OverclockedJesus Posted:

And without a government, you can’t get coercive monopolies.

You may not be able to have legislation in place to create coercive monopoly, but to say that those are the only means by which a coercive monopoly could exist is rather absurd.

Using the protective agency as an example, they would have some sort of violent means with which to establish protection from either outside forces or violent individuals within the area (Because of course everyone is free to own weapons, no matter how deranged, as long as they have money). The only thing stopping a large enough agency from creating a coercive monopoly would be their own conscience, otherwise they could easily set up protection rackets under threat of violence while actively destroying any potential competitors.

Organized crime groups will do this and their competition is the apparently horrendously corrupt state run police and of course other gangs. Obviously other gangs are a potential threat but for argument’s sake, let’s say that the company in question becomes rather large as they offered good deals for a long time and now pretty much own 80% of all protective services in the US. At this point they steal whatever employees from competing companies that they can while killing and threatening the rest until they own everything. They may start slowly with simple buyouts but once they have enough power they can become as overt as they want as there is no one to stop them. Who will help the populace who are being extorted? Any new groups could be crushed fairly easily with all their funds and supplies being confiscated to supply the ever growing company. As you said, war is financially unsound so such businesses from elsewhere in the world would not try to break in for fear of starting one and losing.

Your system relies very heavily on not only good people with a proper conscience and respect for others, but a drive to power to create and run these companies. This power however is the exact same corrupting force which governments have and like within a government those who are driven to power are those who will succeed while those with respect for each other will likely not be able to resort to the underhanded tactics of those who lack it.

Wal-Mart offers great savings and flourishes despite competition. But it does so by cutting corners in production costs at the expense of their workers. Overnight lock-ins, shutting down stores who try to unionize (Quebec), use of sweatshop labor overseas and strategic divvying of hours so that their employees don’t qualify for benefits. Yet their presence closes down more honest businesses and steals their customers which in turn adds to their power base. Are those who use sweatshops more moral than those who refuse to allow me to pay an extra 4000$ in order to jump line in an organ donation wait list?

Also to iIRZ – So far you are too cool to be banned even in CD, let’s see if this keeps up Log in to see images!

OverclockedJesus Posted:

As for sweatshops: nothing wrong with them.

You got me there, I was mistaken in thinking that you were at all relying on people not being complete bumholes to each other at least to some degree. I guess for some reason I thought you were arguing that anarchocapitalism would benefit everyone but I guess you agree with Dobnits (Don’t think I forgot about you dobby Log in to see images!) and say “**** the poor” so long as it benefits those with money. I guess I just cannot agree with “**** the majority of the world” as a universal system of conduct.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

No, it isn’t. You cannot completely prevent competition except via legal fiat.

Because people are known for stringently following the law at all times. The government doesn’t create coercive monopolies just through legal fiat. It takes enforcement of said laws for it to work at all and I’m saying it’s absurd to say that just because it’s not written down somewhere doesn’t mean it cannot in principle be enforced in the same way. How often do people here complain about being banned for something that isn’t a rule written down somewhere? There is no special magical quality of influence that a government has that cannot be replicated through sheer financial power and if there is let’s hear it.

Edit: Almost forgot

OverclockedJesus Posted:

And yet these things happen because of government regulations.

No, they happen because a company does them, just because a government hadn’t planned for that contingency and/or made laws to prevent it from occurring doesn’t mean that it happened because of them. Using bans as an example again, it’s not BECAUSE of ET and JB not making a rule that people spam WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW in INCIT, it’s because people CHOSE to do that. It became a rule not to after the fact but they had no part in its occurring in the first place. The government didn’t force Wal-Mart to shut down their store when people tried to unionize, Wal-Mart executives decided that they would open up a can of worms by letting their workers unionize so they shut it down. The government had nothing to do with it at all.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Because of government regulations.

Did the government regulate that Wal-Mart close down the store? Their tiptoeing around the rules means it was the governments fault? If it weren’t for the government, the legitimate attempt at unionization would have been successful and through theit hard work they would have an improved work situation instead of being unemployed?

OverclockedJesus Posted:

Yes there is. The power of trade is far different from the power of a gun.

Yet amazingly through the power of trade you can purchase the time of people who can then be equipped with guns who may do as you ask. Hired hitmen let’s say, thugs who will break your knees with a baseball bat. The power of money is amazing that way in that can purchase both goods AND services.

OverclockedJesus Posted:

It does. They wouldn’t be working in the so-called sweatshop if they didn’t think it would benefit them. But you go on and believe that value is objective and precisely what YOU think value should be. After all: you get to rule over everyone, right? Y’see: you don’t get to determine what is of benefit to someone else.

This is true, except that when your options are between starving to death in a gutter, theft and working in a sweatshop, some people will choose the method of survival that doesn’t involve jail. Having no other reasonable choice to survive doesn’t make it a choice when we have that pesky survival instinct moving us forward. And although there may well be other choices, it doesn’t help if people don’t know what they are through lack of education brought about by their socioeconomic status that was placed on them most often at birth.

you all need to shut the **** up.

words

ad homein w/ john galt and super knowledege of govermnt

Something is wrong on the internet.

Libertarians Posted:

The gubmint is totally suppressive all the time always!

Down with INGSOC!

Well, it’s been fun playing tennis with a brick wall.

politically oriented people are hilarious