Privatized police department.

[Distruzio]

Because what you say makes no sense. Criminals are still in competition with each other, and given a court system to settle disputes, the coercive elements of competition would be removed.

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

Arbitration.

[The Parkus Empire]

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

Arbitration.

Might also require the use of coercion, and would undoubtedly if it replaced courts. Somewhere along the line someone will not stand for an unfavorable ruling.

[The Parkus Empire]

Because what you say makes no sense. Criminals are still in competition with each other, and given a court system to settle disputes, the coercive elements of competition would be removed.

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

I feel we're just wasting time debating you because when I challenge your assumptions, you ignore me. When I provide examples of historical evidence, you ignore that. And then a few pages later you whine about how I can't talk about this thing until I refute the post you made ten pages ago, which you also ignored. I'll just say, if you're that hellbent on living free of evil government mafia monopoly mobsters, go to Somalia and enjoy Libertard paradise.

Don't let's lose our cool.

[Distruzio]

Arbitration.

Might also require the use of coercion, and would undoubtedly if it replaced courts. Somewhere along the line someone will not stand for an unfavorable ruling.

"Might" is not "would." Moreover, in times past, this has very rarely happened. Insurance companies and ostracism proved more than adequate to get a satisfying result from arbitration.

[The Parkus Empire]

"Might" is not "would."

Only if arbitration doesn't replace courts entirely.

Moreover, in times past, this has very rarely happened. Insurance companies and ostracism proved more than adequate to get a satisfying result from arbitration.

Arbitration hasn't been used to replace courts entirely. You're talking about civil cases and lawsuits and shit.

[Lomenore]

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

I feel we're just wasting time debating you because when I challenge your assumptions, you ignore me. When I provide examples of historical evidence, you ignore that. And then a few pages later you whine about how I can't talk about this thing until I refute the post you made ten pages ago, which you also ignored. I'll just say, if you're that hellbent on living free of evil government mafia monopoly mobsters, go to Somalia and enjoy Libertard paradise.

Don't let's lose our cool.

It's hard to do when I feel I'm arguing in circles. If they want to provide evidence, that's fine. If they want to explain how my reasoning is flawed, that's fine. But FFS, don't just ignore everything I try to say.

But since I don't see any way of resolving this through rational debate, why don't we simply agree to differ? If your system is the best way, history will vindicate you. If my system is the best way, history will vindicate me. I'm getting a bit too frustrated to argue this rationally, so it's better if I just stop.

[Sibirsky]

A competing firm for the poor.

And what stops the existing firm from wiping out the competing firm? Small start up businesses do not pop into existence fully formed. If IBM had their own private security forces, they could have wiped Apple or Microsoft off the map the moment they became big enough to be noticed.

That's why Gates went to IBM with Microsoft, and they worked together? Businesses do cooperate at times you know. It saves money. Increases productivity. Someone like Toyota, or GM has several thousand suppliers. Why not buy them out?

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

Not true. You only have to shoot a few for the rest to fall into line. Better to live on your knees then die on your feet.

You only have to shoot a few to be ostracized.

The market stops it. A new, better, cheaper, more innovative competitor springs up.

Do you seriously think there are no barriers to market entry? If you don't like gas prices, sure you can start up your own gas company. All you need is an oil field, an oil rig to extract that oil, a refinery to make the oil into gasoline, and a series of gas stations to sell that oil at a lower price, and enough money to build these things and pay people to staff them. Infrastructure like that doesn't come out of nowhere. It isn't cheap. And it doesn't spring up overnight. So the number of people who can create competing oil businesses are very limited, and they're far more likely to be rich already.

Where do you see me say that?

Financial markets make raising capital on a large scale, easier. Removing artificial barriers to entry, is better than not removing them.

The same thing holds true for a security firm. You need workers, weapons, and people who know how to use those weapons. Trained soldiers are far more likely to already be working for one of the existing firms. The monopolies the start up hopes to overturn will have more experience, a larger client base, and better weaponry. What stops them from simply wiping out your startup security firm? What stops them from using their cash to hire away the best soldiers?

It will happen, to some extent. It won't completely eliminate competition.

Where were unlimited vacations 10 years ago? Now they are a tiny, but growing trend. Where were multiple on premises restaurants? Now they exist.

Those exist in an economy with government regulations where the state has a monopoly on the means of force. You're proposing a theoretical society where the government has no means of enforcing law, it's all up to private security firms owned by corporations. What stops corporations from doing what they exist to do, and drive competitors out of business? In America, anti-trust legislation and government power prevents monopolies from emerging. If they no longer have this kind of authority, what stops it then?

You're brainwashed. Quick, who was the best president in US history? 9 times out of 10 you say Lincoln or FDR. Baaaa.

Bad publicity. Competing firms.

Bad publicity can report on these things, but they can't stop it. Look at North Korea. There's no limit to the amount of bad publicity they've gotten. Does that mean the people of North Korea are no longer starving? Look at Darfur. The Sudanese government got a ton of bad publicity for waging a campaign of genocide. Has that stopped them? How about the Berlin Wall? There was no limit to bad publicity. Does that mean the wall was brought down immediately after the Communists built it? Simply spreading knowledge of something isn't enough. People also need to get off their asses and do something about it. But you seem to think that people will stop behaving badly as long as someone's watching them, like a kid trying to steal from the cookie jar.

What the fuck is wrong with you? How are any of those totalitarian states comparable? North Korea? They will care about bad publicity when they lose business. I already gave you 3 fucking examples of that happening in recent times. But you brush it aside.

What if they don't care about public opinion?

They deserve the slow death they will get.

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.

You don't have an issue with your job paying you currency that's only acceptable at their stores? You whine about currency declining, but you completely ignore how it actually has value.

Competing banks would offer competing currency.

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

How? Name one case where bad publicity stopped an unfair business practice without government intervention?

Arthur Anderson, Enron, Exxon, BP, GM, Chrysler, Axis Genetics.

Again, you keep invoking your little collection of libertarian magic words: "Profit motive! Start up firms! Wingardium Leviosa! Free Markets! Abracadabra! Competition! Finite Incantatem!" You don't explain how these little startup firms will survive when there's nothing stopping existing monopolies from outright murdering their competitors.

And you keep trolling.

[Sibirsky]

And what stops the existing firm from wiping out the competing firm? Small start up businesses do not pop into existence fully formed. If IBM had their own private security forces, they could have wiped Apple or Microsoft off the map the moment they became big enough to be noticed.

Somewhat related: Microsoft gained a virtual monopoly without government mandate, at least until the court intervened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Copyrights and patents are not government mandates? Microsoft did their thing. OS and software. They went to court. Now they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying. No court.

[Sibirsky]

Somewhat related: Microsoft had a coercive monopoly without government mandate. That ended with the court saying, "Stop it".

But, but but... Sibirsky told me that governments create monopoly? And here you're saying they put a stop to one!?

Why that's almost... completely in line with everything I've been saying since I started posting in this thread!

[The Parkus Empire]

Don't let's lose our cool.

It's hard to do when I feel I'm arguing in circles. If they want to provide evidence, that's fine. If they want to explain how my reasoning is flawed, that's fine. But FFS, don't just ignore everything I try to say.

But since I don't see any way of resolving this through rational debate, why don't we simply agree to differ? If your system is the best way, history will vindicate you. If my system is the best way, history will vindicate me. I'm getting a bit too frustrated to argue this rationally, so it's better if I just stop.

Yeah, I suggest you at least take a break. These posts aren't going anywhere, they'll be here for you to argue against in a few hours or even a few days.

[The Parkus Empire]

What the fuck is wrong with you? How are any of those totalitarian states comparable? North Korea? They will care about bad publicity when they lose business. I already gave you 3 fucking examples of that happening in recent times. But you brush it aside.

Might want to chill a bit yourself.

:palm:
Competing banks would offer competing currency.

Dear God, that's a society ripe for counterfeiting.

[Sibirsky]

Because what you say makes no sense. Criminals are still in competition with each other, and given a court system to settle disputes, the coercive elements of competition would be removed.

A Court system would require coercive elements to enforce its rulings. If people voluntarily agreed on a resolution to a problem, they wouldn't need courts.

I feel we're just wasting time debating you because when I challenge your assumptions, you ignore me. When I provide examples of historical evidence, you ignore that. And then a few pages later you whine about how I can't talk about this thing until I refute the post you made ten pages ago, which you also ignored. I'll just say, if you're that hellbent on living free of evil government mafia monopoly mobsters, go to Somalia and enjoy Libertard paradise.

You are incapable of honest debate. You resort to personal attacks, using the same exact words that got a warning yesterday.

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

[The Parkus Empire]

Somewhat related: Microsoft gained a virtual monopoly without government mandate, at least until the court intervened.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft

Copyrights and patents are not government mandates? Microsoft did their thing. OS and software. They went to court. Now they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying. No court.

Are you saying they still do the same thing?

[Sibirsky]

What the fuck is wrong with you? How are any of those totalitarian states comparable? North Korea? They will care about bad publicity when they lose business. I already gave you 3 fucking examples of that happening in recent times. But you brush it aside.

Might want to chill a bit yourself.

Every other posts of his is a personal attack.

:palm:
Competing banks would offer competing currency.

Dear God, that's a society ripe for counterfeiting.

Why wouldn't banks want to protect their currency?

[Sibirsky]

Copyrights and patents are not government mandates? Microsoft did their thing. OS and software. They went to court. Now they spent hundreds of millions of dollars on lobbying. No court.

Are you saying they still do the same thing?

Microsoft? Yes, for the most part. Except the lobbying.

[Sdaeriji]

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

hahahahahahahaha

[The Parkus Empire]

Every other posts of his is a personal attack.

I have noticed, which I why I suggested he take a break. Just don't let it get to you.

Why wouldn't banks want to protect their currency?

They would, but that doesn't mean they could. I've read quite a bit of Frank Abagnale's works on security, and banks do an outright shit job of preventing check forgery where it would quite easily be done, and an even shittier job of reporting forgers. According to him (and I can't source other this other than saying what he said), during the period of U.S. history where currency was decentralized and printed by whatever bank, a full third of the printed money in circulation was counterfeit. Of course, nowadays, we have better methods of security, but as Abagnale also pointed out, it's also a lot easier to forge currency. Just bleach some $1's in a washing machine and use a printer to put different faces on them (the security measures can be replicated to some degree using a grease pen and nail polish).

What would make it worse with private banks is that:
A: As I have already noted, they fuck up with their checks, so I don't trust them one bit with currency, and
B: With so many kinds of dollars going around, most employees wouldn't be trained to know the security measures of each kind. As Abagnale noted, the more kinds of something there are the easier it is to commit fraud with that something, which is why forging a passable birth certificate is a piece of cake.

[Distruzio]

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

hahahahahahahaha

The man speaks the truth. Only Mogadishu is chaotic compared to the rest of the country. Somalia compared the US, not so prosperous. Somalia 2011 compared to Somalia 2001, one helluva an improvement.

[GeneralHaNor]

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

hahahahahahahaha

I find your laughter ironic

everything Sibirsky has said, is true.

[The Parkus Empire]

Are you saying they still do the same thing?

Microsoft? Yes, for the most part. Except the lobbying.

Bummer. Thankfully browsers are a lot easier to install these days.

[Selothey]

Oh yeah sure... privatize everything... let the poor burn and get murdered! They're useless scum anyway... to weak to compete in this society, they don't deserve to get protected by a good mans taxmoney!!!

[Sdaeriji]

hahahahahahahaha

The man speaks the truth. Only Mogadishu is chaotic compared to the rest of the country. Somalia compared the US, not so prosperous. Somalia 2011 compared to Somalia 2001, one helluva an improvement.

The Somali government collapsed in 1991.

[Sdaeriji]

hahahahahahahaha

I find your laughter ironic

everything Sibirsky has said, is true.

Then there should be no trouble providing a source.

[Occupied Deutschland]

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

hahahahahahahaha

Quoteth the Wiki
"For 1994, the CIA estimated the GDP [of Somali]at $3.3 billion.[3] In 2001, it was estimated to be $4.1 billion.[4] By 2009, the CIA estimated that the GDP had grown to $5.731 billion, with a projected real growth rate of 2.6%."

More money means "better" right?
Edit: Hell, they're growing quicker than England's economy!

[Sibirsky]

Life in Somalia has actually improved significantly since the collapse of the state. It's also doing much better than a lot of it's statist neighbors.

hahahahahahahaha

While that's an excellent rebuttal, I fail to see your point.

I made a statement based on facts.