Privatized police department.

[Lomenore]

And they'd add a clause to the contract saying you consent to being killed incase you break the contract.

[Sibirsky]

And they'd add a clause to the contract saying you consent to being killed incase you break the contract.

Don't sign it. And then sign one with me. My PDA does not have such ridiculous clauses.

[The Parkus Empire]

Even if it was not the mob... Most of the time when you sell a company you are expected (required if you want a single cent) to sign a non compete agreement and they will sue you if they believe you are attempting to restart your old company again.

The "mob" (as there are several of them) is essentially a large private business that makes most of its money by specializing in something that's economy isn't taxed or regulated in any way (except for its very existence being illegal, heh), yet provides a product or service that there is a tremendous demand for. Just about every large business in an ungoverned market would function like a mob in the traditional sense.

[The Black Forrest]

Free? Not really; it's basically a barter system. You use their service and they track how you use it and sell your habits......

If you don't log in, they don't track you. Regardless, there is no cost to you.

The New York Times.com. Facebook. YouTube. Fuck, let's just say a lot of .coms.

Radiohead and other bands that use a free service (MySpace) to increase their audience by offering their music for free.

Free is the future of business.

If you don't protect your browser, you are tracked. I don't have to know you. I simply give you ads. Once you go "hey that's a good" and login to get it; I have who you are......

[Lomenore]

And they'd add a clause to the contract saying you consent to being killed incase you break the contract.

Don't sign it. And then sign one with me. My PDA does not have such ridiculous clauses.

And if their Private Security Firm puts a gun to your head, and says either your brains or your signature will be on the contract?

[Lacadaemon]

That's the point. DeBeers got is' start and in SA and then used it's power to control the world wide market. Why wouldn't you sell them your mine if they offered you an obscene amount of money for it? Diamonds are nicely artificially high so there is endless money.

Debeers gets away with it because diamonds aren't worth anything, and the vast majority of diamond purchasers are naive - to put it charitably. At any rate, anyone with the brains and wherewithal to set up a rival enterprise (there are a lot of diamonds in Canada for ex.) knows full well that they'd be better off co-operating with DeBeers than competing with them, since doing so would actually destroy the entire market for gem quality stones and put them out of business.

But I guarantee that if there were real demand for natural gem-quality, rather than '3 mos salary' based bride prices, then the Debeers cartel would collapse within months.

I remember one professor saying if DeBeers released all the diamonds they store; they would be valueless. Well except for factory use maybe......

Never mind Debeers, there's billions of carats sitting in safety deposit boxes from all over the world from the investment diamond craze.

[Sibirsky]

If you don't log in, they don't track you. Regardless, there is no cost to you.

The New York Times.com. Facebook. YouTube. Fuck, let's just say a lot of .coms.

Radiohead and other bands that use a free service (MySpace) to increase their audience by offering their music for free.

Free is the future of business.

If you don't protect your browser, you are tracked. I don't have to know you. I simply give you ads. Once you go "hey that's a good" and login to get it; I have who you are......

And if users understand that, no harm no foul. And no cost.

Ryanair offers flights from London to Barcelona for $20. Or used to. Eventually, they may offer flights for free. Offset the cost by offering in flight advertising, charge for extras, movies, food, offer an inflight casino and sell drinks. Will there be free riders? Absolutely. Will it be profitable as a whole? I can see that.

[Trotskylvania]

How do you explain DeBeers?

In South Africa, the major center of world diamond production, there has been no free enterprise in diamond mining. The government long ago nationalized all diamond mines, and anyone who finds a diamond mine on his property discovers that the mine immediately becomes government property. The South African government then licenses mine operators who lease the mines from the government and, it so happened, that lo and behold!, the only licensees turned out to be either DeBeers itself or other firms who were willing to play ball with the DeBeers cartel. In short: the international diamond cartel was only maintained and has only prospered because it was enforced by the South African government.

Nonsense on stilts. DeBeer's mines have historically been privately owned, especially in South Africa. It's only been in Botwswana where they have partnered with the government in mining, and that was long after they achieved monopoly status.

[Lacadaemon]

Nonsense on stilts. DeBeer's mines have historically been privately owned, especially in South Africa. It's only been in Botwswana where they have partnered with the government in mining, and that was long after they achieved monopoly status.

Rhodes and Barnato were Randlords and wielded considerable influence with the SA government - hell Rhodes started the Boer War really - back when diamonds were thought to be rare and valuable. The private status means about as much as the private status of the TBTF on Wall Street.

[Trotskylvania]

Nonsense on stilts. DeBeer's mines have historically been privately owned, especially in South Africa. It's only been in Botwswana where they have partnered with the government in mining, and that was long after they achieved monopoly status.

Rhodes and Barnato were Randlords and wielded considerable influence with the SA government - hell Rhodes started the Boer War really - back when diamonds were thought to be rare and valuable. The private status means about as much as the private status of the TBTF on Wall Street.

You know, it gets old repeating beginner's level Marxism, but seriously: has there every been any doubt that the state is the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie?

Economic power converts readily into political power in a capitalist society, and the only answer I've ever heard from the National Minarchists is that under a "true" free market that wouldn't happen. So how do we get their fabled unicorn then? The major concentrations of political and economic power clearly don't want free markets for anyone else but the poor and their foreign competitors.

The only Libertarian I ever heard even give an explanation of how they might achieve this advocated a sort of reverse Leninist position, where a Libertarian Party would take power, ban opposition and use the resulting monopoly on political power to enforce strict free market principles and enforce them from a highly centralist single party state.

[Lomenore]

Ryanair offers flights from London to Barcelona for $20. Or used to. Eventually, they may offer flights for free. Offset the cost by offering in flight advertising, charge for extras, movies, food, offer an inflight casino and sell drinks. Will there be free riders? Absolutely. Will it be profitable as a whole? I can see that.

And if the system isn't sustainable? What happens if the inflight Casino doesn't make enough money? What happens if the advertisers don't have enough sales to justify the cost of ads? Just because you're marketing a product doesn't mean people will buy it. Right now you only have theoretical business practices to support your Free= profitable nonsense. Just like when the dotcom bubble companies put up their projected earnings and attracted a flock of investors.

[Lomenore]

You lot keep shifting the goal posts. You have yet to satisfactorily explain how private police forces will enforce the laws of a government. You have yet to explain how anti-monopoly laws can be enforce with no group powerful enough to break up monopolies. You have yet to explain how education can be run for profit AND educate those who can't afford to pay for it. You have yet to do anything but show your refusal to associate with anything that a more reasonable person would call reality.

[The Black Forrest]

You lot keep shifting the goal posts. You have yet to satisfactorily explain how private police forces will enforce the laws of a government. You have yet to explain how anti-monopoly laws can be enforce with no group powerful enough to break up monopolies. You have yet to explain how education can be run for profit AND educate those who can't afford to pay for it. You have yet to do anything but show your refusal to associate with anything that a more reasonable person would call reality.

Well? I don't think they are "shifting the goal posts" They truly believe competition will prevent monopolies from happening.

[Lacadaemon]

You know, it gets old repeating beginner's level Marxism, but seriously: has there every been any doubt that the state is the executive committee for managing the common affairs of the bourgeoisie?

Economic power converts readily into political power in a capitalist society, and the only answer I've ever heard from the National Minarchists is that under a "true" free market that wouldn't happen. So how do we get their fabled unicorn then? The major concentrations of political and economic power clearly don't want free markets for anyone else but the poor and their foreign competitors.

The only Libertarian I ever heard even give an explanation of how they might achieve this advocated a sort of reverse Leninist position, where a Libertarian Party would take power, ban opposition and use the resulting monopoly on political power to enforce strict free market principles and enforce them from a highly centralist single party state.

I'm well aware of that: Hence my hanging with piano wire economic reform plan. I suggest voting better, but no-one takes that seriously.

[Distruzio]

Economic power converts readily into political power in a capitalist society, and the only answer I've ever heard from the National Minarchists is that under a "true" free market that wouldn't happen. So how do we get their fabled unicorn then? The major concentrations of political and economic power clearly don't want free markets for anyone else but the poor and their foreign competitors.

The only Libertarian I ever heard even give an explanation of how they might achieve this advocated a sort of reverse Leninist position, where a Libertarian Party would take power, ban opposition and use the resulting monopoly on political power to enforce strict free market principles and enforce them from a highly centralist single party state.

Well, the libertarian you spoke to was a party hack, in reality. The truth is that very few of the libertarian intellectuals actually support the Libertarian Party. There is a reason the Party has fewer members now than it did in it's first year in existence. The LP is comfortable being the big fish in the little pond. So if the Party did gain power, it would do so without the support of the men who gave it the legs to stand on. It might just succeed. Being attacked by your progenitors will be surefire way to lose ground with voters.... I hope.

The corruption of the LP is the primary reason I continue to identify as a conservative. I refuse to join any organization that believes reform is possible in DC. Ill work for principled candidates within the LP and GOP and even the DP, but I won't vote or advocate voting. Most of the intellectual Libertarians style themselves as paleo-libertarians, in order to differentiate themselves from the husk.

[Lomenore]

Then your grandiose libertarian new wave has crippled itself. Compromise is the essence of politics. If you aren't willing to compromise, you'll just have to get used to not getting what you want in any way, shape, or form.

And how will competition prevent monopolies from happening? After all, monopoly is the end result of economic competition, since it's simply one company outcompeting all its competitors.

[Sibirsky]

Ryanair offers flights from London to Barcelona for $20. Or used to. Eventually, they may offer flights for free. Offset the cost by offering in flight advertising, charge for extras, movies, food, offer an inflight casino and sell drinks. Will there be free riders? Absolutely. Will it be profitable as a whole? I can see that.

And if the system isn't sustainable? What happens if the inflight Casino doesn't make enough money? What happens if the advertisers don't have enough sales to justify the cost of ads? Just because you're marketing a product doesn't mean people will buy it. Right now you only have theoretical business practices to support your Free= profitable nonsense. Just like when the dotcom bubble companies put up their projected earnings and attracted a flock of investors.

Who cares? They charge $20? That's what they are doing now, without the casino. These practices are not theoretical, they are in practice.

Free= profitable nonsense.

Clickety. I'm not sure you know what nonsense means. You know what to Google means, right. The search engine name that has become a verb. Offering a free service. Has $59 billion in assets.

Clearly free = profitable is nonsense. The $59 billion? Google won the lottery. Over and over.

[Lomenore]

Who cares? They charge $20? That's what they are doing now, without the casino. These practices are not theoretical, they are in practice.

Who cares? Who cares if their new business model works or not? Well I think the company would care. Developing a workable way to earn a profit is only the entire reason people go into business. Do I really have to tell you that?

Clickety. I'm not sure you know what nonsense means. You know what to Google means, right. The search engine name that has become a verb. Offering a free service. Has $59 billion in assets.

Clearly free = profitable is nonsense. The $59 billion? Google won the lottery. Over and over.

Google profits because they help advertisers. That's how they get cash. By charging advertisers for ad money. It's free for whoever uses their search engine, but it isn't free for the advertisers. The advertisers have confidence in Google because they know millions of internet users will use that search engine. If Google isn't used as often, the advertisers will spend less money. It's all dependent on how many people use Google for searching. It works for a search engine, but not for an entire economy. Applying the economic model for e-business to an entire economy is nonsense.

And this is all besides the point with regards to the point of the thread.

How will private police forces do a better job of upholding the law? Because of a profit motive? This'll simply mean the police will work for whoever pays the most. All customers are not created equal. A customer with 2 billion in income is more important to Lomenore Security then a customer who makes twenty thousand a year. It would take a hundred thousand people from the $20k to equal the billionaire. What's to stop these police firms from working for the billionaire? They could extort money from the poorer people as well, and would be under no obligation to protect them.

"But then the poorer people won't hire this security service" you'll probably say. So what? How will boycotting them stop them from being exploited? If someone tells a security firm "I never hired you! I want nothing to do with your crappy service! You don't have any right to take my hard earned money!" what's to stop these privatized police from just shooting the customer and stealing everything he owns? They already have the backing of the rich and powerful, so there's no profit motive in protecting the weak and innocent.

Will the poor people try to bring in a competing company? Under a free market framework they would presumable have that option, right? And the security companies would have the option to merge into a bigger security company, and now the group squeezing cash from the poor has doubled in size. That's the most profitable option, because now they have one big payment from both the billionaire and lots of little payments extorted from the poor. What would stop this?

Will the people move away? What if they don't have the money to hire a moving service? What if they can't make a life for themselves with only the clothes on their backs and whatever they could cram into the car? What's to stop the security firms from making them stay at gunpoint?

Or forcing all the local businesses to pay in company scrip that's worthless anywhere else? For that matter, you act like money will be accepted anywhere in the country. But money is guaranteed by the government. Without a government enforcing what is currency and what isn't, what's to stop people from issuing their own currency? That's what company stores did, they paid their workers in company cash that was only accepted in company stores. If the workers tried to leave for a better job, they would invalidate their entire life savings because they would be in an area where company cash wasn't accepted.

[Sibirsky]

You lot keep shifting the goal posts. You have yet to satisfactorily explain how private police forces will enforce the laws of a government. You have yet to explain how anti-monopoly laws can be enforce with no group powerful enough to break up monopolies. You have yet to explain how education can be run for profit AND educate those who can't afford to pay for it. You have yet to do anything but show your refusal to associate with anything that a more reasonable person would call reality.

Worst case scenario, the military breaks them up. Although I doubt such a need would arise. It's impossible to monopolize a market without a great product, or state intervention.

Private schools are already cheaper than public schools. Because public schools are so widely available, and you have to pay for both if you go the private route, private schools target the up market. If all schooling was private, mid market and down market schools would sprout up. For the very poor, charities, churches, co-ops, and other groups can provide education. Lack of education leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down.

Here's reality for you. Walmart had $422 billion in revenue last year. Tiffany's $3.1 billion. Walmart made $16 billion after taxes. Tiffany's $368.4 million. The big money is in selling to the masses. That goes for security, education, clothing, food, whatever.

[Lomenore]

You lot keep shifting the goal posts. You have yet to satisfactorily explain how private police forces will enforce the laws of a government. You have yet to explain how anti-monopoly laws can be enforce with no group powerful enough to break up monopolies. You have yet to explain how education can be run for profit AND educate those who can't afford to pay for it. You have yet to do anything but show your refusal to associate with anything that a more reasonable person would call reality.

Worst case scenario, the military breaks them up. Although I doubt such a need would arise. It's impossible to monopolize a market without a great product, or state intervention.

That's only true if you keep ignoring the historical monopolies that emerged without the help of the state. Did your parents beat you with history books when you were younger? Is that why you have this ridiculous fear of opening one? I provided an example of the Pinkertons being used to support monopolies and put down pro-union movements.

The closest the state has come to backing a monopoly is during the gilded age, when they simply let monopolies form. They didn't subsidize them, they didn't ban all oil companies besides Standard Oil, they simply let your precious free market take its course. They didn't back monopolies, they just did nothing.

For the entire past Century, whenever the government has interacted with monopolies, it has been to break them up. The state does not shore up corporate power because having a powerful corporation threatens the state's power. If corporations were allowed to hire their own police forces and enforce their own laws, they would soon become the government. And how would that be any improvement over the situation where the state has monopoly on the means of force?

Private schools are already cheaper than public schools. Because public schools are so widely available, and you have to pay for both if you go the private route, private schools target the up market. If all schooling was private, mid market and down market schools would sprout up. For the very poor, charities, churches, co-ops, and other groups can provide education. Lack of education leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down.

If that was true, why didn't lower cost schools pop up and eliminate illiteracy and ignorance prior to the advent of state backed public schooling?

Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down, but not throughout the country. They only need to keep things safe in their own little gated communities. Why would they bother eliminating crime in the slums? They don't live there. Why would private security firms do it? Working for rich people is a steady paycheck, and you're far more likely to live to spend that paycheck.

Here's reality for you. Walmart had $422 billion in revenue last year. Tiffany's $3.1 billion. Walmart made $16 billion after taxes. Tiffany's $368.4 million. The big money is in selling to the masses. That goes for security, education, clothing, food, whatever.

If a corporate monopoly is established, then they CAN sell to the masses. The masses won't have any other choice but to buy from the monopoly, and work for the monopoly, because the monopoly's corporate security forces will be able to destroy any competitors. They won't have to provide lower prices or improved services or better products, they won't have to do anything but murder anyone who doesn't buy into their protection racket.

[Sibirsky]

Who cares? They charge $20? That's what they are doing now, without the casino. These practices are not theoretical, they are in practice.

Who cares? Who cares if their new business model works or not? Well I think the company would care. Developing a workable way to earn a profit is only the entire reason people go into business. Do I really have to tell you that?

From the point of view of the customer it's nearly irrelevant. They already charge just $20 without an onboard casino.

Clickety. I'm not sure you know what nonsense means. You know what to Google means, right. The search engine name that has become a verb. Offering a free service. Has $59 billion in assets.

Clearly free = profitable is nonsense. The $59 billion? Google won the lottery. Over and over.

Google profits because they help advertisers. That's how they get cash. By charging advertisers for ad money. It's free for whoever uses their search engine, but it isn't free for the advertisers. The advertisers have confidence in Google because they know millions of internet users will use that search engine. If Google isn't used as often, the advertisers will spend less money. It's all dependent on how many people use Google for searching. It works for a search engine, but not for an entire economy. Applying the economic model for e-business to an entire economy is nonsense.

You can link to me saying the entire economy can be free? Nonsense is the shit you spout.

And this is all besides the point with regards to the point of the thread.

How will private police forces do a better job of upholding the law? Because of a profit motive? This'll simply mean the police will work for whoever pays the most. All customers are not created equal. A customer with 2 billion in income is more important to Lomenore Security then a customer who makes twenty thousand a year. It would take a hundred thousand people from the $20k to equal the billionaire. What's to stop these police firms from working for the billionaire? They could extort money from the poorer people as well, and would be under no obligation to protect them.

A competing firm for the poor.

"But then the poorer people won't hire this security service" you'll probably say. So what? How will boycotting them stop them from being exploited? If someone tells a security firm "I never hired you! I want nothing to do with your crappy service! You don't have any right to take my hard earned money!" what's to stop these privatized police from just shooting the customer and stealing everything he owns? They already have the backing of the rich and powerful, so there's no profit motive in protecting the weak and innocent.

Competing firms. Generally, shooting potential customers is not good business practice.

Will the poor people try to bring in a competing company? Under a free market framework they would presumable have that option, right? And the security companies would have the option to merge into a bigger security company, and now the group squeezing cash from the poor has doubled in size. That's the most profitable option, because now they have one big payment from both the billionaire and lots of little payments extorted from the poor. What would stop this?

The market stops it. A new, better, cheaper, more innovative competitor springs up. Where were unlimited vacations 10 years ago? Now they are a tiny, but growing trend. Where were multiple on premises restaurants? Now they exist.

Keeping employees happy, makes them more productive.

Will the people move away? What if they don't have the money to hire a moving service? What if they can't make a life for themselves with only the clothes on their backs and whatever they could cram into the car? What's to stop the security firms from making them stay at gunpoint?

Bad publicity. Competing firms.

Or forcing all the local businesses to pay in company scrip that's worthless anywhere else? For that matter, you act like money will be accepted anywhere in the country. But money is guaranteed by the government. Without a government enforcing what is currency and what isn't, what's to stop people from issuing their own currency? That's what company stores did, they paid their workers in company cash that was only accepted in company stores. If the workers tried to leave for a better job, they would invalidate their entire life savings because they would be in an area where company cash wasn't accepted.

If money is guaranteed by the government, why does it's value continue to decline? That's a shit guarantee. I want my money back. I don't have an issue with competing currencies.

Again, bad publicity, the media, watchdog groups would prevent the sort of thing you talk about.

[Lomenore]

Watchdog groups don't have the authority to prevent abuses. They can report on this, but they can't STOP it. What does it matter if everyone knows the monopoly is a collection of greedy price gouging bastards if they have no one else to buy from.

And you keep bringing up business models of libertarian economics in an economy that's bound by government regulation. What good is that?

If you bring in a competing firm, what stops the existing firm from shooting potential competitors? They don't need to work for money when they can just take it. Sure the competing firm could fight back, but then you'd have two rival firms focused on wiping each other out, and what kind of service will they be able to provide when this is going on?

You claim not to have an issue with competing currencies, but what happens when you go somewhere that doesn't accept your pay as valid money?

[Sibirsky]

Worst case scenario, the military breaks them up. Although I doubt such a need would arise. It's impossible to monopolize a market without a great product, or state intervention.

That's only true if you keep ignoring the historical monopolies that emerged without the help of the state. Did your parents beat you with history books when you were younger? Is that why you have this ridiculous fear of opening one? I provided an example of the Pinkertons being used to support monopolies and put down pro-union movements.

The closest the state has come to backing a monopoly is during the gilded age, when they simply let monopolies form. They didn't subsidize them, they didn't ban all oil companies besides Standard Oil, they simply let your precious free market take its course. They didn't back monopolies, they just did nothing.

For the entire past Century, whenever the government has interacted with monopolies, it has been to break them up. The state does not shore up corporate power because having a powerful corporation threatens the state's power. If corporations were allowed to hire their own police forces and enforce their own laws, they would soon become the government. And how would that be any improvement over the situation where the state has monopoly on the means of force?

Bullshit. Pure bullshit. Government subsidized railroads, utilities, telephone companies. In the late 19th, early 20th century there were five competing electric companies in Baltimore. And more wanted to enter the market. Then governments discovered they could monopolize the market, have the monopoly gouge the customers, and share the proceeds through taxes and licensing fees. Copyrights, licensing, patents, artificial barriers to entry, all monopolize (or help monopolize) the market.

Private schools are already cheaper than public schools. Because public schools are so widely available, and you have to pay for both if you go the private route, private schools target the up market. If all schooling was private, mid market and down market schools would sprout up. For the very poor, charities, churches, co-ops, and other groups can provide education. Lack of education leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down.

If that was true, why didn't lower cost schools pop up and eliminate illiteracy and ignorance prior to the advent of state backed public schooling?

There was no money for it. You fucking act like we had this standard of living and level of production for 2000 years. Kids had to fucking work.

Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down, but not throughout the country. They only need to keep things safe in their own little gated communities. Why would they bother eliminating crime in the slums? They don't live there. Why would private security firms do it? Working for rich people is a steady paycheck, and you're far more likely to live to spend that paycheck.

Property owners, insurers, businesses, would have an incentive to keep crime down in poorer areas.

Here's reality for you. Walmart had $422 billion in revenue last year. Tiffany's $3.1 billion. Walmart made $16 billion after taxes. Tiffany's $368.4 million. The big money is in selling to the masses. That goes for security, education, clothing, food, whatever.

If a corporate monopoly is established, then they CAN sell to the masses. The masses won't have any other choice but to buy from the monopoly, and work for the monopoly, because the monopoly's corporate security forces will be able to destroy any competitors. They won't have to provide lower prices or improved services or better products, they won't have to do anything but murder anyone who doesn't buy into their protection racket.

Yeah, monopolies don't spring up. They are state created, despite what your government overlords tell you.

[The Parkus Empire]

Private schools are already cheaper than public schools. Because public schools are so widely available, and you have to pay for both if you go the private route, private schools target the up market. If all schooling was private, mid market and down market schools would sprout up. For the very poor, charities, churches, co-ops, and other groups can provide education. Lack of education leads to poverty. Poverty leads to crime. Those with means have an incentive to keep crime down.

Not really, since those with means are hardly affected by crime.

What about parents who could scrounge to send their kids to school, but decided not to?

[The Parkus Empire]

Yeah, monopolies don't spring up. They are state created, despite what your government overlords tell you.

Not criminal monopolies, obv. Illegalization of something hardly eliminates market competition--if it even cuts down on it; I think you pointed out cases where drugs were legalized, it lead to a shrinking of the drug market. I know the Repeal of Prohibition saw a massive decrease in the hard liquor market.

Regardless, criminal monopolies are not created by the state.