

 

[funkshen]

so who pays for the police?

What? So what benefit would a corporation get from policing?

Are you guys retarded?

1) You opt-in to some kind of security fund (much like insurance etc.) and are thus eligible for police protection and assistance. You have the choice and the right not to opt in (the opposite of the current state of public policing).
2) A corporation benefits from policing in that its shit doesn't get fucked you dolt.

Edit: It's important to note that with point 1), much like insurance, you can be denied police protection or assistance if you have breached the terms of your contract with the private police force. Similar to any other kind of insurance.

tl;dr a huge world of insurance and fuck

 

[Fish Tank]

ITT we discuss the anarcho capitalist penal system. A system where we eliminate the state and let the free market and natural laws take place. In this libertopia courts, law enforcement, police are all privatized rather funded through the coercive mechanism of taxation. Does any one think that this is fd?

LOL

Is there some sort of benchmark for 'security' firms, similar in ways to the law (as we know it today)? From what I can gather there isn't, so there would be ambiguity in what is considered 'right'. So, there is the potential for one of these 'police forces' to arrest anyone under their corporation's orders or just for the sake of arresting people.

If there was a benchmark, then how can this be enforced? No corporation can police another as they haven't paid for it. I support the free market, but I don't think police should be something controlled by multiple corporations.

Are you guys retarded?

1) You opt-in to some kind of security fund (much like insurance etc.) and are thus eligible for police protection and assistance. You have the choice and the right not to opt in (the opposite of the current state of public policing).
2) A corporation benefits from policing in that its shit doesn't get fucked you dolt.

Edit: It's important to note that with point 1), much like insurance, you can be denied police protection or assistance if you have breached the terms of your contract with the private police force. Similar to any other kind of insurance.

tl;dr a huge world of insurance and fuck

You say that a person can opt into security, and they are protected by that corporation. I can see some potential for extortion - 'pay us and we'll make sure you don't get hurt', 'we don't want to', *brick thru window*. I'm not saying this would always be the case, but who's stopping them from doing this? There may be no defined obligation to opt into this security, but then again there is no guaranteeing this right.

Eventually a corporation will get to the point where their 'security services' are superior, and they can remove any opposition and form a governing body. Then we revert back to a state of some description, instead there's a better chance that it's based on the corporate structure with the CEO or whoever is at the top now in the seat of a dictator.

If there was some sort of uniform system safeguarding the very basic civil liberties, then I would have no probs. However through my interpretation of the OP's concept, this contradicts the idea presented.

 

[Planck]

You're acting like the current government currently safeguards very basic civil liberties, rather than removing them.

 

[Riet]

Companies that have bad practises will lose their customers, they are held to account by the market.

 

[funkshen]

Companies that have bad practises will lose their customers, they are held to account by the market.

Exactly. It's highly unlikely that a a security firm will single out you alone as a target for extortion - hence it would common practice for the firm. Who the fuck would choose such a firm to provide their security coverage? And therefore what firm would engage in such a practice when competitors gain an advantage by not engaging in the practice. It's not economically viable.

Eventually a corporation will get to the point where their 'security services' are superior, and they can remove any opposition and form a governing body. Then we revert back to a state of some description, instead there's a better chance that it's based on the corporate structure with the CEO or whoever is at the top now in the seat of a dictator.

Well that's an enormous and seemingly fallacious assumption. The anarcho-capitalist system is typified by numerous small (relative term, of course) firms competing, driving costs and profits down, etc. It's not characterised by monopoly creating tendencies... Can you explain your statement further?

 

[Omar-Comin]

Companies that have bad practises will lose their customers, they are held to account by the market.

lol you dim witted proletariat go learn what 'the market' actually means.

You'll quickly find out that there's far from perfect competition, and 'bad practices' such as monopolistic price setting arise without the consumers awareness.

A Goverment is a necisarry but insuffienct condition for optimal consumer/producer welfare. Anyone with an IQ in the double digits knows this.

 

[funkshen]

You'll quickly find out that there's far from perfect competition, and 'bad practices' such as monopolistic price setting arise without the consumers awareness.

You do realise we're talking about some bullshit utopian anarchical society?

 

[Omar-Comin]

You do realise we're talking about some bullshit utopian anarchical society?

and I'm pointing out how such thoughts are (and it can be shown) derived from a state of utter mental constipation.

 

[funkshen]

and I'm pointing out how such thoughts are (and it can be shown) derived from a state of utter mental constipation.

Constipation followed by ass shattering diarrhea.

 

[Ronald Reagan]

no no no this reminds me too much of robocop and then they design this big fucking robot and it loses its shit and shoots *everyone*

 

[Riet]

lol you dim witted proletariat go learn what 'the market' actually means.

You'll quickly find out that there's far from perfect competition, and 'bad practices' such as monopolistic price setting arise without the consumers awareness.

A Goverment is a necisarry but insuffienct condition for optimal consumer/producer welfare. Anyone with an IQ in the double digits knows this.

wow you're a fucking moron. I meant practises such as extortion and racketeering, not price collusion. Your point would have some basis were it not for the fact that the public police force is an absolute monopoly for which we have no choice but to pay. So much so that if you attempt to opt out by not paying taxes you will be arrested by that very same police force.

The police serve not to protect the public, nor civil liberties, but merely to protect the government.

 

[Fish Tank]

Well that's an enormous and seemingly fallacious assumption. The anarcho-capitalist system is typified by numerous small (relative term, of course) firms competing, driving costs and profits down, etc. It's not characterised by monopoly creating tendencies... Can you explain your statement further?

I can't say that my prediction would necessarily happen, but my idea is that one company with a decent amount of cash will invest in better armament and technology. It might not necessarily mean a market monopoly (could, but I'll assume it won't), but this company may try to take control of the market through violence. All they would have to do is promise some people a chance at greatness and more cash to get recruits, and the ambitious ones will take the offer. This same approach may be taken by multiple firms, and lead to some form of war - as we all know war determines who is left - and whoever wins will probably be in a position to assume authority over people in the area affected (assuming they're in a fit enough condition to consolidate it).

This would probably be a difficult task to accomplish, as like you said the anarcho-capitalist idea is that lots of small companies compete and drive down prices ensuring everyone is held in check. But private companies - not necessarily bound by morality - have the potential to assume so much power if security (in the sense of controlling law and justice) is privatised.

 

[Riet]

Governments are clearly bound by morality. No country has ever attempted to enforce it's will morals on anyone else.

 

[funkshen]

I can't say that my prediction would necessarily happen, but my idea is that one company with a decent amount of cash will invest in better armament and technology.

Yet the same company can't prevent any other firm from making a similar investment in the same armaments and technologies - I foresee some kind of arms race that may have the potential to bankrupt companies. You might have a point.

It might not necessarily mean a market monopoly (could, but I'll assume it won't), but this company may try to take control of the market through violence. All they would have to do is promise some people a chance at greatness and more cash to get recruits, and the ambitious ones will take the offer. This same approach may be taken by multiple firms, and lead to some form of war - as we all know war determines who is left - and whoever wins will probably be in a position to assume authority over people in the area affected (assuming they're in a fit enough condition to consolidate it).

This war would be expensive - how will the warring company secure the funds required to wage it? If it's a joint-stock company, could such a firm convince its shareholders that such a war will maximise individual shareholder wealth? Don't forget these firms are (theoretically) subject to the whims of the market and rational self interest- no individual consciousness has absolute influence over it. What's to say the competing firms don't collectively oppose the warring firm (it's in the interest - they retain the status quo, and protect their very existence.) I just don't see this as economically viable plan - hence it's very unlikely.

But private companies - not necessarily bound by morality - have the potential to assume so much power if security (in the sense of controlling law and justice) is privatised.

You mean like Governments - not necessarily bound by morality - have the potential to assume so much power if security (in the sense of controlling law and justice) is monopolised? Are you arguing that monopoly of security is inevitable?

Monopolistic price setting doesn't exist in AC economics anyways.

 

[Riet]

How could a private security firm fund an arms race, even assuming its clients wanted one? An arms race sent the USSR broke and even capitalist America has a sky-rocketing military budget from attempting to police the world. Wars lose money, plain and simple. They are of no economic benefit. The only reason defence contractors and PMCs are profitable is because of the massive amounts of money governments steal from us under the guise of protection.

War is not profitable, fear is.

 

[SylviaB]

if you had two large companies that were at war with each other (provided that they could actually afford to and get shareholder approval in the first place), wouldn't this just send them each (essentially) broke, allowing the smaller companies, which weren't large enough to warrant involvement in the war, to step up and secure a larger market share? Hence, getting rid of the risk of a monoploly, which was the fear in the first place?

 

[funkshen]

if you had two large companies that were at war with each other (provided that they could actually afford to and get shareholder approval in the first place), wouldn't this just send them each (essentially) broke, allowing the smaller companies, which weren't large enough to warrant involvement in the war, to step up and secure a larger market share? Hence, getting rid of the risk of a monoploly, which was the fear in the first place?

That's the theory. These two companies will see costs skyrocket - they'll be likely (or inclinced) to pass on the cost to the consumers, which is impossible in the free market and hence they'll collapse. What Riet said is spot on - War isn't economically feasible, but protection against harm (policing), rooted in an individuals fear for his safety, is.

This really is all theory, though. It'd be great if it worked but there is no evidence that suggests this - yet. To be honest, defending AC/free market economics can be really simple because there's so many circuit breakers built in to the theory that you can shoot most criticisms down. It's too perfect.