Privatized police department.

[Natapoc]

Actually that's pretty false too. It was very much populated. Just not with Europeans.

You're right. I forgot about that. But I think we can agree that the Indians didn't have the numbers that the Americans did.

They did have cities, houses, trading routes, farms, ect all depending on the specific people.

Remember that officially recorded numbers are far lower then likely accurate numbers because illnesses like smallpox ravished many communities long before armies could come to conqueror them.

[ZombieRothbard]

Monopolies are not creations of the market.

Why? A company goes into business to make money, right?

They make more money if they do better then their competitors, right?

Do well enough, and your competitors go out of business. Lather, rinse and repeat until the competitors are all gone. What results, is a monopoly.

That "monopoly" won't be able to charge monopoly prices, because they are actually still in competition with the THREAT of a new entrant into the market. So who really cares that it is a "monopoly"?

[Lomenore]

Why? A company goes into business to make money, right?

They make more money if they do better then their competitors, right?

Do well enough, and your competitors go out of business. Lather, rinse and repeat until the competitors are all gone. What results, is a monopoly.

That "monopoly" won't be able to charge monopoly prices, because they are actually still in competition with the THREAT of a new entrant into the market. So who really cares that it is a "monopoly"?

And there are no barriers to market entry?

[ZombieRothbard]

private police would also have the same problems private fire departments had, no coverage for many people, with the police actively encouraging (or causing) crime to encourage more people to buy their service.
If you have to buy dozens of competing programs then any cost benefit disappears, so what is the down side of government police compared to these?

You are totally ignoring the insurance model that has been explained on this topic about 1000 times. Private police aren't being paid directly for their service. The insurance companies are hiring the police in most instances to protect their customers, because it is cheaper to hire private security than it is to make payouts.

[ZombieRothbard]

That "monopoly" won't be able to charge monopoly prices, because they are actually still in competition with the THREAT of a new entrant into the market. So who really cares that it is a "monopoly"?

And there are no barriers to market entry?

The only possible barrier to market entry, is when somebody uses guns. That is why the government is responsible for monopolies, because all of those regulations, taxes etc. act as barriers to entry, with the threat of violence backing them up.

[Galla-]

And there are no barriers to market entry?

The only possible barrier to market entry, is when somebody uses guns. That is why the government is responsible for monopolies, because all of those regulations, taxes etc. act as barriers to entry, with the threat of violence backing them up.

So then, you agree that monopolies are legitimate? So long as they do not use a monopoly of violence to achieve their aims?

[Natapoc]

Can private police advocates give me any reason at all why I would not want the biggest, strongest private police force to represent me?

[Lomenore]

And there are no barriers to market entry?

The only possible barrier to market entry, is when somebody uses guns. That is why the government is responsible for monopolies, because all of those regulations, taxes etc. act as barriers to entry, with the threat of violence backing them up.

No, that's not the only barrier to market entry. See my earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=109375&p=5493580&hilit=oil#p5493580

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.

If a startup company wants to challenge a monopoly, it will need materials, workers, expertise, money, and equipment. A Monopoly will already have those things in gigantic quantities. If you don't have something comparable, then you can't challenge the monopoly. If you try starting locally, what stops the Monopoly from dropping prices in your area lower then you can afford? They could charge a nickel a gallon in the city where your competing oil business operates, and they'd make enough money elsewhere to keep in the black.

[Norstal]

You mean the American West? The same American West that was developed with the help of the transcontinental railroads? The same railroads developed with the help of government bonds and land grants?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Railway_Acts

Using that logic if the US became laissez faire it wouldn't actually be laissez faire because there is infrastructure that was created by the gov before hand.

Uh, okay. The crux of the argument of how megacorporations formed, such as Standard Oil, is because of government intervention.

Yet, when attacked by the fact that the Wild West could not have been created from a megacorporation (the railroad companies cough cough) you say it's not from government intervention?

Wtf.

Also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wild_West# ... d_the_West

Oh look, its not so laissez faire anymore, does it?

[Galla-]

Can private police advocates give me any reason at all why I would not want the biggest, strongest private police force to represent me?

There could possibly be cheaper firms that are smaller, and charge less for overhead.

[Norstal]

Can private police advocates give me any reason at all why I would not want the biggest, strongest private police force to represent me?

Because monopoly is impossible in the free market. How? Idfk. Magic probably.

[ZombieRothbard]

The only possible barrier to market entry, is when somebody uses guns. That is why the government is responsible for monopolies, because all of those regulations, taxes etc. act as barriers to entry, with the threat of violence backing them up.

So then, you agree that monopolies are legitimate? So long as they do not use a monopoly of violence to achieve their aims?

In those simple terms, yes.

[Galla-]

So then, you agree that monopolies are legitimate? So long as they do not use a monopoly of violence to achieve their aims?

In those simple terms, yes.

So at what point would a megacorporation become a quasi-state? When it has begun using violence to achieve its aims, or is financial and political clout enough, or would a megacorporation be entirely unable to become a state due to the inherent profit motive? Would unethical tactics such as blackmail be immoral for the corporation to use against its competitors or new entrees to the free market?

[Lomenore]

So then, you agree that monopolies are legitimate? So long as they do not use a monopoly of violence to achieve their aims?

In those simple terms, yes.

And I see you ignored my statement on barriers to market entry.

[Natapoc]

Can private police advocates give me any reason at all why I would not want the biggest, strongest private police force to represent me?

There could possibly be cheaper firms that are smaller, and charge less for overhead.

But I don't care at all if they are cheaper. There are a few things where price does not enter into the equation at all the way the average person thinks.

One of them is safety for self and family. This is not something where there can be an acceptable amount of risk that one is willing to go with a cheaper company over.

Who has the most explosives? Sign me up!

[Lomenore]

There could possibly be cheaper firms that are smaller, and charge less for overhead.

But I don't care at all if they are cheaper. There are a few things where price does not enter into the equation at all the way the average person thinks.

One of them is safety for self and family. This is not something where there can be an acceptable amount of risk that one is willing to go with a cheaper company over.

Who has the most explosives? Sign me up!

The phrase "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.

[Galla-]

But I don't care at all if they are cheaper. There are a few things where price does not enter into the equation at all the way the average person thinks.

One of them is safety for self and family. This is not something where there can be an acceptable amount of risk that one is willing to go with a cheaper company over.

Who has the most explosives? Sign me up!

The phrase "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.

A local firm, hiring local employees from your hometown, with a much smaller radius of influence but similar quality to a large multiregional corporation with outsiders for employees isn't better? What if the local firm spent more per person than the multiregional, but was overall much smaller and could afford to charge less?

Would you still consider the smaller company to be inferior to the larger?

There is also always the choice of not paying a private firm and going with the public option.

[Natapoc]

The phrase "You get what you pay for" comes to mind.

A local firm, hiring local employees from your hometown, with a much smaller radius of influence but similar quality to a large multiregional corporation with outsiders for employees isn't better? What if the local firm spent more per person than the multiregional, but was overall much smaller and could afford to charge less?

Would you still consider the smaller company to be inferior to the larger?

There is also always the choice of not paying a private firm and going with the public option.

I may be forced to pay for protection from both of them. So that I can feel safe leaving my home town knowing I'm protected everywhere and so that I also am most safe at my home town.

[ZombieRothbard]

The only possible barrier to market entry, is when somebody uses guns. That is why the government is responsible for monopolies, because all of those regulations, taxes etc. act as barriers to entry, with the threat of violence backing them up.

No, that's not the only barrier to market entry. See my earlier post: viewtopic.php?f=20&t=109375&p=5493580&hilit=oil#p5493580

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.

If a startup company wants to challenge a monopoly, it will need materials, workers, expertise, money, and equipment. A Monopoly will already have those things in gigantic quantities. If you don't have something comparable, then you can't challenge the monopoly. If you try starting locally, what stops the Monopoly from dropping prices in your area lower then you can afford? They could charge a nickel a gallon in the city where your competing oil business operates, and they'd make enough money elsewhere to keep in the black.

I hope you realize that the size of the start up business doesn't matter at all. You make it sound like it is David v Goliath. Even if the startup started with 5 employee's, there is no way the monopoly can touch them. And it is also doubtful a startup would be of 5 employee's. If a business came up with an idea for a product that could sell for less than a monopolists product, and is higher quality than a monopolists product, they would gain nearly all of the market share. So it is natural to assume venture capitalists would invest heavily, because of the great opportunities to make money that would be available (since you have captured nearly the total of the market share).

Your hypothetical of predatory pricing is absurd. Predatory pricing has been rejected, even by neo-classical economists. This is because, for one, price wars would flood the market with goods. This would incur huge losses, both presently and in the future. It would take a long period of time for that "flood" of goods to dissipate. Secondly, if you look at the market share for a product, you will realize that predatory pricing is a bunch of baloney. If a startup company captures 5% of the market share, and the monopolist has 95% of the market share, the monopolist would be even more crippled than the startup in a price war (assuming their goods are the same). That is because, obviously, the company losing on 95% of their market share would be losing far more than the company losing on 5% of the market share.

[Lomenore]

In most civilized nations, the average citizen wouldn't need private security guards. I certainly don't. If you're just an ordinary citizen and you need to have a body of armed men looking out for you personally, I'd say there's a problem.

[Galla-]

A local firm, hiring local employees from your hometown, with a much smaller radius of influence but similar quality to a large multiregional corporation with outsiders for employees isn't better? What if the local firm spent more per person than the multiregional, but was overall much smaller and could afford to charge less?

Would you still consider the smaller company to be inferior to the larger?

There is also always the choice of not paying a private firm and going with the public option.

I may be forced to pay for protection from both of them. So that I can feel safe leaving my home town knowing I'm protected everywhere and so that I also am most safe at my home town.

Forced? How so?

[Trotskylvania]

Because they don't want to die.

Why do cops stop armed people now? Why wouldn't they in a privatized society lol? If you don't, you get fired. You need to support your family somehow.

Police are motivated by a sense of duty to the community that they serve. With a few exceptions, they're not hired guns. They put their lives on the line for an ethic of public service.

[Natapoc]

I may be forced to pay for protection from both of them. So that I can feel safe leaving my home town knowing I'm protected everywhere and so that I also am most safe at my home town.

Forced? How so?

Because say I buy from my local company. Now I go to new york which is on the opposite side of the country.

I don't even WANT to be in NY. I'm just there for a stupid stopover to get somewhere else. I don't even like new york. But I grab something to eat and my wallet is stolen. So what do I do?

I call up my private police agency. They tell me: I'm sorry but we have no ability to send investigators to the other side of the country.

I contact the nearest cop looking person who says: Are you a client? Then GTFO!

Now I'm late for my flight and stranded in New york and the police won't talk to me till I sign a contract with their office which is open from 9 to 5 monday to friday.

[ZombieRothbard]

In those simple terms, yes.

So at what point would a megacorporation become a quasi-state? When it has begun using violence to achieve its aims, or is financial and political clout enough, or would a megacorporation be entirely unable to become a state due to the inherent profit motive? Would unethical tactics such as blackmail be immoral for the corporation to use against its competitors or new entrees to the free market?

First of all, corporations would not exist (hopefully). This is a point of disagreement amongst anarcho-capitalists, but I personally do not think limited liability status should exist, or it should at least make more liability able to be incurred on businesses. This would incentivize having smaller, more efficient businesses. If a business begins to expand beyond the scope of its own internal oversight, it is more likely to be sued and to make mistakes. So having heftier penalties be paid by businesses in the event of a lawsuit, would incentivize smaller operations.

Second, blackmail is not unethical, and it should not be illegal in a libertarian society. This is the same for slander and libel. You are not responsible for how others view you, and you don't own others thoughts. As a result, you should not have any claim to your reputation, because your reputation is in the mind of others. Now you may question "well, wouldn't that destroy peoples reputations and prevent them from finding work?". Well, no, because if libel and slander were legal, it would be commonplace and not carry as much clout. If everybody is slandering and libeling everybody, people will take it less serious. To extend this to blackmail, it is perfectly legitimate to ask for money from somebody, as long as it does not involve the threat of force.

[Norstal]

Forced? How so?

Because say I buy from my local company. Now I go to new york which is on the opposite side of the country.

I don't even WANT to be in NY. I'm just there for a stupid stopover to get somewhere else. I don't even like new york. But I grab something to eat and my wallet is stolen. So what do I do?

I call up my private police agency. They tell me: I'm sorry but we have no ability to send investigators to the other side of the country.

I contact the nearest cop looking person who says: Are you a client? Then GTFO!

Now I'm late for my flight and stranded in New york and the police won't talk to me till I sign a contract with their office which is open from 9 to 5 monday to friday.

Why do other an-caps ignore you? I think I might repost this in case they keep repeating the same argument over and over again.