Anarcho capitalist penal system (1 Viewer)

[Omar-Comin]

uneducated fellows of the farm hand persuasion attempting to articulate their fetid little conspiracies and repulsive grasp of political economy....please make it stop

 

[Slidey]

uneducated fellows of the farm hand persuasion attempting to articulate their fetid little conspiracies and repulsive grasp of political economy....please make it stop

Muslims.

 

[vikraman]

Muslims.

No evidence of that. Just a turd troll imho

 

[Riet]

What funkshen said is right, it's just theory. Whether or not it would work in practise is another story entirely. To think that the current system is the best we can do, or that the police force/government is entirely benevolent is silly though.

 

[Fish Tank]

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.

Nothing's too perfect. The AC argument is relying on best-case scenario. Then again mine is based on worst-case. It's all theory, as stated already. I just can't see anything stopping someone (or a substantial group of people more likely) from waging a war, but there are lots of pressures on people to stay away from it - as the Iraq war easily proved (and all wars I can see for that matter), war is not economically beneficial, or at least not in the short term.

Who knows. If an AC system is established in some country (i.e. large parcel of land) then we can see if it really works. And I would be interested to see what happens, and pleased to see it work.

What funkshen said is right, it's just theory. Whether or not it would work in practise is another story entirely. To think that the current system is the best we can do, or that the police force/government is entirely benevolent is silly though.

Agreed. Theory is very different to practice, and I can't say the current government/police system is flawless.

 

[0bs3n3]

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

Sush Rockefeller. So basically I pay a bunch of thugs to 'protect me'? What's their incentive to be walking the street preventing general crime? And what happens if someone can't afford this insurance?

 

[Slidey]

No evidence of that. Just a turd troll imho

Nope, I checked - it's definitely the Islams!

 

[funkshen]

Sush Rockefeller.

Wat

So basically I pay a bunch of thugs to 'protect me'?

No, you pay a legitimate company who employs professionally trained security personnel.

What's their incentive to be walking the street preventing general crime?

Sigh.

And what happens if someone can't afford this insurance?

Two scenarios:
1) tough luck, they can't afford it, they don't get the insurance
2) community/neighbourhood chips in, forming a private charity fund, to pay for the insurance for those who can't afford it (it's in the interest of the community to do so - if the people are too poor to afford this essential security they themselves may turn to violence, or they may attract criminals to the neighbourhood as they know the people are uninsured) etc etc etc.

Can you please think before you post this stuff, HSC 2010? The answers are right there.

 

[volition]

One thing I might add for protection of the poor, you could have a system poor people can 'sell' the right to prosecute for crimes committed against them.

ie. some rich person will 'buy' their case at a discount to what the poor person might be expected to get, and prosecute for the money.

So the poor person won't get as much money but at least they will get their rights protected. This in turn means that criminals will think twice before committing crimes against poor people because they can still get sued.

 

[Omar-Comin]

One thing I might add for protection of the poor, you could have a system poor people can 'sell' the right to prosecute for crimes committed against them.

ie. some rich person will 'buy' their case at a discount to what the poor person might be expected to get, and prosecute for the money.

So the poor person won't get as much money but at least they will get their rights protected. This in turn means that criminals will think twice before committing crimes against poor people because they can still get sued.

LOL, where you starved for oxygen at birth or something?
Prosecuting someone can only be done if there are laws to begin with, in your warped little fantasy land there are no laws...and anyway most prosecutions involve putting someone in jail, not 'getting their money'..
You really are a full blown idiot, I don't know why I even bother refuting your fail

 

[Riet]

Well it would be in an employers interest to have their workers kept safe so it could be negotiated that health and safety insurance were part of someone's remuneration.

 

[funkshen]

Well it would be in an employers interest to have their workers kept safe so it could be negotiated that health and safety insurance were part of someone's remuneration.

Could a worker's refusal to accept insurance as a part of his/her remuneration be grounds for terminating his employment or rejecting his application? Because the employer isn't ensured of the safety of their workers - and hence it'd make more sense to hire a similar applicant who DOES have/want insurance. If that's the case then a worker might find he's forced into buying insurance anyways to make himself eligible for employment.

or is that just retarded

edit: wait wat there wouldn't be any labour market regulation. So yes, maybe the free market would coerce workers into buying insurance.

 

[Riet]

I meant if the worker couldn't afford it as part of their household budget the employer would pay for it since it is to their benefit too.

 

[funkshen]

I meant if the worker couldn't afford it as part of their household budget the employer would pay for it since it is to their benefit too.

Oh, I see what you mean. That's assuming the worker couldn't be replaced by a worker who had the means to to pay for his own insurance. So workers who couldn't afford insurance would be relegated to employers and industries who didn't care if you were safe?

 

[Riet]

I was going to say, why would two people applying for the same job have considerable disparate amounts of money to spend, but yeah I see your point. Then again, would the market not perhaps dictate that protection is a necessary part of any salary package and so if employers wish to attract suitable applicants they will have to provide it? De facto award standards, as it were. You are right though, the most impoverished are those likely to be working in jobs that require the least skill, and for which replacements can be more easily found.

This is the problem with a completely AC system, those at the very bottom get shafted. Similarly this same scenario would play out with health insurance. Employers don't (economically) care if a shelf stacker dies so they have no motivation to provide them with health insurance.

Edit: On further thought the idea of private charities providing security for the poor is not without it's merits. It is of benefit to everyone that criminals are kept out of a community, and to help the poor as it is the disenfranchised who are more likely to become criminals in the first place.

 

[funkshen]

Edit: On further thought the idea of private charities providing security for the poor is not without it's merits. It is of benefit to everyone that criminals are kept out of a community, and to help the poor as it is the disenfranchised who are more likely to become criminals in the first place.

The only problem I see with the reliance on private charity and the self-interest fueled benevolence of the community is that people automatically assume that the community has to provide for the poor/disenfranchised/needy/disabled etc. Without a legal framework to protect them or to establish standard procedures, what's to say a community won't just evict, exile, imprison, kill, exclude or ostracize the aforementioned poor/need etc. Why do we assume that the community will form a private fund for them? (unless it's the cheapest, and hence rational, thing to do.

 

[Riet]

Because it's hard to evict a person with an AR-15 in their hands.

 

[kaz1]

Wouldn't all roads be toll roads? and there wouldn't be any streetlights as it wouldn't really be profitable to a firm.

 

[Riet]

All toll roads are toll roads now you just don't get to choose which ones your pay for.

 

[funkshen]

Wouldn't all roads be toll roads? and there wouldn't be any streetlights as it wouldn't really be profitable to a firm.

Firm constructs and operates a toll road: doesn't offer street lights
Competitor realises it can capture the market of aforementioned toll road if it constructs a new toll road of its own, but with street lights.

If the market dictates that street lights are preferred to no street lights, and its economically viable construct a toll road with street lights, then there shall be street lights!

edit: yes I know this is retarded
editedit: Or a firm will offer a lower toll to consumers to use its roads instead of having street lights. It depends how much street lights are worth to consumers.

This is all pretty much just basic game theory crap... optimal solution will be achieved.