Privatized police department.

[Lomenore]

Also, what would establish the value of a person? And if there's a group out there that can set things like Weregild, how is that not a government?

Assuming all government vanished tomorrow, how would this An-Cap society prevent a new one from emerging?

[Sociobiology]

The divide between us, is that I have faith in entrepreneurship and markets, and you don't.

that very statement means no argument will convince you otherwise, because you have turned free market into a religion. Some of us do not see faith as a valid way to assess the viability of an action, thus we stick with what can be empirically proven and validated. which private police forces have not been.

[ZombieRothbard]

The divide between us, is that I have faith in entrepreneurship and markets, and you don't.

that very statement means no argument will convince you otherwise, because you have turned free market into a religion. Some of us do not see faith as a valid way to assess the viability of an action, thus we stick with what can be empirically proven and validated. which private police forces have not been.

Logical positivism is bullshit. Can two lines ever enclose a space? No. This is a non-hypothetical truth. You do not need empiricism to prove it.

[ZombieRothbard]

If they shot bystanders, they would have to make payouts on them, and deal with their insurance company.

What is this I don't even.

So there is no incentive to mow down crowds of people.

Dude.

Man.

Whoa.

What?

Just because they're not trying to "mow down crowds of people" doesn't mean that they won't accidentally hit them.

This doesn't even begin to address the robbers mowing people down in frantic response.

But of course, who gives a rat's ass about innocent lives. We have fucking money and self-interest, the only important things in an ancap society. If you blow a woman's head off, you can estimate the damages and pay her next of kin (if she has any, lol). Selfishness is the name of game.

Its clear that the insurance aspect to this whole thing consistently flies over the heads of anyone who objects to the plausibility of private security.

[Trotskylvania]

that very statement means no argument will convince you otherwise, because you have turned free market into a religion. Some of us do not see faith as a valid way to assess the viability of an action, thus we stick with what can be empirically proven and validated. which private police forces have not been.

Logical positivism is bullshit. Can two lines ever enclose a space? No. This is a non-hypothetical truth. You do not need empiricism to prove it.

You're playing a language game and trying to pass it off as immutable truth. Sorry friendo, it doesn't work that way. I don't know why you brought up logical positivism in specific, because there are many strands of analytic philosophy aren't fond of language games being passed off as immutable truth.

[The Parkus Empire]

Its clear that the insurance aspect to this whole thing consistently flies over the heads of anyone who objects to the plausibility of private security.

It's clear that you don't care that insurance isn't going to prevent criminals from using human shields or indiscriminately firing their weapons when threatened by armed guards

It's also clear that you think guards are going to worry about having to pay an insurance company while they are being shot at--patently absurd.

The only way your system would work is if everyone cared about money more than anything else, even his own life. I can only hope we never see a society in which such a system could remotely work.

[ZombieRothbard]

Its clear that the insurance aspect to this whole thing consistently flies over the heads of anyone who objects to the plausibility of private security.

It's clear that you don't care that insurance isn't going to prevent criminals from using human shields or indiscriminately firing their weapons when threatened by armed guards

It's also clear that you think guards are going to worry about having to pay an insurance company while they are being shot at--patently absurd.

The only way your system would work is if everyone cared about money more than anything else, even his own life. I can only hope we never see a society in which such a system could remotely work.

I don't see why you think the human shield problem is exclusive to private defense. People only use human shields in a free market?

Police already save people, and are willing to risk their life to do it. What the hell is the difference?

[ZombieRothbard]

Logical positivism is bullshit. Can two lines ever enclose a space? No. This is a non-hypothetical truth. You do not need empiricism to prove it.

You're playing a language game and trying to pass it off as immutable truth. Sorry friendo, it doesn't work that way. I don't know why you brought up logical positivism in specific, because there are many strands of analytic philosophy aren't fond of language games being passed off as immutable truth.

I am not a philosophy person, so whatever tricks you think I am attempting to play are most likely accidental ignorance on my part.

[The Parkus Empire]

I don't see why you think the human shield problem is exclusive to private defense. People only use human shields in a free market?

Generally not during a robbery. But of course you'd have it so banks, malls, casinos, ect. fend off robbers with gunfire like the good ol' Wild West, except with fully automatic weapons all around, just for the sake of money.

Police already save people, and are willing to risk their life to do it. What the hell is the difference?

Police often do it for ideology, not because some rich guy is paying them to.

And police often harm more than help if they arrive during a robbery. They frequently create hostage situations and fuck it up for everyone. But even a hostage situation is preferable to a shoot out inside the damn bank.

[ZombieRothbard]

Generally not during a robbery. But of course you'd have it so banks, malls, casinos, ect. fend off robbers with gunfire like the good ol' Wild West, except with fully automatic weapons all around, just for the sake of money.

No you wouldn't? Indiscriminate fire into a crowd would be just as illegal there as it is in our society.

Police often do it for ideology, not because some rich guy is paying them to.

So the ideological position of "caring about people" would suddenly vanish in a free market?

And police often harm more than help if they arrive during a robbery. They frequently create hostage situations and fuck it up for everyone. But even a hostage situation is preferable to a shoot out inside the damn bank.

I don't get the point you are making. I feel like I must have failed in trying to convey the whole concept of private defense. Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

[Norstal]

Why not? What's so bad in being a thug?

You don't know me very well, do you? I don't want to be a parasite, living at the expense of taxpayers.

We all live as a parasite. I am a parasite of the civil engineer who built the highways I drove on. The difference is that, I don't care, I know I'm physically weak, I know I'm stupid, and I know I don't have godlike powers and can't survive without the help of the government.

I'm modest and yet, I will do anything in my power to increase my survivability rate. Morality is a stupid invisible wall that is easily bypassed. So the notion that they are "thugs" is, not only laughable, but applies to everyone.

I just love how an-caps and cap-minarchists have a god complex.

Funny. Some of those pets were running away when they were shot.

Don't know what you're referring to.

Then change the laws. That's not the policemen's problem. They ARE by this definition, just enforcing the law. And as you said before, private police would do the same thing, except they're cheaper.

You miss the point. They are concentrating on the wrong things. All the things I listed are illegal. They are focusing on the wrong ones.

And you support this idiocy. Shameful.

I support law enforcers enforcing the law. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If they want to enforce menial, stupid laws, who are we to judge? It's the law and they're doing their jobs. Change the law and they won't enforce it again. Knowing also that, private law enforcers are law enforcers, they will still enforce the law. The difference is that, again, as you said before, they are cheaper. Why wouldn't legalizing prostitution and marijuana stop them from arresting prostitutes and drug dealers? Along with other victimless crimes (of course, victimless is relative.)

Now, after the victimless crimes are eliminated from law, they will focus on petty thefts. Now, you'd have nothing to complain about. So, the problem is not the law enforcers, its the law.

Is it unfair? Well, it's unfair as the existence of silica in the moon. Not everyone has godlike powers. I know you do Sibirsky, and that's why I think you and all the an-caps/cap-minarchist of the world should work for the government.

You guys are better than us, right? Genius intellectuals, who will facepalm at everyone they disagree with and call anything not within their ideology stupid. So, go on, take the reins of leadership.

[Trotskylvania]

You're playing a language game and trying to pass it off as immutable truth. Sorry friendo, it doesn't work that way. I don't know why you brought up logical positivism in specific, because there are many strands of analytic philosophy aren't fond of language games being passed off as immutable truth.

I am not a philosophy person, so whatever tricks you think I am attempting to play are most likely accidental ignorance on my part.

Frankly, almost no one realizes they're doing this.

It's not that we reject the tools provided by pure reason. Postulates and other human constructs in mathematics, logic and language are fundamental to being able to construct and understanding of anything empirical. The point I'm making is that there's a pretty clear reason why in say, Cartesian space, two lines can't ever enclose a region, and that's a direct function of how human beings have defined the operating terms.

However, if we change the definition of "space", and restrict our model of space to a plane that would be, in 3 dimensions, the surface of a sphere, then two lines are more than adequate to enclose a region.

Do you see what I mean?

[ZombieRothbard]

I am not a philosophy person, so whatever tricks you think I am attempting to play are most likely accidental ignorance on my part.

Frankly, almost no one realizes they're doing this.

It's not that we reject the tools provided by pure reason. Postulates and other human constructs in mathematics, logic and language are fundamental to being able to construct and understanding of anything empirical. The point I'm making is that there's a pretty clear reason why in say, Cartesian space, two lines can't ever enclose a region, and that's a direct function of how human beings have defined the operating terms.

However, if we change the definition of "space", and restrict our model of space to a plane that would be, in 3 dimensions, the surface of a sphere, then two lines are more than adequate to enclose a region.

Do you see what I mean?

Sort of. But if we assume that it really is a 2 dimensional plane, then isn't it non-hypothetically true that the lines never enclose a space?

[The Parkus Empire]

No you wouldn't? Indiscriminate fire into a crowd would be just as illegal there as it is in our society.

But.

But.

But.

Robbers seldom indiscriminately fire into a crowd if they aren't being threatened.

And no, it wouldn't be "just as illegal" unless you were using coercion to make it so.

So the ideological position of "caring about people" would suddenly vanish in a free market?

You don't get a job protecting a for-profit businesses' money because you're a philanthropist.

I don't get the point you are making. I feel like I must have failed in trying to convey the whole concept of private defense. Because you have no idea what you are talking about.

Your idea of private defense is to engage the robbers in a crowded area so they can't escape with the money. I totally get it.

[Smartephant]

Can someone please explain to me how that's different from a protection racket?

Can someone explain to me how the cops aren't a protection racket now? You pay your fees (taxes) and if you don't they come a knock knock knockin' to rough you up till you spill the cash.

Also, seat-belt tickets and most moving violation tickets have nothing to do with public safety. If you were really being a danger to yourself and others behind the wheel they wouldn't give you a ticket and send you on your way, they'd fucking arrest your ass and tow your vehicle at your expense. That's what they do with impaired drivers because they are a danger to themselves and others. The seat-belt and speeding tickets, like civil asset forfeiture, are nothing but a source of extra revenue for the cops.

The only way to get away from protection rackets is either anarchy or solitude. Neither seems very practical or attractive to most people.

[Lomenore]

Also, what would establish the value of a person? And if there's a group out there that can set things like Weregild, how is that not a government?

Assuming all government vanished tomorrow, how would this An-Cap society prevent a new one from emerging?

I'm still waiting for a response on this.

[GeneralHaNor]

I have no clue how anarchists can disagree on how their stateless societies should function. It seems to me that anarchists all tend to have this in common: a detestation of coercion. So how exactly would you achieve your vision? Any anarchist who wasn't a hypocrite would support whatever the people decided without government interference.

Bullshit.
You know better than that this Parkus.
One cannot oppose Coercion by Embracing it.

[Scientific socks]

Who said that?

Scientific Socks did.

We already have privatized police departments

They come in the form of security guards, bouncers, neighbourhood patrols, guns for hire, anarchists / political sepratists and just thoes with such a small opinion of themselves they need to go around playing cop.

Security guards and bouncers in particular and not very good for the wider public. I dont think we should give any of these groups more power than they currently have.

There's a world of difference between neighborhood watch groups and armed anarchists. Security Guards are just there to guard the property of whoever hires them. I can't imagine anarchists trying to enforce any sort of law. Kinda goes against the whole anarchy thing.

Anarchists will not act to a written law. They will act to the law of the public whim. All in all it is far more dangerous.

The Security guards and bouncers are more likely to be hired by some rich guy and eventually become guns for hire. Whilst needed for some private premises (expecially pubs and night clubs which are businesses that just create police problems) it is a dangerous thing to have all these seperate bodies upholding their laws.

I agree with private land, private laws but there should be a limit to it. When anyone whom is not being paid by the government tries to uphold laws outside of their property I begin to worry.

[GeneralHaNor]

Your idea of private defense is to engage the robbers in a crowded area so they can't escape with the money. I totally get it.

Did you not get enough coffee?
at no point did he ever express that private defense would do this. this is your position.

You are being obtuse, and not even constructively obtuse. I have more respect for you Parkus, Justify that continued respect.

[Trotskylvania]

Frankly, almost no one realizes they're doing this.

It's not that we reject the tools provided by pure reason. Postulates and other human constructs in mathematics, logic and language are fundamental to being able to construct and understanding of anything empirical. The point I'm making is that there's a pretty clear reason why in say, Cartesian space, two lines can't ever enclose a region, and that's a direct function of how human beings have defined the operating terms.

However, if we change the definition of "space", and restrict our model of space to a plane that would be, in 3 dimensions, the surface of a sphere, then two lines are more than adequate to enclose a region.

Do you see what I mean?

Sort of. But if we assume that it really is a 2 dimensional plane, then isn't it non-hypothetically true that the lines never enclose a space?

Yes, it is non hypothetically true. But it's truth value is a function of the relational nature of the definitions. As a system of knowledge, geometric postulates like the definition of a line and the definition of a plane lead directly to that conclusion through pure reason.

Postulates and pure reason necessary to construct an understanding of natural or social phenomena, but they are no sufficient.

[Lomenore]

First of all, cut out the condescending tone. I don't believe I have taken such a tone with you here (beyond when I became infuriated and stepped out). Second, your rat-meat burgers are still in competition with every other food product on the market. So you might have a "monopoly" on burgers, but people will just buy chicken instead. So your company would have to monopolize the entire food industry, monopolize the farm fields, monopolize the suppliers, monopolize the grocery stores. Basically it is impossible, to be quite honest.

No, it's not impossible. They have a term for this mass monopolization, it's known as vertical integration. You own a business, you own all the suppliers for that business, and you own the facilities that service that business. Andrew Carnegie pulled it off with US Steel, oil companies have pulled it off by owning oil fields, oil refineries, oil tankers, and gas stations.

There's also horizontal integration. If one monopoly owns all the supermarkets, they can throw any crap they want on the shelves, and customers will have nowhere else to go. In modern states, this is stopped by governments powerful enough to break up monopolies.

Haven't you ever heard of these practices? So not only is it possible, it's already happened in places.

If a company managed to monopolize the entire world, then I would agree with you. But such a scenario is absurd.

See above. It's called Vertical integration

I feel like you have yet to refute my point on predatory pricing. So far I don't think you have demonstrated how a large business could force anybody else out of business, short of coercive means.

Predatory pricing will only flood the market with cheap good when there are multiple competing businesses. If we're talking about a startup trying to overthrow a monopoly, then the monopoly can afford to spam cheap goods to drive the startup out of business. A startup will not have the nationwide sales infrastructure a monopoly will have. So the monopoly can simply drop prices in the region where the startup operates, and keep them the same everywhere else.

Ask people living in the ghettos how well police protect them? They would be better off without police protection. The cops have declared war on poverty stricken places. Not only that, you personally have had your wealth taken from you by the police state, and you have to be raped by the TSA to fly on a damn plane anymore. That's just the tip of the iceberg.

First, why don't you provide some genuine facts instead of melodramatic phrases? How have the cops declared war on poverty stricken places? How many people in lower income brackets are murdered by police? Do you have any information to substantiate these claims, or are you going to keep tossing out baseless accusations? In America, we have the Indians as a pretty concrete example of what happens when our government declares war on people.

Second, TSA isn't a police force, it's airport security. Attributing the problems with airport security to police is like blaming an auto mechanic for medical malpractice. I've flown regularly from 2004 to 2009, and in that entire 5 year period I've never been raped by TSA. I've simply had to take off my shoes and empty my pockets while I walked through a metal detector. Do you have any information on how prevalent sexual assault is among TSA workers? Do you have any proof it's an organizational crime rather then one committed by individuals?

Third, I have never had my wealth stolen from me. I've voluntarily filed and paid taxes, because I understand that my tax dollars help finance the police that protect me, maintain the roads I travel on, fund the VA clinics that look after my health, and created the GI bill that's sent me to college.

Even if you claim taxation is theft, it's impossible to steal what someone gives freely. I have never been forced to pay taxes, I choose to pay taxes. It's a choice that has amply repaid me.

[The Parkus Empire]

Did you not get enough coffee?
at no point did he ever express that private defense would do this. this is your position.

You are quite wrong--as a matter of fact, he implied that under an ancap system there would be no other reasonable choice: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=109375&p=5524124#p5524124

You are being obtuse, and not even constructively obtuse. I have more respect for you Parkus, Justify that continued respect.

I am not in the slightest bit interested in justifying your respect, just as you should not be concerned about justifying my respect. The only respect one should consider when undertaking anything is self respect.

[ZombieRothbard]

Sort of. But if we assume that it really is a 2 dimensional plane, then isn't it non-hypothetically true that the lines never enclose a space?

Yes, it is non hypothetically true. But it's truth value is a function of the relational nature of the definitions. As a system of knowledge, geometric postulates like the definition of a line and the definition of a plane lead directly to that conclusion through pure reason.

Postulates and pure reason necessary to construct an understanding of natural or social phenomena, but they are no sufficient.

If I were to say for example, that printing more money would devalue the money already in circulation because it decreases the "rarity" of it, wouldn't this be non-hypothetically true if all else was equal? That seems like a purely logical statement that is non-hypothetically true. Now, you could say that put into practice in an actual society, it might not work. For example, it is possible that a societies culture entailed them burning money mass quantities of money. But assuming that there wasn't some sort of variable like that, wouldn't this be non-hypothetically true?

[Sibirsky]

Police go after easy to deal with, low risk drug users and prostitutes to pad their arrest numbers. This increases their budgets.

Not fucking rocket science.

I was showing statistics for murder rates, not drug use or prostitution. That's not rocket science either, it's basic literacy.

Congratulations.

[Sibirsky]

You don't know me very well, do you? I don't want to be a parasite, living at the expense of taxpayers.

We all live as a parasite. I am a parasite of the civil engineer who built the highways I drove on. The difference is that, I don't care, I know I'm physically weak, I know I'm stupid, and I know I don't have godlike powers and can't survive without the help of the government.

I'm modest and yet, I will do anything in my power to increase my survivability rate. Morality is a stupid invisible wall that is easily bypassed. So the notion that they are "thugs" is, not only laughable, but applies to everyone.

I don't live as a parasite. I provide a service to my employer and get paid for it. I pay for things I use.

You ever seen a drug raid? Thugs in action.

I just love how an-caps and cap-minarchists have a god complex.

Nope.

Funny. Some of those pets were running away when they were shot.

Don't know what you're referring to.
[/quote]
Maryland mayor who's dog was running away when the cops shot it.

Then change the laws. That's not the policemen's problem. They ARE by this definition, just enforcing the law. And as you said before, private police would do the same thing, except they're cheaper.

You miss the point. They are concentrating on the wrong things. All the things I listed are illegal. They are focusing on the wrong ones.

And you support this idiocy. Shameful.

I support law enforcers enforcing the law. It doesn't get any simpler than that. If they want to enforce menial, stupid laws, who are we to judge? It's the law and they're doing their jobs. Change the law and they won't enforce it again. Knowing also that, private law enforcers are law enforcers, they will still enforce the law. The difference is that, again, as you said before, they are cheaper. Why wouldn't legalizing prostitution and marijuana stop them from arresting prostitutes and drug dealers? Along with other victimless crimes (of course, victimless is relative.)

Now, after the victimless crimes are eliminated from law, they will focus on petty thefts. Now, you'd have nothing to complain about. So, the problem is not the law enforcers, its the law.

Is it unfair? Well, it's unfair as the existence of silica in the moon. Not everyone has godlike powers. I know you do Sibirsky, and that's why I think you and all the an-caps/cap-minarchist of the world should work for the government.

You guys are better than us, right? Genius intellectuals, who will facepalm at everyone they disagree with and call anything not within their ideology stupid. So, go on, take the reins of leadership.

I don't want to work for the government. How hard is that to understand?

Would you not agree, that preventing serious violence, and protection of property is more important than busting hookers and stoners? If so, their priorities are out of whack.

You're the one with the god complex. You brought it up and keep talking about it. You're a very religious man. Statism is your religion.